Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2003, PH1 - MASTER PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MOTEL INN PROPERTY (2223 MONTEREY STREET; APPLICATION NOS. council W6,D&pcQA-M j ac En.bai Report N� C I T Y OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FK SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MOTEL INN PROPERTY (2223 MONTEREY STREET; APPLICATION NOS. ER, A & TR 122-01). CAO RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2003, adopt resolutions which: A. Approve a Use Permit to allow further development of a site in the C-T-S zone, based on findings including required findings in support of requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, a mixed-use and shared parking reduction, and adopting a Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures, and subject to conditions and code requirements(Attachment 6). B. Approve a Tract Map to create a commercial condominium for the proposed new building known as the Apple Farm Phase 2, based on findings including adoption of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures, and subject to conditions and code requirements (Attachment 7). REPORT-IN-BRIEF King Ventures recently acquired both the developed Apple Farm site and the adjacent Motel Inn property. The Motel Inn has been closed for some time and the main building, as well as many of the small bungalow buildings, are in a state of disrepair and structurally unsound. The applicant has applied for City approval of a master plan for the partial rehabilitation of the main historic building and redevelopment of the Motel Inn site with the construction of new motel units, conference facilities, and a spa. The cluster of buildings around the remodeled Motel Inn will have a Mission Revival architectural style. There is also a new Victorian style structure, known as the Apple Farm Phase 2, which will consist of two levels of building over parking, and will be constructed on the far northeastern end of the site. The project site is zoned C-T-S, Tourist commercial with the Special Consideration overlay zone. The City's zoning regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit for the development, or further development,. of sites with the "S" overlay zoning. The special considerations with this site include: the site's relationship to the creek, and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek. Because of the importance of the historic building, the need for various exceptions, and the proximity of the site I- f Council Agenda Report—Motel Inn Master Plan Page 2 to a residential neighborhood, the Use Permit, which the current zoning regulations specify an administrative hearing process for,was referred to the Planning Commission. The 1-8-03 Planning Commission report is. Attachment 4 to this report. It is included in its entirety because it provides a more detailed discussion of project issues that are summarized in this report. Some references are made to the attachments to the Planning Commission report. These attachment references are preceded by the acronym "PC" to distinguish them from the Council report attachments. The project is now before the City Council for two reasons: • The initial study was sent to the State Clearinghouse for review and distribution because of other agencies with regulatory control over the project including Caltrans. This extended the public review period for the environmental document, which ends on January 16, 2003, beyond the date of Planning Commission consideration. • A tract map to create a 48-unit commercial condominium in the Victorian style building was also requested and requires the review and approval of the Council. Given the importance of this project to the community and to allow for efficient project processing, staff referred the entire project to the Council for consideration. The Planning Commission concluded with their review of the requested entitlements on January 8, 2003 that the project as proposed would work well with site constraints and be an asset to the community. While normally, the range of needed exceptions with this project might not be as favorably viewed, the Commission found that there were extenuating circumstances related to site conditions that allowed them to support the project as designed. The Commission felt that the project is a classic example of infill development, which allows for protection of a historical resource, economic revitalization, and riparian habitat restoration opportunities. DISCUSSION Planning Commission's Action On a 7-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of a Use Permit to allow further development of the site, including required findings in support of requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction. The Commission also recommended approval to the City Council of a Tract Map to create a commercial condominium for the proposed new building known as the Apple Farm Phase 2. Both recommendations included findings supporting approval of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures (See Attachments 2 & 3). Commission discussion focused on the rationale for support of the requested creek setback exceptions and the phasing of the project in terms of evaluating whether proposed parking would be adequate for expected.demand. The Commission asked staff to look at ways to strengthen Findings 11 & 12 regarding support for creek setback exceptions, and added a condition to hold a 1 �� Council Agenda Report—Motel Inn Master Plan Page 3 review hearing prior to the development of the second phase of the project to evaluate how well the parking supply was serving on-site uses. Major Project Issues The project was originally submitted to the City in August of 2001 for processing. The applicants have been working with City staff since plans were submitted to refine the project to address issues raised by earlier reviews of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and to minimize the need to request creek setback exceptions. In addition, there were a number of technical studies required for the project including a traffic analysis, environmental site assessment, archaeology Phase I report, noise study, visual analysis, a historical resource inventory, ecological analysis and riparian management plan. A detailed initial study (PC Attachment 11) was prepared for the project with several of these studies attached as appendices. The main issues that have surfaced with the review of the project are the needed exceptions to certain applicable standards, which are: 1. Creek Setback Exceptions; This has been the key issue with the most recent reviews of the project by the Planning Commission and the ARC. Field trips were held at the site with both Commissions to fully understand where setback exceptions are being requested and how various site constraints are being balanced, The City's Creek Setback Ordinance (PC Attachment 8 - Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations) requires a minimum of a 20-foot setback for buildings and other improvements from the top of the creek bank, or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. As designed, there are three different types of proposed project improvements that would encroach into the creek setback area: ➢ Portions of an emergency access road located along the east and south sides of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building. ➢ Portions of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building in the vicinity of an oak tree located in the narrowest part of the site near the existing stables. ➢ A small extent of a decomposed granite pedestrian pathway behind the Motel Inn bungalow units. The most significant of the encroachments is a portion of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building. At the worst-case point, the building extends into the creek setback area 9 feet. A quick growing stand of willows is driving the edge of riparian vegetation that sets the required creek setback at this location, which is also the narrowest part of the developable portion of the site. At this same location, the encroaching corner of the building is 33 feet away from the top of creek bank and about 120 feet away from the creek flow line. The basic premise that allowed both Commissions to unanimously support the requested creek 1 - 3 Council Agenda Report—Motel Inn Master Plan Page 4 setback exceptions was that there would be a net gain in viable restoration areas with project development. This would be accomplished by the removal of existing buildings located in the creek setback area, removal of invasive plant materials that have taken a foothold along the creek bank, and new planting of riparian plant materials to augment existing desirable vegetation. The applicant also made significant changes to plans in reaction to direction from City staff and the Commissions to minimize the extent of the requested setback exceptions. The emergency access road was moved further away from the creek corridor, the pathway serving the Motel Inn bungalows was made internal to the project, and two rooms in the Apple Farm Phase 2 building were eliminated. The dashed lines on the creek side of the project included on the site plan below show the previous locations of the emergency road and pathway in comparison to the current plan. of aYzM 'r ToppCiaek "i,,.S a a . ;S>.•` �r c, d`/sa Oook 9e0sk tiS,H-+a 1 t,wt `r -a v �.. :• / / <_. s _ '. > / y-j-'-.tet ` .. - J• 1 taa eDD 7 U Original Route of Emergency Access Path GRevised Route of Emergency Access Path`'' ~ Tt ®Original Building Outline _ _ -' Revised Decomposed Granite Creek Trail U Original Decomposed Granite Creek Trail II Project Site Plan Highlighting Changes Other factors that influenced the Commissions' support for the setback exceptions were: a. Construction of the encroaching portions of the emergency access road of pavers planted with riparian grasses; b. Use of permeable decomposed granite for the minor portion of the pathway near the Motel Inn units which encroached; and c. The fact that an expanding cluster of willows at the narrowest portion of the site was driving the setback line where a small portion of the Apple Farm Phase 2 building encroached resulting in an extended setback from the top of creek bank and the flow line of 1-4 s Council Agenda Report—Motel Inn Master Plan Page 5 the channel. The benefits of having a continuous building wall here to screen cars and headlights in the parking structure were also a consideration in supporting the submitted building design. Detailed descriptions of the exceptions, the rationale for their support, and environmental considerations are included in the attached 1-8-03 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 4), the initial study (PC Attachment 11), and the 10-21-02 ARC follow-up letter (PC Attachment 6). Language has been added to Findings 11 & 12 of the Resolution approving the use permit (Attachment 6) consistent with Planning Commission direction to better document the competing factors that were taken into consideration and changes that were made to the plans as a result of City review of the project. 2. Building Height Exceptions Related to the"S" Overlay Zone;and In addition to the current creek setback ordinance and other property development standards, this project is subject to the added requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 which established the "S" overlay zoning. Typically, a C-T zone is limited to a building height of 45 feet. However at this site, a 25-foot maximum height requirement prevails within the first 50 feet from the C/OS-5 boundary, which at this site is coterminous with the site's property lines that border the creek. The applicant prepared a Creek Bank Massing Study as a component of submitted plans. It quantifies that the total volume of building spaces within the 50-foot setback is 103,369 cubic feet, with 93,742 cubic feet conforming to height requirements, and 9,627 cubic feet, or about 9% of the total building area within the setback area, exceeding the allowed 25 feet. The Planning Commission's rationale for support of the exception was that proposed buildings provide a variable, rather than a "flat" or uniform, building facade along the creek bank, and that the sheer volume of buildings within this area is about one-half of what would be allowed under the 25-foot limit. 3. A Mixed-Use and Shared Parking Reduction. The total parking requirement for the project is 253 parking spaces. Project parking provided is 178 spaces. Therefore, a component of the request is to allow a shared and mixed-use parking reduction. The Planning Commission concluded that the range of uses proposed at the site would encourage consolidated trips to the site, and that there would be offset times of peak demand, which supported approval of a reduction. With the full 30% reduction, the number of project spaces would be reduced by 81 spaces to 169 spaces. This would provide conforming parking. The attached Planning Commission staff report refers to a phased project approach. The owners intend to begin their project with the restoration of the Motel Inn building, bungalows and restaurant, new Motel Inn conference center, and construction of the new Apple Farm building. As a part of this initial phase of construction, all 178 parking spaces will be installed i Council Agenda Report—Motel Inn Master Plan Page 6 as shown on plans. The new Motel Inn buildings to the east and the west of the reconstructed bungalows (totaling 59 rooms) would be last in the sequence of construction. The Planning Commission added a condition that allows for the Commission to review the shared & mixed- use parking reduction portion of the use permit prior to development of the planned second phase of the project. This would allow sufficient time to experience the other uses on site and validate that parking solutions are working properly. Environmental Review The initial study with appendices was sent to the State Clearinghouse. One letter was received on January 16, 2003,the last day of the required public review period(Attachment 5). That letter was from Caltrans who had previously commented on the project (PC Attachment 9). In the earlier letter, Caltrans had provided written support for Option 41 outlined in the Higgins traffic study, which would maintain the northbound on ramp to the freeway at its current configuration Although the Caltrans letter calls into question some of the project trip distribution.and assignment figures included in the traffic study, this does not alter the validity of the initial study as prepared or recommended mitigation. The City's traffic engineers have reviewed the study and agree with the conclusions and mitigation strategy. The applicant will still need to secure necessary encroachment permits from Caltrans for various street and highway improvements outlined in the traffic study. It will be up to the applicant to negotiate with Caltrans and provide them with any desired updated information to determine the applicant's share of the associated costs. Previous Review Because of the historical importance of the main Motel Inn building, the project was reviewed by the CHC at an early stage in its review. On November 26, 2001, the CHC reviewed the project and took three separate actions in support of the proposed demolitions, the addition to the main historic building, and the compatibility of other project buildings(see PC Attachment 4). Since this meeting, the project will have been before the ARC three times, and the Planning Commission twice. Final approval before the ARC is scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, 2003. The Planning Commission report provides a more detailed discussion of the previous project review. Citizen Participation Copies of the minutes from the various meetings where the project was reviewed are attached (Attachments 3 & 4), which include the comments from members of the public. Most of the public comments were received at earlier meetings of the project before the ARC. �'P Council Agenda Report-Motel Inn Master Plan Page 7 FISCAL IMPACT Motel Inn units have not been rented out to the public since the late 1970s. When the motel was operational, there were a total of about 25 functional rooms. With the development of the project, there will be a total of 124 rooms. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is collected by the City with the rental of motel units. Since it has been decades since any TOT was collected from the site, and there will be a significant increase in the number of rooms at the site (about 100), the project can be viewed as having a positive fiscal impact on the City. TOT is a revenue source that goes directly into the general fund and can be used for any general fund purposes. The Apple Farm Phase 2 building includes 48 rooms. The requested tract map to create an air- space condominium would allow units in this building to be individually owned. The Covenants, Codes & Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project will require that owners also pay TOT during their allowed periods of stay. An added benefit is that there will be increased property taxes as well with the sale of the condominium units. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the use permit, but deny one or all requested exceptions to property development standards. 2. Deny the use permit and tentative tract map,based on inconsistency with the general plan. 3. Continue the project with direction to staff on any desired changes or additional information that is necessary to render a decision. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map Attachment 2— 1-8-03 Planning Commission follow-up letter& Resolution Nos. 5355-03 & 5356-03. Attachment 3 —Draft Minutes of the 1-8-03 Planning Commission meeting Attachment 4—Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments for the 1-8-03 meeting Attachment 5 —Caltrans letter from James Kilmer dated 1-16-03 Attachment 6—Draft Resolution(Use Permit) Attachment 7—Draft Resolution(Tract Map) Attachment 8—Draft Resolution for denial Distributed to Council: Ledger-size development plans — given the number of sheets for the project, full-size plans became very large and unwieldy; and full-size copies of tentative tract map. Provided to Council reading file: All of the appendices of the initial study. (Also available by request in the Community Development Department to the interested public) LAMotel Inn\Council report(Motel Inn) 1 _ - Attachment 1 TR1 R-1 z a 1 y R-1 o W z z m P� R-1 PF y, ♦ r C-T :. / S-5 -1- f�ye GARFIELD �A - C-T-S C-T yP °° 1 R-1 C/OS-40 O /O - VICINITY MAP A/ER/TR 122-01 N 2223 Monterey (Tract 2500 ) A �_ Attachment 2 cityO S�►1'1 l�,llS OBISI)O 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 January 14, 2003 John & Carole King Rob Rossi 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR, A and ER 122-01: 2223 Monterey Street Tentative map to create a commercial air-space condominium, request to allow conference and spa facilities in conjunction with a renovated/new motel, and environmental review Dear Mr. and Mrs. King, and Mr. Rossi: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 8, 2003, recommended that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, approve the vesting tentative tract map, and approve the use permit, based on findings and subject to conditions noted in the attached resolutions. The Commission also provided direction to staff to further strengthen Findings 11 & 1.2 of the use permit regarding the creek setback exceptions. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on February 4, 2003. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, R ald Whis nand Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Dave Watson 290 Pismo Street SLO, CA 93401 Attachments: Resolution No. 5355-03 and 5356-03 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. I r Attachment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.5355-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2223 MONTEREY STREET APPLICATION#TR 122-01 (County Map No. 2500) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California; on January 8, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application Tentative Tract Map No. TR 122-01, a 48-unit airspace condominium; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties; and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C-T-S zone. 3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision. 1 - 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 2 Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Mitigation Measure 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall carefully evaluate project building colors and details of the Apple Farm building to insure that the project's massing appears in context with existing vegetation and the hills beyond when viewed from the highway corridor. Monitoring Program The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 2• All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or spill onto adjacent properties to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification. Plans submitted for final review by the ARC shall include details of wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall include decorative wall lights, as well as service area wall pack lights. If proposed, details of any pole or bollard lights shall also be included in plans reviewed by the ARC. New lighting standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height, from the approved finished grade to the top of the fixture. Illumination levels at the finished grade below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 footcandles under the fixture and 3 footcandles at the dimmest point, which shall be confirmed with photometric plans submitted with working drawings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 3• The following mitigation measures shall constitute a dust mitigation plan which shall become a part of working drawings and be in effect during project construction: a. The amount of disturbed area shall be reduced where possible. �- fl Attachment 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 3 b. The permanent dust control measures identified in the approved revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. c. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent airborne dust from leveling the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15mph. Reclaimed(non-potable) water should be use whenever possible. d. Exposed ground areas, which are to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading, should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. 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. f. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the dust mitigation plan becomes a part of working drawings. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Mitigation-Measure 4: The project will implement an aggressive parking demand reduction and management program. This program will include designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. The program will provide for preferential carpool/vanpool parking, continued shuttle service, and discount transit. The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to the City Transportation Division, for review and approval or amendment, which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved. Monitoring Program: City Transportation Division staff will be the lead in reviewing the parking demand reduction and management program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation.. Mitigation Measure 5: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATOM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development.Director. Planning Commission(Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Trac_ t Map No. 122-01 Page 4 Monitoring Program: The applicant shall coordinate with APCD prior to building permit issuance to meet requirements. Community Development shall monitor by insuring that the requirement has been met prior to signing off on working drawings. Mitigation Measure 6: The applicant shall have a United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol survey for the potential presence of the California red-legged frog conducted prior to the onset of project construction. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director for review and a determination of need for further action. If frogs were found in the creek area, then appropriate protective facilities would need to be installed. If frogs were found on the work site, then City staff will consult with the USFWS. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between March ls` and August 30`h, then the applicant shall hire a qualified biological consultant to conduct a follow-up inspection of the site to determine the status of the potential red-shouldered hawk nest and to identify any nesting birds in the area. If the nest is active, it may be necessary to reschedule construction activities to determine appropriate disturbance perimeters around the nest. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager shall be the lead in reviewing the study and coordinating with other agencies. Mitigation Measure 7• If the Planning Commission approves the requested creek setback exceptions, then the project shall include the following riparian corridor enhancements: a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the working drawings for a building permit include all required enhancements and through subsequent inspections with the Natural Resources Manager. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 - AttlChmeflt 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 5 Mitigation Measure 8: The applicant shall provide a long-range maintenance program for the site's riparian zones which includes the following: a. Provision for "specialized" trimming and mowing of the grasses to be planted. in the reinforced plastic grid structural system of the emergency access road, recognizing the effort to incorporate this area as a functional part of the riparian area. b. Installation of a "soft" barrier to discourage public access to riparian zones, such as a split-rail fence between riparian planting and other site improvements, and gates or bollards at the end of the emergency access road. c. Limitations shall be established for use of the emergency access road to ensure that it does not become a service and maintenance driveway that invites frequent use. d. Placements of educational signage at appropriate locations. e. Requirements for early and on-going inspections by Community Development Department staff and the Natural Resources Manager. f. Establishment of a 5-year monitoring program, which includes the submittal of semi- annual progress reports. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager will be the lead in reviewing the long-range maintenance program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the. plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 9: To assure that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, the recommended conditions of the CHC are included as mitigation measures. a. A detailed HABS/HAER historic inventory report shall be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction. b. One of the rebuilt bungalows shall include some recycled building components from the demolished bungalows. c. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. The roof of the "Ramada" section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. e. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. f. Retain the site's historic landscape features. g. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. h. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Farm addition.. r Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 6 i. Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings. for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 10: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation-Measure 11: 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 the grading and construction plans for the project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 12: The project shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 7 Mitigation Measure 13: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff will review the recommendations included in the soils engineering report along with working drawings submitted for a building permit. Mitigation Measure 14: The applicant shall follow 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 Program: The Fire Department shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent studies necessary and assuring that any site clean-up has taken place prior to building permits being issued. Mitigation Measure 15: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal and to prevent drains from plugging up and overflowing. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for drainage shall be followed. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the Utilities Department. Mitigation Measure 16: The Architectural Review Commission with their review of project development plans needs to insure that outdoor use areas are properly attenuated from noise if they require significant changes to building heights or wall locations surrounding these areas. Monitoring Program: I — ILe Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 8 The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 17: The Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1130. Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 18: To help reduce the waste stream generated: a. The project shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. b. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance. c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components of the project and in surfacing wherever feasible. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff with consultation with the Utilities Department. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application TR 122-01, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions 1. The applicant shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. Planning Commission Resoiution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 9 2. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier(model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 -m). 3. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall establish CC&Rs for the regulation of land use control of nuisances and architectural control of the building and facilities. These CC&Rs shall be approved by the Community Development Director and administered by a property owners' association. 5. There shall be no change in city-regulated provisions of the CC&Rs without prior approval of the Community Development Director. 6. The applicant shall include the following provisions in the CC&Rs for the condominium: a. The property owners' association shall be created to enforce the CC&Rs and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of common areas, including, but not limited to, the driveway, parking lot, landscaping, sewer, utilities, and building exteriors. b. The right shall be granted to the city to maintain common areas if the property owners' association fails to do so and to assess said association for expenses incurred. C. Owner occupancy shall not exceed 28 days per year aggregate, including a limitation of no more than 7 days between Memorial and Labor days. d. Owner's shall be obligated to pay transient occupancy taxes, or an equivalent fee in- lieu thereof, to the city in the form presented in the draft CC&Rs for the project. 7. The Monterey Street access improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and CalTrans prior to development or recordation of the final map. 8. The applicant shall submit surveyed cross-sections along the creek channel prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to assure that the setbacks shown on working drawings for new buildings and other improvements are consistent with approved plans and any approved exceptions to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. 9. A soils engineer shall evaluate the condition of the creek bank adjacent to the project and submit a report to the Director of Public Works and Building Official for review. If the r - f� 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 10 evaluation identifies recommended slope stabilization or erosion protection, the developer shall comply with said recommendations, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official. Appropriate permits from applicable agencies must be obtained. 10. The final map shall include any required easements required for the reasonable development of the affected properties. Easements may include but are not limited to grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle tum-around, and utilities. Any maintenance agreements shall be completed and recorded before or concurrent with final map approval. 11. The demolition/remodel of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 12. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector,Henry Ruiz. 13. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim; action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. Code Requirements 1. Separate sewer, water and other utility services are required to serve each separate parcel with development on any parcel, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, Public Works Director and the respective utility companies. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a'first-come, first-served" basis. } ' iq Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 11 Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 4. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system due to the existing well on the property. If the well is not to be used, this requirement can be avoided by property destroying the well in accordance with the standards of the County Department of Environmental Health. If deemed suitable, the well can be used for irrigation purposes, thereby reducing the amount of the required water allocation. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research, and shall be located within twenty-five feet (25') of a public main. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. 5. The subject property is situated primarily within Flood Hazard Zone B. The San Luis Obispo Creek and certain portions of `overbank" areas lie within Flood Zone A. The 100-year storm flood elevation varies between El. 285 and El. 295 (+/-) along the creek frontage of the site, from the southerly to northerly property lines. (1929 USGS datum) All proposed new structures lie within a B-Zone, which simply requires all finished floors of new buildings to be at least one-ft. above current adjacent grade. 6. The grading and site plans and building elevations must utilize City datum and provide notes in this regard. It should be noted that the current City datum is 0.749 in (2.46 ft.) higher than the 1929 USGS.datum, which is the datum on the flood hazard maps. Appropriate cross-referencing of this equation is therefore required on the plans. 7. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 8. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. On motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: 1--a0 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5355-03 Attachment 2 Tentative Tract Map No. 122-01 Page 12 AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Osborne, Aiken, Christianson, Boswell &Loh. NOES: None ' REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of January 2003. onald isenand, a tary Planning Commission�byc 122-01 (PC Res—tract map) Attachment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5356-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2223 MONTEREY STREET APPLICATION#A 122-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 8, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application Use Permit No. A122-01, a request to allow further development of the site zoned C-T-S, including requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties,and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: General Project Findings 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the.vicinity. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned by this use permit, and with development in accordance with plans ultimately approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC 122-01), is appropriate at this location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements in accordance with the Special Considerations "S" overlay zoning of the site. The special considerations with this site were implemented through Citywide Rezoning CR 1405 (City r -aA i Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 2 Council Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)) and include: the site's relationship to the creek, and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek. 4. The special considerations of the site will be adequately addressed by adopted mitigation measures and conditions of ARC and use permit approval. Creek Setback Exceptions 5. The location and design of the small encroaching portion of the Apple Farm Phase 2 building, the decomposed granite pathway, and the emergency access road will minimize impacts to scenic resources; water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement because the encroaching building is relatively minor in scale and is located along a portion of the creek where the adjacent willows have expanded significantly in recent years, the pathway is minor in extent"within the setback and will allow for continued water percolation into the ground, and the road will be constructed of a reinforced plastic grid structural system that will be planted with riparian grasses. 6. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies because the project creek banks and stream channel essentially unaltered. 7. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans because along with the minor exceptions requested, the project will enhance the health and vitality of the riparian corridor by the removal of existing encroaching buildings and other invasive plant species. 8. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as shape and topography, that do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning because the project site is irregularly shaped and has an extensive amount of lineal creek frontage, about 977 feet. 9. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege — an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning - because surrounding properties have significantly greater encroachments into the required creek setback and the project will remove existing structures which encroach into the setback. 10.The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream because the project will screen the parking lot from neighboring residential development by keeping it below motel units, provide emergency access, and maintain access to a City water line easement on the north side of the building. 1.1. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project because the creek setback is only one of several significant site constraints which include access and circulation issues, proximity of Highway 101 and noise, a City water line easement on the north side of the property which structures cannot be built across, and the protection of an important I,-- 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 3 historic resource. 12. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property because the current design actually appreciable enhances the health and extent of the riparian corridor and changes have -already been made to the design to eliminate units and pull encroachments out of the required creek setback areas. 13. The encroaching portion of the Apple Farm Phase 2 building occurs where the top of bank and creek flow line are at their most distant points from one another. C/OS Boundary Building Height Exceptions 14. The project is consistent with the height restrictions included in Criterion 9 of Ordinance No. 1130 because: • The proposed project includes a variable building facade along the creek bank, rather than a "flat" or uniform facade parallel to the creek; and • Project plans as submitted propose about one-half the volume that would be allowed within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary under the 25'height limit. Shared and Mixed-Use Parking Reduction 15. There is evidence to indicate that granting a 30% shared and mixed-use parking reduction will not result in poor on-site circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, with the addition of the proposed condition, which would allow for a review hearing prior to Phase 2 of project development being implemented. 16. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal.Code Section 17.16.060 A., Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the requirement for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 B. because there are two separate uses that share common parking areas. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.16.060 C., the times of maximum parking demand from the proposed uses will not coincide. 17. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) land use planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, and it can be expected that some trips are consolidated for both uses since motel guests, both from the site and other nearby motels, walk to the restaurant. 18. The shared and mixed-use parking reduction is appropriate because the range of uses proposed at the site allows for offsets in the peak hours of demand, there will be consolidated trips to the site because of the mix of uses, and a condition is proposed which allows for monitoring of project parking before the final phases are developed. 19. The project will comply with project parking requirements for proposed uses within the C-T- Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 4 S zone, with the approval of this use permit which includes a 30% shared and mixed- use parking reduction, and the condition allowing for project phasing and future review and monitoring of parking. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Mitigation Measure 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall carefully evaluate project building colors and details of the Apple Farm building to insure that the project's massing appears in context with existing vegetation and the hills beyond when viewed from the highway corridor. Monitoring Program The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections.. Mitigation Measure 2: All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or spill onto adjacent properties to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification. Plans submitted for final review by the ARC shall include details of wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall include decorative wall lights, as well as service area wall pack lights. If proposed, details of any pole or bollard lights shall also be included in plans reviewed by the ARC. New lighting standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height, from the approved finished grade to the top of the fixture. Illumination levels at the finished grade below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 footcandles under the fixture and 3 footcandles at the dimmest point, which shall be confirmed with photometric plans submitted with working drawings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 3: The following mitigation measures shall constitute a dust mitigation plan which shall become a part of working drawings and be in effect during project construction: I Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 5 a. The amount of disturbed area shall be reduced where possible. b. The permanent dust control measures identified in the approved revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. c. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent airborne dust from leveling the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be use whenever possible. d. Exposed ground areas, which are to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading, should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. 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. f. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the dust mitigation plan becomes a part of working drawings. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4: The project will implement an aggressive parking demand reduction and management program. This program will include designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the project and shall promote-alternative modes of transportation. The program will provide for preferential carpool/vanpool parking, continued shuttle service, and discount transit. The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to the City Transportation Division,for review and approval or amendment, which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved. Monitoring Program: City Transportation Division staff will be the lead in reviewing the parking demand reduction and management program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 5: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 6 The applicant shall coordinate with APCD prior to building permit issuance to meet requirements. Community Development shall monitor by insuring that the requirement has been met prior to signing off on working drawings. Mitigation Measure 6: The applicant shall have a United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol survey for the potential presence of the California red-legged frog conducted prior to the onset of project construction. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director for review and a determination of need for further action. If frogs were found in the creek area, then appropriate protective facilities would need to be installed. If frogs were found on the work site, then City staff will consult with the USFWS. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between.March I" and August 30`h, then the applicant shall hire a qualified biological consultant to conduct a follow-up inspection of the site to determine the status of the potential red-shouldered hawk nest and to identify any nesting birds in the area. If the nest is active, it may be necessary to reschedule construction activities to determine appropriate disturbance perimeters around the nest. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources-Manager shall be the lead in reviewing the study and coordinating with other agencies. Mitigation Measure 7: If the Planning Commission approves the requested creek setback exceptions, then the project shall include the following riparian corridor enhancements: a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the working drawings for a building permit include all required enhancements and through subsequent inspections with the Natural Resources Manager. Mitigation Measure 8• The applicant shall provide a long-range maintenance program for the site's riparian zones which Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 7 includes the following: a. Provision for "specialized" trimming and mowing of the grasses to be planted in the reinforced plastic grid structural system of the emergency access road, recognizing the effort to incorporate this area as a functional part of the riparian area. b. Installation of a "soft" barrier to discourage public access to riparian zones, such as a split-rail fence between riparian planting and other site improvements, and gates or bollards at the end of the emergency access road.. c. Limitations shall be established for use of the emergency access road to ensure that it does not become a service and maintenance driveway that invites frequent use. d. Placements of educational signage at appropriate locations. e. Requirements for early and on-going inspections by Community Development Department staff and the Natural Resources Manager. f. Establishment of a 5-year monitoring program, which includes the submittal of senu- annual progress reports. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager will be the lead in reviewing the long-range maintenance program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 9: To assure that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, the recommended conditions of the CHC are included as mitigation measures. a. A detailed HABS/HAER historic inventory report shall be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction. b. One of the rebuilt bungalows shall include some recycled building components from the demolished bungalows. c. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. The roof of the "Ramada" section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. e. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. f. Retain the site's historic landscape features. g. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. h. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Farm addition. i. Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. Monitoring Program: 1 -2� Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 8 The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 10: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 11: 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 the grading and construction plans for the project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 12:. The project shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 13: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading t_� f � 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 9 procedures including recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff will review the recommendations included in the soils engineering report along with working drawings submitted for a building permit. Mitigation Measure 14: The applicant shall follow 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 Program: The Fire Department shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent studies necessary and assuring that any site clean-up has taken place prior to building permits being issued. Mitigation Measure 15: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal and to prevent drains from plugging up and overflowing. Best Management Practices(BMPs) for drainage shall be followed. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for building pen-nit primarily by the Utilities Department. Mitigation Measure 16: The Architectural Review Commission with their review of project development plans needs to insure that outdoor use areas are properly attenuated from noise if they require significant changes to building heights or wall locations surrounding these areas. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation.Measure 17: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 — Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 10 The Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1130. Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 18: To help reduce the waste stream generated: a. The project shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. b. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance. c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components of the project and in surfacing wherever feasible. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff with consultation with the Utilities Department. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application Use Permit A 122-01, subject.to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions 1. The Monterey Street access improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and CalTrans prior to final project occupancy. The work may be completed concurrent with other project components with the submittal of documentation to the City from CalTrans that the final design documents for the improvements have their approval. 2. The applicant shall submit surveyed cross-sections along the creek channel prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to assure that the setbacks shown on working drawings for new buildings and other improvements are consistent with approved plans and any approved exceptions to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. 3. A soils engineer shall evaluate the condition of the creek bank adjacent to the project and submit a report to the Director of Public Works and Building Official for review. If the evaluation identifies recommended slope stabilization or erosion protection, the developer r�1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 11 shall comply with said recommendations, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official. Appropriate permits from applicable agencies must be obtained. 4. The demohbon/remodel of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 5. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. 6. The Architectural Review Commission shall consider the following in their review of final project plans: a. The scale of the spa elevator tower; b. The use of glazing or glass block with ground floor patios of Motel Inn to further attenuate noise; and c. Elimination of rear floodlights as shown on the lighting plan. 7. The Planning Commission shall review the appropriateness of the full 30% shared and mixed-use parking reduction component of the use permit prior to the development of Phase 2 of the project, which is the construction of the new Motel Inn rooms and the spa, to monitor and evaluate whether the amount of provided on-site parking is adequate for all proposed uses. At the review hearing, the Commission may add, delete, or modify findings or conditions of approval related to the shared and mixed-use parking reduction component of the use permit, or reaffirm that the shared and mixed-use reduction is working effectively. 8. Details of how grading will be regulated within the dripline of riparian trees near the top of creek bank and other techniques for protecting the trees with development shall be specified on plans submitted for a building permit to the approval of the City Arborist and Planning staff. Code Requirements 1. Separate sewer, water and other utility services are required to serve each separate parcel with development on any parcel, to the.satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, Public Works Director and the respective utility companies. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If t�3�- Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 12 it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.. 4. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system due to the existing well on the property. If the well is not to be used, this requirement can be avoided by properly destroying the well in accordance with the standards of the County Department of Environmental Health. If deemed suitable, the well can be used for irrigation purposes, thereby reducing the amount of the required water allocation. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research, and shall be located within twenty- five feet (25') of a public main. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross- Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. 5. The subject property is situated primarily within Flood Hazard Zone B. The San Luis Obispo Creek and certain portions of"overbank" areas lie within Flood Zone A. The 100-year storm flood elevation varies between El. 285 and El. 295 (+/-) along the creek frontage of the site, from the southerly to northerly property lines. (1929 USGS datum) All proposed new structures lie within a B-Zone, which simply requires all finished floors of new buildings to be at least one-ft. above current adjacent grade. 6. The grading and site plans and building elevations must utilize City datum and provide notes in this regard. It should be noted that the current City datum is 0.749 m (2.46 ft.) higher than the 1929 USGS datum, which is the datum on the flood hazard maps. Appropriate cross- referencing of this equation is therefore required on the plans. 7. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 8. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building l-33 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5356-03 - Attachment 2 Use Permit A 122-01 Page 13 Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. On motion by Commr. Caruso, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Osborne, Aiken, Christianson, Boswell &Loh. NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this8th day of January 2003. RonalWhisenand, cretary Planning Commission by: 122-01 (PC Res—tract map) 'Attachment 3 DRAFT— Excerpt Item 1 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 8, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, James Caruso, and Chairwoman Alice Loh. Absent: None. Staff: Recording Secretary Irene Pierce, Associate Planners Pamela Ricci, Philip Dunsmore, Glen Matteson, Deputy Director of Community Development Long Range Planning Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Development Review Ronald Whisenand, Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, and Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS . Tom Schumann, 2974 Rockview Place, commented on the development (Agenda Item 2) at 2903 Broad Street, and expressed a concern about the traffic condition along Broad Street, suggesting a stoplight be installed to control the traffic. Owen Duffy, 635 Stoneridge Drive, expressed a concern about the traffic along Broad Street, and stressed the danger of crossing Broad Street from Stoneridge so he can take his children to school. John George, Perkins Lane, stated his wife was involved in an accident at Broad Street and Perkins lane, and expressed the need for a stoplight at Stoneridge Drive. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: I -3� Draft PC Minutes Attachment 3 Excerpt-Item 1 Page 2 1. 2223 Monterey .Street. TR, A and ER 122-01; Tentative map to create a commercial air-space condominium, request to allow conference and spa facilities in conjunction with a renovated/new motel, and environmental review; C-T-S zone; John and Carole King/Rob Rossi, applicants. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report recommending the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the use permit to allow further development of a site in the C-T-S zone, based on findings including required findings in support of requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and mixed-use and shared parking reduction, and subject to conditions and code requirements; approve the Tract Map to create a commercial condominium for the proposed new building known as the Apple Farm Phase 2, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements; and approve the mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. Commr. Cooper questioned why an excess of 15 motorcycle parking spaces is being provided. Associate Planner Ricci replied the parking calculations were revisited and explained there would be 25 extra motorcycle spaces, which would reduce the auto space requirement by five spaces. Commr. Cooper asked where the original bungalow that was recommended to be preserved would be located. Planner Ricci explained the CHC's direction was not that one complete bungalow be preserved, but that elements of the various bungalows be saved, which was modified in the revised Mitigation Measures. Commr. Cooper questioned how the applicant would comply with the City ordinance of affordable housing. Planner Ricci replied they would probably pay the fee, but noted they have not discussed an alternative. Commr. Cooper commented about the 100-year flood level and asked if the water would enter the parking garage or the building. Planner Ricci responded they have the standard mitigation measures that address compliance with the Flood Prevention Regulations. Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand interjected the development itself is located outside of the 100- year flood plain. Commr. Boswell questioned if the City requested the emergency access drive along the back of the project on the creek side. � ' f Draft PC Minutes Excerpt—Item 1 Attachment 3 Page 3 Planner Ricci replied yes. Commr. Boswell questioned why the additional storm water run-off from this site is not considered as a cumulative impact on the creek, particularly with the flooding. Planner Ricci explained this issue did not come up in the review of the project by Public Works. Chairwoman Loh asked if the staff and management would need parking spaces. Planner Ricci responded that they are factored into the overall parking calculation. Chairwoman Loh asked if the building height is over 45-feet. Planner Ricci replied no. David Watson, King Ventures, presented a brief history on the project and how they decided on this design. He pointed out the project's restoration of the motel bungalows includes the demolition of a series of buildings that presently exist along the creek bank and explained sequences and phases that the property would be developed. He reiterated that the developed site is fully outside the 100-year flood plain. He noted they would follow the City's rules for affordable housing, but developing them on-site would be problematic, if not impossible. Commr. Cooper questioned if the applicant is prepared to cover the expense of the merging lanes up to 180 feet. Mr. Watson replied yes, and explained that Caltrans may have some discretionary funds that might be contributed to the project. Commr. Cooper asked if the motorcycle parking could be located somewhere else, and if the applicant were amenable to the re-orientation of the decks. Mr. Watson replied yes, and explained they envisioned a four- or five-foot high wall that would enclose the area of the deck. Commr. Boswell asked for a characterization of the creek armoring that is proposed. Mr. Watson replied they have discussed with staff and consultants the idea of armoring the creek bank, but until the studies are done, they are not sure what technique would be used. Commr. Boswell asked if there would be any electrical equipment or garbage collection on the creek side of the project, expressing a concern with noise. Mr. Watson replied no, and explained there would be no equipment facing the creek. i Draft PC Minutes Attachment 3 Excerpt- Item 1 Page 4 Keith Hall, project architect, explained where the equipment would be located and noted they are keeping active uses away from the habitat area. Commr. Boswell questioned if the bicycle parking would have long-term lockers. Mr. Hall replied there are no long-term lockers proposed. Planner Ricci interjected the project would have to meet its bicycle parking requirements, which would include short term racks and long term lockers, which the ARC would review. Commr Boswell asked how often the service road that runs along the creek side for Phase 2 would be used for service. Mr. Watson replied they do not intend to see daily maintenance activities along the emergency access road. Commr. Boswell asked what the future would be for the willow stand that is intruding on the setback line of the Apple Farm 2 building. Mr. Watson explained they suggested a proposal to fix the edge of these willows and provide for routine maintenance by cutting them back. Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik replied they have experienced in mitigation planting that the growth of willows, within a few years, need trimming but noted there is a point where equilibrium gets reached when the plantings mature and can hold their own with the willows. Commr. Christianson requested an explanation on the balconies. Mr. Hall explained they tried to minimize the amount of decks that would face the creek and made a courtyard with the decks facing in, but several decks face the creek in the Apple Farm 2 building, some of which face an open space parcel. Commr. Christianson asked if there would be any lattice or a wind wall. Mr. Hall replied latticework is proposed. Commr. Cooper expressed concern with the elevator tower of the spa building, which is significantly higher than any of the other building massing, on the area of the site closest to the houses. Mr. Hall replied they could provide an alternate elevator. Commr. Cooper asked if they would consider glazing as a sound deflector in the area where the decks are. ' J'o Draft PC Minutes �� Excerpt—Item 1 Attachment 3 Page 5 Mr. Watson replied he would consider a glazing, glass block style, ora solid wall. Chairwoman Loh asked if there has been any dialogue with Cal Poly concerning a conference room? Mr. Watson replied no, but noted they would be open to it. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, felt great consideration should be given for the Motel Inn to be restored as it originally was. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso moved to adopt resolutions, as noted in the staff report and proposed changes to add revised findings_ 14, 17, & 18 that acknowledge the shared parking percentage, and propose to add conditions 7 & 8 to the Use Permit. 6 & 13 to the tract map. Planner Ricci clarified the revision to condition 8; should end with a period after planning staff; "and/or reaffirm that the shared and mixed use parking reduction is working effectively" should be the second sentence of condition 7. Commr. Caruso proposed two changes to Mitigation Measure 15, to add a mention of the use of best management practices and drainage and erosion control, and propose to changer condition 2 to state that Monterey Street access improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Director and Cal Trans, prior to the start of development.. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Cooper suggested a couple of amendments to recommend to the ARC that the elevator tower on the spa be lowered if possible or relocated, and that glass block or another sound attenuating device be incorporated into the decks facing the creek in Apple Farm Phase 1. and recommend elimination of flood lights position to illuminate architectural features on the creek side. The motion maker accepted the amendments. Commr. Boswell suggested changes to the motion, and the first is the Use Permit, which regards creek setback exceptions and suggested one addition #18; the first is to augment the findings to strengthen the reason for a creek setback exception; #19_is the encroaching portion of the Apple Farm Phase 2 building occurs with the top of bank in creek flow line at their most distant point; suggested striking 11 & 12 in their entirety. Draft PC Minutes - Attachment 3 Excerpt—Item 1 Page 6 Planner Ricci responded to the striking of 11 & 12 that all of these findings are required,. She suggested that additional language could be added to support the findings. Commr. Boswell suggested rewording number 14, that instead of saving "there is no evidence to indicate°, it should say "there is evidence to indicate the granting of 30% shared and mixed use parking reduction will not result in poor onsite circulation". The motion maker and the seconder accepted the amendments. Commr. Boswell suggested staff look at findings 11 & 12 before Council consideration because they need to be strengthened. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, Christianson, Aiken, Osborne, Boswell, and Loh NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 7-0. ( - 4© Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM a 1 BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner(781-7168) MEETING DATE: January 8, 2003 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director(Development Review4o FILE NUMBERS: A, TR, ER 122-01 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 2223 Monterey Street SUBJECT: Review of a Use Permit, including creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction, and a Tract Map to allow a commercial condominium, in conjunction with the further development of the Motel Inn property at the far northeast end of Monterey Street near Highway 101. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolutions, which recommend to the City Council:. A. Approval of the Use Permit to allow further development of a site in the C-T-S zone, based on findings including required findings in support of requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction, and subject to conditions and code requirements. B. Approval of the Tract Map to create a commercial condominium for the proposed new building known as the Apple Farm Phase 2, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. C. Approval of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures. BACKGROUND: Situation King Ventures recently acquired both the Apple Farm and the adjacent Motel Inn property. The Motel Inn has been closed for some time and many of the small bungalow buildings are in a state of disrepair and structurally unsound. The applicant has applied for City approval of a master plan for the partial rehabilitation of the main historic building and redevelopment of the Motel Inn site with the construction of new motel units, conference facilities, and a spa. The project site is zoned C-T-S, Tourist commercial with the Special Consideration overlay zone. The City's zoning regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit for the development, or further development, of sites with the "S" overlay zoning. The special considerations with this site include: the site's relationship to the creek, and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek. Because of the importance of the historic building, the need for various exceptions, and the proximity of the site to a residential neighborhood, the Use Permit, which the current zoning regulations specify an administrative hearing process for, has been referred to the Planning Commission. A,TR, ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Attachment 4 Page 2 Data Summary Project Address: 2223 Monterey Street Applicant: King Ventures Representatives: Bob Richmond, Keith Hall, and Dave.Watson Zoning: C-T=S, Tourist Commercial with the.Special Consideration overlay zone General Plan: Tourist Commercial Environmental Status: The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures on December 13, 2002. The initial study was sent to the State Clearinghouse for review and distribution because of other agencies with regulatory control over the project including Caltrans. Project Action Deadlines: February 11, 2003 (Tract Map) & March 23, 2003 (Use Permit) Proiect Description The project includes retention of some, and demolition of other, architectural elements of the main Motel Inn hotel and restaurant building. The applicant's intention is to retain the key character defining architectural elements of the main building, namely the domed tower with arcade that was the office area and portions of the opposite end of the building that housed the restaurant. Plans show that the bungalows behind the main building will be demolished and replaced with new buildings, but that the Mission Revival architectural style and traditional courtyard configuration will be retained. Other new buildings with the same architecture are planned to the east and west of the main building and bungalows. The Motel Inn complex of buildings will house 76 guest rooms, conference facilities, a restaurant, banquet room and a spa. In addition, there will be a two-level building over parking at the northeastern end of the site containing 48 guest rooms known as the Apple Farm Phase 2. This building will have more of a Victorian architectural style similar to the existing Apple Farm complex to the south. A total of about 85,000 square feet of building area is proposed in the project including 124 hotel rooms. Site Descriution The project site is located on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, and is adjacent to the Highway 101 on its north side. The site backs up to San Luis Obispo Creek on its south side and the single-family neighborhood along San Luis Drive. Other motel projects surround the site to the north and west. Historical Significance of the Main Building The existing main building is included on the City's Master List of Historic Resources. It has a ranking of 3, which means that it is significant at a local level and also eligible for the National Register.. The distinctive Mission Revival building was constructed in 1924-25. This main building has both architectural and historical significance. Arthur S. Heineman, the architect and builder, wanted to create an updated version of the missions with this prototype project. The most memorable feature of the building, its three-stage bell tower, is modeled on the Mission A,TR,ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Attachment 4 Page 3 Santa Barbara. The building's main historical significance is that it has been touted as the first motel in America. Attachment 2 provides detailed descriptions of the main building, including the City's Historic Resources Inventory, a recent article from Westways magazine, and a one- page history and description with attached drawing. Attachment 3, Cultural Restoration & Rehabilitation Proposal, discusses the factors that were considered in developing a project design context and the various changes that the site has gone through over the years. Previous Review On September 20, 2000, the ARC conceptually reviewed an earlier version of the project. The Commission provided the applicants with early feedback and several neighbors also spoke.. Because of the historical importance of the main Motel Inn building, the project was reviewed by the CHC at an early stage in its review. On November 26, 2001, the CHC reviewed the project and took three separate actions regarding proposed demolitions, the addition to the main historic building, and the compatibility of other project buildings (see Attachment 4 - follow-up letter). Since it is a large and complex project with interesting design challenges, the project was scheduled before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for conceptual review on February 19, 2002 (see Attachment 5 — follow-up letter and minutes). On October 21, 2002, the ARC took a field trip to the site to familiarize themselves with existing conditions and better understand site constraints. A focus of the field trip and subsequent meeting discussion as part of the regular agenda was to review proposed creek setback exceptions. The follow-up letter from the 10-21-02 meeting is attached—Attachment 6. On November 20, 2002, the Planning Commission took a field trip to the project site. Project representatives gave an overview of the project and specific areas where creek setback exceptions were requested were reviewed in the field. EVALUATION The Motel Inn is architecturally distinctive, historically important, and a familiar landmark to those driving along Highway 101 through San Luis Obispo. The site has been neglected for many years now, and the main building and bungalows are in a state of disrepair. Development of a successful project concept for the site is complicated by its irregular shape, and adjacency to Highway 101, San Luis Creek, and single-family homes on San Luis Drive. The project was originally submitted to the City in August of 2001 for processing. The applicants have been working with.City staff since plans were submitted to refine the project to address issues raised by earlier reviews of the CHC and the ARC, and to minimize the need to request creek setback exceptions. In addition, there were a number of technical studies required for the project including a traffic analysis, environmental site assessment, archaeology Phase I report, noise study, visual analysis, a historical resource inventory, ecological analysis and riparian management plan. A detailed initial study (Attachment 11) was prepared for the project with several of these studies attached as appendices. The main issues that have surfaced with the review of the project are the needed exceptions to certain applicable standards, which are: 1- 43 A,TR ER 122-01 (Motel inn) Attachment 4 Page 4 • Creek setback exceptions; • Building height exceptions related to the"S"overlay zone; and • A mixed-use and shared parking reduction. The following sections of the Evaluation discuss project components and issues in greater detail. A. Use Permit Back in 1989, the site and other commercial properties on the east side of Monterey Street were rezoned to add the "S", Special Consideration overlay zoning to the underlying C-T, Tourist Commercial zone. The special considerations with this site include: the site's relationship to the creek, and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek. As mentioned earlier in this report, the project, which involves the further development of a site in the C-T-S zone, requires the processing of a Use Permit. City Council Ordinance No. 1130 contains specific design criteria for new development on sites in the affected "S" overlay zone (Attachment 7). Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental quality are addressed in the adopted design criteria. The design criteria include conditions on the locations of building openings, lighting performance standards, screening between uses, riparian corridor protection, building height, grading limitations, and drainage. The following paragraphs discuss components of the use permit and how the project complies with the specific design criteria of the"S"zone. 1. Creek Setback Exceptions The most important natural feature of the site is San Luis Obispo Creek. The creek borders the site along the entirety of its eastern and southern boundaries. Proposed development is confined to portions of the site beyond the existing riparian corridor; a majority of which has been graded or developed in the past. Therefore, the initial study concludes that the habitat value that the riparian corridor currently provides will not be significantly impacted with project development. Other than armoring an eroded portion of the creek bank just below the existing stables to stabilize it, there are no significant changes to the creek bank planned or significant riparian plants that are proposed for removal with the project. While the proposed project does not compromise the habitat value of the existing riparian corridor, City regulations with new development now require that buffer zones be established to enhance and expand existing corridors. The City's Creek Setback Ordinance (Attachment 8 - Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations) formally adopted setbacks for new development along designated City creeks. At this location, a minimum of a 20-foot setback for buildings and other improvements from the top of the creek bank, or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, must be maintained unless an exception is granted. The project as currently proposed would require the approval of exceptions to the creek. setback standards. The findings that the Planning Commission would need to make to approve any requested creek setback exception are outlined in Section GA.d. of Section A,TR, ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Attachment 4 Page 5 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations. In the attached Draft Resolution recommending approval of the Use Permit (Attachment 12), these required findings have been customized for the particular site circumstances of this project. Much of the rationale in support of the exceptions comes from the ARC's detailed review and analysis of the requests at their October 21, 2002 meeting(Attachment 6). Submitted plans show in detail the edge of the riparian corridor and the required creek setback. The setback has been reviewed thoroughly in the field with the applicant's representatives, Community Development Department staff, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. With the subject site, some riparian vegetation, including willows, sycamores and oaks, extend beyond the actual top of physical creek bank. The ordinance provision for establishing the creek setback line based on the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation becomes important since the growth patterns of some of the riparian plants, most notably the sycamore trees, include prominent branches that extend far into the site. As designed, there are three different types of proposed project improvements that would encroach into the creek setback area: 1. Portions of an emergency access road located along the east and south sides of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building. 2. Portions of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building in the vicinity of an oak tree located in the narrowest part of the site near the existing stables. 3. A small extent of a decomposed granite pedestrian pathway behind the Motel Inn bungalow units. Currently there are site improvements and.several buildings, including some of the old Motel Inn sheds and support structures that encroach into the riparian setback area. A biological study that was completed for the project also documents that invasive plant species such as pampas grass and vinca have taken a major foothold in the creek area. Along with its further development, the City would like to see a healthier riparian habitat established at the site. As shown on the submitted exhibits, it is a major goal of the project to create a net gain in viable riparian restoration areas with project development. The ARC, the City's Natural Resources Manager, and the biological consultant, Levine- Fricke, have concluded that the project as designed, including proposed creek setback exceptions, will not have a significant adverse impact on the site's biological resources and the overall health and vitality of the riparian corridor. This conclusion is based on large part on proposed enhancements to the riparian corridor proposed along with the project. The overall rationale for support of the exceptions recommended by staff and the ARC are more extensively detailed in the attached initial study and the ARC's 10-21-02 follow-up letter. In summary, the main reasons for support of the exceptions are outlined in Mitigation Measure No. 7 and include the following riparian corridor enhancements: a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. [4; A,TR,ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Attachment 4 Page 6 c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. 2. C/OS Boundary Building Height Exceptions In addition to the current creek setback ordinance and other property development standards, this project is subject to the added requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 which established the "S" overlay zoning, and zoned the adjacent creek area Conservation Open Space with the 5- acre minimum lot size (C/OS-5). Typically, a C-T zone is limited to a building height of 45 feet. However at this site, more stringent requirements prevail within the first 50 feet from the C/OS-5 boundary, which at this site is coterminous with the site's property lines that border the creek. Criterion 9 of Ordinance No. 1130 specifies that building height be restricted to: 25 feet—within 50 feet of C/OS boundary; and 45 feet—beyond 50 feet. The applicant prepared a Creek Bank Massing Study as a component of submitted plans. It quantifies that the total volume of building spaces within the 50-foot setback is 103,369 cubic feet, with 93,742 cubic feet conforming to height requirements, and 9,627 cubic feet exceeding the allowed 25 feet. The "S" zone, which affects this site and other properties on the east side of Monterey Street, was originally established in reaction to some motel projects that were developed without sensitivity to creek protection and neighborhood compatibility concerns. Although the ordinance has been in place for almost 14 years, there has only been one recent.project that was subject to these same design criteria. That site, 1941 Monterey; is the home of the recently completed hotel named "Morgan's Mansions". That site was built in full conformance to the C/OS-5 boundary building height standards. However, site circumstances differ substantially between the two sites, most notably by the amount of lineal creek frontage. The project site has a total of about 977 feet, while Morgan's had 60 feet. Given the relatively small proportion of building volume over 25 feet within the setback, about 9%, staff recommends support for approval of the exception. There are two main reasons for this support: • The proposed project includes a variable building facade along the creek bank, rather than a "flat" or uniform facade parallel to the creek. These variable building planes keep the project's creek elevation from appearing overly massive, and are important to the proposed Victorian architectural style. The building's look and appearance has been endorsed by previous reviews of the project by the CHC and the ARC. f--�lP A,TR, ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) - Attachment 4 Page 7 • Project plans as submitted propose about one-half the volume that would be allowed within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary under the 25' height limit. If the site were developed to its maximum allowed building volume, there is the potential for 219,941 cubic feet of building area under 25 feet in height. The project proposes 103,369 cubic feet of building area within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. Although about 9% of the building area exceeds 25 feet in height, the sheer volume of building space is still well below what might be developed without exceptions. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility Issues a. Noise The attached initial study summarizes the conclusions of the noise analysis prepared by Donald Asquith. It documents how the heights and locations of project buildings have been designed to attenuate sound from the main noise source Highway 101 to proposed outdoor use areas within the project. The other main noise concern is how project development affects noise levels for the R-1 neighborhood across the creek. Design Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 1130 says that "noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer." To a considerable degree, project buildings will help buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition, the main parking area for the project is mostly enclosed and located on the first level of the new Apple Farm building. This allows for parking to be visually screened and any issues with noise and headlight glare to be reduced to insignificant levels. On the Motel Inn side of the project, there is a surface parking lot located at the project's far westerly side. Buildings on three sides surround this parking. Therefore, the project design can be found to be consistent with Design Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 1130. In terms of the main outdoor use areas including the pool bungalow courtyard, and common roof gardens, these also are consistent with Design Criterion No. 7 in that they are proposed to be internal to the project. There are several outdoor balconies proposed on the creek side of the Apple Farm building. From a purely environmental perspective, the anticipated noise levels from conversations of guests sitting or standing on proposed decks would not be considered significant (over 60 dB). However, Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1130 recommends that balconies and other building openings facing the creek be minimized. Factors that may justify the balconies as planned include: • The amount of dense vegetation between the Apple Farm building and the closest homes. • The distance of homes from the locations where balconies are proposed. • The fact that an open space parcel borders the far northeast end of the project site, rather than homesites. -4'1 A,TR,ER 122-01 (Motel [nn) Attachment 4 Page 8 Mitigation Measure No. 17 of the initial study states: "The Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1130. " With the Apple Farm Phase 2, plans show a dense lattice style screen for upper floor decks that would shield visitors sitting down. However, plans for the rebuilt Motel Inn bungalows show outdoor use areas at the back of the units. Condition No. 1 is recommended which would require that the outdoor use areas for these units be reoriented so that they face the courtyard garden, rather than the creek area. b. Lighting In terms of glare and lighting issues, Ordinance No. 1130 included Criterion No. 4: "Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification and shall be designed not to shine offsite. " The ARC routinely reviews all exterior lighting locations and details with its consideration of project plans. While the existing ARC process provides for adequate review to assure that all fixtures direct light downward and prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure No. 2 is recommended in the initial study to explicitly document what is expected with project lighting, given the sensitivity of neighbors to potential glare issues from the site. 4. Shared & Mixed-Use Parking Reduction Motels/hotels have a parking requirement of one automobile space for each room plus one space for resident manager's quarters. Based on 124 rooms, the motel portion of the project would have an automobile-parking requirement of 124 spaces. The restaurant, spa, and conference facilities would have a total parking requirement of 129 spaces. The total project- parking requirement for all uses is 253 parking spaces. Project Parking Requirements Use Size (#rooms,area) Parking Ratio Parking Requirement Hotel Rooms 124 One per room 124 Restaurant • Customer use 3,764 sq.ft. One/60 sq.ft. 63 • Food Prep. 2,771 sq.ft. One/100 sq.ft. 28 Conference Rooms 2,821 One/100 sq.ft. 28 Spa tailored for use/site 10 TOTAL 253 30 % reduction - 76 spaces 177 A,TR, ER 122-01 (Motel Inn)' Attachment 4 Page 9 A total of 178 automobile parking spaces and 34 motorcycle parking spaces are proposed to serve site uses including the motel rooms, restaurant, spa, and conference center facilities. The applicant is requesting a 30% mixed-use and shared parking reduction as part of the required use permit. If approved, the project-parking requirement would be reduced to 177 spaces. Required motorcycle parking would be 9 spaces. Section 17.16.060 E. of the zoning regulations allows for a one space reduction in the total automobile parking requirement for each five motorcycle spaces beyond the minimum requirement. This would allow the total automobile parking requirement for the project to be reduced by 5 spaces to 172 spaces. Section 17.16.060 B. allows for up to a 10% reduction in the total number of required parking spaces when two or more uses share common parking areas, which will take place with the mix of land uses proposed. Section 17.16.060 C. further allows the director to reduce the parking requirement for mixed-use projects sharing parking by up to 20%, in addition to the shared parking reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of 30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide. In staff's opinion, the amount of proposed parking spaces seems appropriate. The peak hours of demand for the restaurant and motel uses are not the same since the restaurant typically closes at night before all of the cars for motel guests are in for the evening. Another factor is that some trips are consolidated for both uses since motel guests, both from the site and other nearby motels, walk to the restaurant. Conference facilities would have their peak hours during daytime hours when many of the hotel guests would have left the site for other activities. Another feature, which supports the idea of consolidated trips, is that many of the conference attendees are also hotel guests. Like the restaurant use, it is anticipated that the spa use will generally cater to on-site guests or guests from other lodging facilities within walking distance. The table on the preceding page indicates that the parking requirement for the spa was tailored for the use and site. Staff is suggesting that a parking requirement of 10 spaces be assigned to the spa. Although most clients are likely to be hotel guests, there may be some people coming to the site for spa services from off-site and there will also be employees for the facility. 5. Long-Range Parking Management In addition to the mixed-use character of the project just described, the applicants have indicated their willingness to implement trip reduction and alternative parking scenarios that will be particularly effective in managing peak parking demands. The present Apple Farm operation has three operating shuttle busses that are used to take guests to various locations in town, helping to reduce trip traffic in the city. These shuttles would continue to be used to assist guests with access to the downtown and various local points of interest, thereby reducing trips and having a positive effect on parking demands at these destinations. This shuttle program is consistent with Mitigation Measure No. 4, which calls for the project to implement a parking demand reduction and management program. l \ A,TR,ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Attachment 4 Page 10 The applicants have indicated that they will implement programs for off-.site overflow parking options for visitors to their property in situations where special events are held and peak-parking demands for other on-site facilities may occur. Under these circumstances, visitors would be directed to use off-site parking locations (such as Cuesta Park, Cal Poly, SLO Veteran's Hall or such other locations that are appropriate for temporary parking use). The shuttle busses would be used to pick up and deliver guests to the project site and back to their vehicles. The applicants have also suggested that the sequence of construction at the site will also afford the City and owners the opportunity to observe the actual parking demand conditions and test their alternative solutions. The owners intend to begin their project with the restoration of the Motel Inn building, bungalows and restaurant, new Motel Inn conference center, and construction of the new Apple Farm 2 expansion. As a part of this initial phase of construction, all 178 parking spaces will be improved as planned. The new Motel Inn rooms (totaling 63 rooms) and the spa (8 rooms) will be last in their sequence of construction, allowing sufficient time to experience the other uses on site and validate that parking solutions are working properly. The project's required parking demand reduction and management program will be the mechanism to assure that the shuttle program is on-going and that off-site facilities are provided for special events. This program, along with the planned sequence of construction, should.provide for the successful management of parking. 6. Access and Circulation The existing driveway to the old Motel Inn is at the entrance to the northbound freeway on- ramp. With project development, the proposal is to move the driveway entrance further to the south to create safer and more functional site access. Plans show a 40-foot wide driveway that would provide consolidated access to the project site, as well as the existing Trellis Court Motel of the Apple Farm complex. The project applicants have also proposed that the northbound off-ramp of Route 101 be modified to include a left turn pocket that enables access to this new consolidated driveway entrance. The applicants have evaluated other driveway designs and reviewed them with the City Transportation Staff and with Caltrans officials. A traffic study was prepared by Higgins Associates for the project and is Appendix G of the initial study. The traffic study evaluates three optional designs for project driveway access to the site (shown as Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 of the study). The City staff believes that Options 1 and 2 are acceptable and workable and will provide adequate access to the site. In a letter dated November 6, 2002 to Terry Sanville from James Kilmer (District 5 Development Review) Caltrans has provided written support for Option #1, which would maintain the northbound on ramp to the freeway at its current configuration (Attachment 9—Kilmer letter with Option #1). Neither City nor Caltrans staffs support the "roundabout" option (Option #3) at this location. The traffic study also notes that the northbound on-ramp to the freeway is currently of substandard length. Exhibit 12 in the traffic study illustrates how the eastern shoulder of the freeway can be modified and the ramp extended by 330 feet and terminated before it reaches Attachment 4 A,TR, ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Page 1 I the under-highway culvert for,San Luis Obispo Creek. The exiting State highway right-of- way appears capable of accommodating this modification without encroachment onto the adjoining project site. The November 6, 2002 letter from Caltrans also requests that the.City include, as a condition of approval, the lengthening of the northbound Route 101 on-ramp by approximately 180 feet. The project contributes to the use of this on-ramp, although the extent of this use is judged by the traffic study to be less than significant (less than 10%). Also, the less-than-standard design is a pre-existing condition. The applicant is proposing to provide a fair share contribution to Caltrans for the modification of this on-ramp. Modifications to these highway ramps are not a part of the City's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Therefore, any arrangements for financial contributions will be between the applicant and Caltrans, and Caltrans will be responsible for establishing a financing program for upgrading the ramp. Based on the findings of the traffic study, extending the ramp is not needed to address a significant adverse effect caused by the project. B. Tract Map A tentative tract map application (County Map No. Tract 2500) was also filed with the project to create a commercial air space condominium for the new Apple Farm Phase 2 building. The proposed tract map will enable individual ownership of the 48 units proposed within this new building. The maintenance of the building, common facilities, parking and landscaping will be handled through the creation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Attachment 10 is the Developer's Statement, which includes a detailed discussion of the condominium proposal. The Draft CC&Rs are also part of this attachment. The Commission is familiar with the use of the condominium tract map to allow the sale of individual spaces in office complexes and other multi-tenant commercial buildings. To staff s knowledge, this is the first hotel condominium proposed in the City, but the map's format and overall processing would work the same way as these other commercial condominium projects. The subdivided air spaces will be individually owned, but there will be unified management of the project, which will be spelled out in the CC&Rs. The hotel condominium is different from these other commercial condominiums in that occupancy is for the most part transient. However, the proposed tract is not a timeshare. With a timeshare, individuals are purchasing a guaranteed period of stay each year, but do not actually own the unit. With the hotel condominium, the units are individually owned, but owners are restricted to only occupying them for specific time periods set out in the CC&Rs.. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) would continue to be collected by the City including those times that the owners are staying in their individual units. Attached: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Historic information on main building and bungalows Attachment 3: Cultural Restoration& Rehabilitation Proposal Attachment 4: 11-26-01 CHC follow-up letter Attachment 5: 2-19-02 ARC follow-tip letter&minutes I A,TR,ER 122-01 (Motel Inn) Attachment 4 Page 12 Attachment 6: 10-21-02 follow-up letter Attachment 7: City Council Ordinance No. 1130 containing design criteria Attachment 8: Creek Setback Ordinance(Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations) Attachment 9: Letter from James Kilmer of Caltrans dated 11-6-02 with Circulation Option# 1 Attachment 10: Developer's statement& CC&Rs Attachment 11: Initial Study ER 122-01 — does not include Appendices (copies of initial studies with appendices are part of Commission's packets and available for other interested persons in the Community Development Department) Attachment 12: Draft Resolution recommending approval of Use Permit Attachment 13: Draft Resolution recommending approval of Tract Map See A4a.j, Le�1f 2 Or- Gourtc.i I Repat+ Enclosed: Full-size development plans(previously distributed) LA 122-01 (PC report) � -sa �ry�11001II VICINITYMAP : A/ER/TR 122-01 , . .�. .iii State of California-The '•es Agency -)Ser. No. 038-03C OEPARTMENTOFPARKS.� .rECREATION HAGS_ HAER NR SHL UTM: A 10/713950/39076708 Loc_ HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C IDENTIFICATION P(-Attachment 2 1. Common name: Motel Inn 2. Historic name: Milestone Motel Inn 3. Street or rural address: 2223 Monterey City San T,uiq Ohiqnn Zip93401 —County- San Luis Obispo 4. Parcel number: 04-511-09 5. Present Owner: Milt Grau Address:_ 2223 Monterey City San Luis Obispo 93401 X Zip Ownership is: Public Private 6. Present Use: un+ot Original use: Hotel DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Mission Revival 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: This Mediterranean style/Spanish Revival building has multiple gables and red tile roofs and parapets. There is a tower with a copper dome on top. Significant of the style, front windows are 3/3 square windows with wood framing. There are arched single paned windows. Roof gables have detailed central vents. Scroll work along towers and entrances. The structure is brick and stucco. There is also a short colonade and arcade in the front facing facade. 8. Construction date: •. Estimated Factual 1924-25 9. Architect Alfred and Arthur Hiereman Its for . «`: �& Unknown 10. Builder PAS _ � •� .��r" 11. Approx. property size (in feet) Frontage 100' Depth Ann or approx. acreage 1 y 12. Oate(s) of enclosed photograph(s)December 1982 +%-�•..x I -s4 r � � 13. Condition: Excellent _Good _x Fair_ Deteriorated No for 14. Alterations: Riingalnw c"mirt remodeled PL Attachment 2 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered I Residential Industrial _Commercial_Other: hotels and motels 16. Threats to site: None known_Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism Public Works project Other: 17. Is the structure. On its original site? VoQ' Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.) The Motel Inn was built in 1924-25. Originally called the Milestone Motel, local stories claim that it was the first place in the world to call itself . a "motel-" Alfred Heineman, the brother of Arthur Heineman, designed this distinguished Mission Revival bungaloid. Arthur Heineman has been called the "Inventor of the California Bungalow Court." Although the building has been remodeled over the years, its dome shaped tower, smooth plaster walls make it San Luis Obispo's finest example of the Mission Revival which permeated much4of California building traditions in the first twenty or thirty years of this century. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets,roads, and prominent landmarks): 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (if more than one is NORTH checked,number in order of importance.) Architecture 1 Arts& Leisure Economic/Industrial —Exploration/Settlement Government Military Religion Social/Education 21. Sources(List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews and their dates). Gebbhard, R. and winter, D. A. Guide to Architecture in Los Angeles and Southern California, 1977 �b fl 22. Date form prepared k lune 30. p9ff-- By (name)H stores. urve 55�a Organization City of San Luis Obispo Address: P.O. Box 321 City an Luis Obispo Zip Phone: IT ; i Attachment 2 ■ Roadsl aDreamin THE WORLD'S FIRST MOTEL OPENED A NEW CHAPTER IN CALIFORNIA CAR CULTURE BY MATTHEW W. ROTH z Most tklightful and Complete g Motorist's Hotel in the World w Half Way Between San Francisco 0 ^,1 and Los Angelao Complete Hotel service in r•- 4 Ya Fireproof Bungalows E > utomobile touring opened up a vast new two-day automobile journey between Los Angeles territory for travelers in the early 20th cen- and San Francisco.His original plan called for r. Tin can tourists"could take their cars each Milestone Mo-Tel to have a mix of both free- owherever a hint of a road existed,then pitch standing bungalow units and attached apartments, Aa tent or bundle up under a blanket in the with parking outside each door and private garages backseat whenever they needed to stop for the for some apartments.The biggest departure from evening. Automobile campgrounds opened on the auto camps was that every unit had its own major tourist routes,particularly in the West. indoor bathroom with a shower.He planned the 4 1 In the early 1920s, several entrepreneurs locations at the outskirts of major towns to help yy..' experimented with different styles of roadside travelers avoid urban traffic and noise. Each 5. ' accommodations that would combine acamp- Milestone Mo-Tel would include laundry facili- "' ground's convenience with a hotel's respectability ties,a restaurant,and a grocery store. and comforts.They coined the word"motel," In promoting the chain,Heineman character- which combined"motor"and"hotel."The first ized it as an updated version of the California building in the world to do business as a motel was missions,a string of way stations for the modem the Milestone Mo-Tel in San Luis Obispo.It was traveler.His architecture reflected this agenda-The built in 1925 by Arthur S.Heineman,an architect San Luis Obispo building featured a three-stage The Milestone Mo-Tel in a and developer from Glendale. bell tower modeled after Mission Santa Barbara. promotional postcard The word morel has become commonplace,but Heineman incorporated his firm as the Mile- from the 1930s(top);the when Heineman put up a billboard in San Luis stone Interstate Corporation and raised money remaining portion of the Obispo to announce the imminent con- from investors to complete the chain of Mo- Motel Inn as N appears struction,people deluged him with Tels.But competition was fierce,and today(above). reports of an apparent error.They said w Heineman's attempt to register the his sign painter had put an"M" in • name as a trademark did not prevent place of the"H." He had the sign $others from adopting it.The Milestone repainted as"Mo-Tel"to signal the Mo-Tel was his vision for roadside word's compound character. accommodations,but less extravagant Heineman envisioned the Mile- alternatives became far more numerous. stone Mo-Tels as a chain stretching A boarded-up portion of the Milestone from San Diego to Seattle.He chose Mo-Tel(most recently known as the San Luis Obispo for the first loca- Motel Inn)stands today,tucked beside the tion because it was the midpoint in the 1PMonterey Avenue exit of Route 101.i3 16 /�����/�'�� MAYBUNE 2000 IAUHM' 9 P (-Attachment 2 History and Description: The Motel Inn claims to be the first motel in the world. The word motel originated in San Luis Obispo, California. It stems from the combination of "motor hotel. " Arthur Heinman who was the architect for the building originated the name in 1924. The word never entered the dictionary until 1950. The architecture of the Motel Inn was California Spanish Revival. The land on which the building was built was owned by Neil Cook, and the construction was subsidized by the Milestone Corporation. The motel was part of the "Hamilton Chain of Hotels", stretching from San Diego to San Francisco. Harry Elliott, who was a partner in this chain managed the motel when it first opened. The motel could accommodate 160 and was considered by many as an exclusive hotel. The rooms or "bungalows" as they were called, were separate units, each containing their own shower, bathtub, washbasin, toilet, and telephone.. Each bungalow had central heating throughout and garages were available for each room. Some of the rooms also contained kitchenettes. The Spanish motif was carried out throughout the build- ings. There was a. Spanish lantern at every entrance. The main desk in the lobby was made of copper and bounded with strips of wrought iron like a Spanish chest. The office and dining room were situated in the foreground with a "ramada" or corridor connecting them. There were windows on both sides of the corridor with one side facing the highway and the other facing the court space around which the buildings were centered. The motel opened on December 12, 1925 and today resembles it's original condition with the exception of a swimming pool which is located in the central courtspace, and a number of signs and billboards. Sources : San Luis Obis o Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925 and January 27, 1926 San Luis Obispo County Museum Louisiana Dart, Curator, San Luis Obispo County Historical Museum, who attended the opening THE MOTEL INN 2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo � -�� Attachment 2 4 L' 1/ �i • .1 1 Lr� _ AITACHME T4 C c Attachment 3 V E N T U R E S August 9, 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 Re: Cultural Restoration and Rehabilitation Proposal - MOTEL INN Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects, San Luis Obispo This proposal is being presented on behalf of John King and Rob Rossi to outline our proposed plans for the Motel Inn site. SUMMARY The proposed project for the Motel Inn site is a complex "restoration" project, relying on the rehabilitation of the main 2-story Motel Inn building, and the reconstruction of the bungalow court motel rooms to facilitate their continued visitor use, plus new visitor serving units added to the immediate north of the Motel Inn. The main building will include rehabilitation of these buildings to the 1970's size and use, to accommodate the restaurant, meetings rooms and lounge uses common during that period. Reconstruction of the bungalow courtyard is proposed because of the dilapidated and unsafe structural condition of the buildings. This work would be done for the courtyard-fronting units, and to replicate the original feel and context for this courtyard. Significant landscaping will also be retained and added in order to compliment this courtyard. As of this date, the construction project is proposed to be a single phase development. All construction related to the Motel Inn would occur simultaneously with the additions to the Apple Farm proposed for the adjacent site. 08/09/2001 1 Morel Inn Restoration/ Rehabilitation Proposal King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX l , The Motel Inn Project - ACHOV San Luis Obispo,California CL Attachment 3 BACKGROUND The Motel Inn site, as it is referred, was the subject of a real estate endeavor by brothers Arthur and Alfred Heineman of Southern California (Pasadena area). The Heineman's formed the "Milestone Interstate Corporation" in 1925 to construct and operate a chain of eighteen motor courts they planned for California-Oregon -Washington to accommodate automobile travel as a growing form of recreation. Their concept was to construct these motels approximately 150-200 miles apart, to allow a days drive between sites. The concept included amenities not otherwise available outside of traditional hotel services, including maid services, a restaurant and commissary, laundry facilities, playgrounds, and a fully stocked and staffed garage facility on-site, to accommodate the inevitable mechanical problems encountered with touring vehicles of that day. The motel site was also quick to offer special accommodations for traveling staff of visitors, most notably drivers and butler personnel. The Heineman's were soliciting investors for their projects, and felt it was important to construct an initial, prototype project, to engender the public's interest and enthusiasm. The initial, and ultimately only, motel constructed was the Motel Inn site in San Luis Obispo. The depression of the 1920-30's took its toll on the Motel Inn site, and the property was lost to foreclosure. MULTIPLE ERA's of the MOTEL INN Since the opening of the Motel Inn in 1925, there have been various incarnations to the site, including numerous additions and modifications to the original buildings. In 1925, the Motel Inn opened with the main structures comprised of two main two-story buildings connected by a covered walkway, as well as approximately 15 bungalow units located around a courtyard, and a series of garage and driver's units located parallel to the creek. The northerly main building appears to have primarily been for the restaurant operation. The southerly building served as the lobby/check in area and lounge, along with a manager's office/quarters for the site. 08/09/2001 2 Motel Inn Restoration/ Rehabilitation Proposal H } - CHM194 The Motel Inn Project San Luis Obispo,California e Attachment 3 During the ensuing years, the face of the Motel Inn changed to adapt to customer demands. In the late 1920's, an automobile service station was added for the convenience of guests. Seating and bathroom additions to the main building to accommodate an enlarged meal service operation appear to have been made to the northerly building. In 1932 a large addition was made to accommodate the growing popularity of the restaurant, which remained famous as a BBQ steak operation until its closure. This addition was.done between the main buildings, taking up about '/z of the lineal frontage. In that era cowhands from distant ranches would spend their entire monthly wages at the lounge, restaurant and motel through an extended weekend. The Motel Inn was well known for that customer base.. In 1942, further additions to the front pergola area between buildings was enclosed, creating a larger lounge and further expansion of the restaurant. We believe these changes were made to accommodate the growing demand generated by Camp San Luis during World War II. In the 1950's significant expansions of the northerly building were made to introduce conferencing and meetings areas. These areas were added close to the food service areas of the restaurant, and actually included the absorption of two or three of the stand alone bungalows within the expanded structures. In 1972 additions to the lounge were made to the rear of the main structures, again to expand the lounge and restaurant seating areas. These changes represent the last significant additions made to the Motel Inn buildings. SELECTING an "ERA" to TARGET for PROJECT- OWNER's OBJECTIVES Developing a strategy for improvements to the Motel Inn site begin with our objectives for use of the site. In summary, these include: • Encapsulate the Distinctive Character of the Spanish/Mission Themes for Motel Inn • Maintain Victorian Inn Themes for Apple Farm Expansions around the Motel Inn • Maintain the Integrity of the Original Courtyard, Landscaping and Pedestrian Walks • Preserve Bungalow Footprints Surrounding Original Courtyards • Preserve Original (Significant) Landscaping In Courtyard As Exists, Plus Enhancements • Open Up The Motel Inn Courtyard to Creek Trail Link • Emphasize Trails and Public Access Along San Luis Creek 08/09/2001. 3 Motel Inn Restoration/ Rehabilitation Proposal The Motel Inn Project 1A ACHME 4 San Luis Obispo,California Qc Attachment 3 • Coordinate Access with Apple Farm • Provide Vehicle Turnaround for Ease of Access and Vehicle Access to the Site • "Hide" Parking by Placing Under Buildings and Landscape Berms • Integrate Fire Lane Accessibility through Public Paths and Creekside Trail • Improve Infrastructure Serving the Site • Reduce Freeway Noise through Use of Enclosed Corridors, Placement of Conference Center to Buffer Noise Transitions • Introduce a Spa with Apple Farm Expansion Integrated in these objectives is a recognition that the automobile history of the Motel Inn should be emphasized in its historical context. While each independent bungalow had a lean-to shed for covering the autos, we believe visitor use would be better suited with car parking in a remote location. The main courtyard behind the Motel Inn has been proposed to be maintained as originally constructed, with the one story courtyard-fronting bungalow footprints retained as well. This will maintain a pedestrian scale and orientation to this area. Unfortunately, the condition of these bungalow units is so poor that rehabilitation of these units is infeasible (see structural engineer's report). These units have no structural integrity, and in many cases lack foundation systems or code-complying utilities. We have proposed reconstruction of these units largely on the original footprints so as to maintain the appearance of these units from the courtyard view. The creekside garage and driver's rooms are proposed to be removed permanently. This area would serve instead as a creekside trail, and tie into the Apple Farm projects, both existing and proposed to the north of the Motel Inn. Building from these objectives, we have chosen to maintain the additions to the main buildings made through the 1970's for the restaurant and meetings areas. This will allow the site to provide meals service throughout the day, and accommodate meetings trade, which was quite popular the final 20 years of its operation. Further Motel Inn additions are proposed behind and around the original main building and bungalows. These additional rooms and added meetings,/conferencing space would occur outside of the original buildings footprints, so as to maintain the original context and character of the Motel Inn. 08/09/2001 4 Motel Inn Restoration/ Rehabilitation Proposal I -Loa The Motel Inn Project — San Luis Obispo,California V c- Attachment 3 PHASING The proposed Motel Inn project will require the addition of parking, fire access, and other features that will need to be built to accommodate reopening of the Motel Inn. Parking is planned to be located along with required parking for the Apple Farm expansion partially underground, below the Apple Farm units proposed at the far north end of the site. Fire and pedestrian access paths are included as a part of the auto circulation system, and therefore would be developed along with the parking. At this time, the improvements at the Motel Inn, as conceived by the owners, will occur in one simultaneous phase of construction with the proposed additions to the Apple Farm. M0T NNrebebprep07 08/09/2001 5 Motel Inn Restoration/ Rehabilitation Proposal ATTACHMENT 4 �►Il�ll llnll�llllll�!II �Ilhlllllll IIIIIIII IIIIItuls OBISPO c,t o sari y 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 4, 2001 Attachment 4 John & Carole King/Rob Rossi 290 Pismo St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: 2223 Monterey St., ARC 122-01 Rehabilitate historic Motel Inn for new hotel and conference facilities. The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of November 26, 2001, took the following actions: Action Alternative"A" On a motion by Committee member Wheeler, seconded by Committee member McMasters, the Committee determined that buildings to be demolished are historically and architecturally significant based on the findings 1-4 on page 15 of the historical inventory for 2223 Monterey Street prepared by Bertrando and Bertrando, dated September 2000, subject to the recommendations that: 1. A detailed HABS/HAER historic inventory report be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction; and 2. At least one of the original bungalows be preserved and rehabilitated. Action Alternative "B" On a motion by Committee member McDonald, seconded by Committee member Whittlesey, the Committee determined that the proposed additions and remodel to the main historic building are architecturally compatible with the historic buildings and courtyard, and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties provided that the following design changes or additions are incorporated into the project: 1. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2. The roof of the "Ramada" section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Tetecommunioations Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. - ATTACHMENT 4 3. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. 4. Retain the site's historic landscape features. L Attachment 4 Action Alternative"C" On a motion by Committee member McMasters, seconded by Committee member McDonald, the Committee determined that the proposed buildings are architecturally compatible with the setting provided that the following design changes are incorporated into the project: 1. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. 2. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Farm addition. Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. (See attached meeting update.) The decision of the CHC is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the CHC may file an appeal. After the appeal period, this determination is final and shall run with the land. If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Michael Dra Deputy Community Development Director, Long Range Planning Encl.- Meeting Update 11/26/01 cc: Property Owner Representative Address File Project File "Cos — ATTACHMENT 4 �i a�B�1111118hII►��� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIS o sAn O PO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 21, 2002 �C Attachment 5 John and Carole King Rob Rossi 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 122-01: 2223 Monterey Street Conceptual review of renovation of a historic motel and construction of new motel units, conference room and spa Dear Mr. and Mrs. King, and Mr. Rossi: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of February 19, 2002, conceptually reviewed the project and provided preliminary comments as direction, but did not take any kind of formal action on the project: 1 . The two different architectural styles proposed within the project are appropriate and were supported. 2. The presented changes to reduce the mass and more fully articulate the front elevation of the conference center were supported. 3. The submitted visual analysis will be important to fully analyzing the concerns of the neighbors brought up at the meeting. 4. Support for landscape buffering, rather than a solid 6-foot high fence along the creek bank, was generally supported for screening between the project site and neighboring residential projects across the creek. if you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (8051) 781-7168. Sincerely, cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office / David Watson G 290 Pismo Street Ro Id WhiseZd San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Deputy Community Development Director Development Review OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. t�ltlK' ATTACHMENT - ARC Minutes February 19,2002 Page 8 There were no further comments from the public. c- Attachment 5 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boudreau asked what the next step is for this project. Planner Dunsmore replied schematic design. Mr. Burtock asked if there is an architectural style that the Commission is looking for. Chairperson Stevenson explained there are many elements in the Goleta design that appeal to him. He commented the highlight of articulation is the historical contact of the mission look. Mr. Clemens asked if concrete block and wood trusses would work as the materials. Chairperson Stevenson felt the details presented look nice and felt stucco would be more appropriate. Commr: Novak suggested canvas awnings for a softer touch. Chairperson Stevenson commented that darker hues would be his choices for colors, which tend to recede the building rather than advancing it from view. He suggested a different color scheme. Commr. Boudreau commented he would like to see the entire building so they could get a better perspective. Mr. Clemens replied they would have.it for the next meeting. There were no motions made. 4. 2223 Monterey Street. ARC 122-01; Conceptual review ofrenovation of a historic motel and construction of new motel units, conference room and spa; C-T-S zone; John and Carole King and Rob Rossi, applicants. Associate Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, asking the applicant's team to present the project and identify changes that were made in response to previous ARC and neighbor comments, and asking the Commission to provide preliminary comments on overall site planning and building design. Dave Watson, Planner with King Ventures, explained the project involves two distinctive components; 1) the rehabilitation of the Motel Inn and 2) The Apple Farm expansion. He stated they would like feedback from the Commission and would come back with a design that maintains a distinctive character of the Motel Inn. He explained the second component is creating a distinctive addition for the Apple Farm. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC Minutes Attachment 5 February 19,2002 Page 9 Commr. Novak asked about the existing buildings closes to the creek setback. Mr. Watson explained that these service buildings were proposed for demolition. Commr. Novak asked if they were planning on demolishing the courtyard bungalows and then reconstructing them in the exact manner. Mr. Watson replied that the bungalows would be rebuilt with the same footprints, but that the design and detailing would be enhanced beyond the originals. He went on to explain the issue of access on Monterey Street, noting he is proposing to the proposed access to the Trellis Court Entrance. Bob Richmond, Principal Architect, gave a presentation on the historical aspects of this project. He stated they would like to return these buildings back to their original character. He stated they feel the building designs and the landscape architecture work nicely together. Keith Hall, project architect, elaborated on the motivations for the current project design. Commr. Schultz asked what the distance is from the back bungalows to the nearest residence. Mr. Hall replied he did not know. Commr. Schultz asked if the residences in the back have fences. Mr. Richmond replied that some do have fences. Mr. Hall explained they have tried to locate project improvements out of the creek setback areas. Commr. Novak asked if there is a fence that is being proposed with this project along the rear of the site. Mr. Hall replied that a solid fence or wall is not being proposed. He explained that the Apple Farm expansion has a. Victorian style. He mentioned that the parking is below building with a roof garden deck. Commr. Boudreau asked if the west elevation would be where the cars enter, and asked if the people would need to use the tower to go up. Mr. Hall replied yes. He presented a computerized model on video and explained the rehabilitation that will be done to the Motel Inn with the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chuck Snyder, 938 San Luis Drive, expressed his concems with the creek walkway because of access and security issues. �-Loi --� ARC Minutes OHM February 19,2002 Page 10 Chairperson Stevenson asked if he had a solution. Attachment 5 Mr. Snyder felt a fence could solve the problem Commr. Schultz asked Mr. Snyder if his property boundaries extend across the creek. Mr.Snyder replied yes. John King, King Ventures, commented that in some areas, there is no access coming off the creek and in some areas you could walk down into the creek. He suggested they could fence off some of the areas where access would not be desirable. Mike Copeland, 1998 San Luis Drive, noted they have a problem with noise generated from customers using the walkway and coming out of the bar. There were no further public comments. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Howard expressed her thanks for the presentation and the research on this historical piece of property. She felt the two architectural styles in the context that was provided make sense. Commr. Boudreau stated he was impressed with the design and the in-depth portrayal of the project on the boards. He supports the two different architectural styles. Commr. Schultz stated the project is headed in the right direction, but felt there are some concerns that need to be addressed with the neighbors. Commr. Novak expressed some concern with the scale of Apple Farm II and wasn't sure that it is appropriate for this site. She commented she would like to have seen a detailed visual analysis. She asked staff if the Fire Department hammerhead turn- around was allowed in the 20-foot creek setback area. Planner Ricci explained they have not fully evaluated the setback issue for the improvements, and is not sure if there is any need for an exception yet. Commr. Rawson commented that it is an outstanding project and expressed support for the two architectural styles. Chairperson Stevenson expressed his appreciation with the passion and devotion to the historical context and felt it is an outstanding effort. There were no motions made. 5. CitvwIde. ARC 42-00; Review of Chapter 3 of the draft comprehensive update of the City's design guidelines City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. I- 69 - ATTACHMENT 4 gill�Illll�llll Illlll������(� �IIIIIIIIII IIS Cl of Sal'1 �,llS OBISPO maize� 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 October�.4, 2002 Attachment 6 John and Carole King Rob Rossi 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 122-01: 2223 Monterey Street Discussion of a needed creek setback exception in conjunction with the master plan for the redevelopment of the Motel Inn site, and the construction of new motel units to the northeast, known as the Apple Farm expansion Dear John, Carole and Rob:. The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 21, 2002, provided the following as direction to the Planning Commission regarding proposed creek setback exceptions for the Apple Farm Phase 2/Motel Inn Master Plan project: Fire Access Road located along the east and south sides of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building. Based on the construction of the access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses, the ARC supported the location of the roadway within the setback area in certain locations as it allows for planting with habitat value and water percolation into the underlying soil. Another factor that the ARC cited was that the structural elements of the pavers would not be concrete, but a thin, hard plastic material that occupies less overall ground area than the more familiar concrete types. Apple Farm Phase 2 Building — encroachments into the creek setback area in the vicinity of an oak tree near the existing stables. Given that this is the most constrained portion of the site, the ARC supported some encroachment into the setback here in order to develop a viable building footprint and accomplish other project goals. Screening the parking lot from neighboring residential development by keeping it below motel units, providing emergency access, and maintaining access to a City water line easement on the north side of the building were recognized as project objectives that make it more difficult to also comply with the required creek setback. The ARC agreed that Finding 4 for approval of a creek setback exception, which cites unusual site circumstances as a rationale for supporting exceptions, was applicable here. © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of Its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. I ^� 1 ATTACHMENT 4 P(:- Attachment 6 ARC 122-01 Page 2 Other factors that the ARC found important in their conclusion regarding a rationale for support of proposed encroachments were: • The benefits of the habitat value of the proposed restoration areas. • The nature of the creek vegetation driving the setback line in this area is the rapidly growing willows. The Natural Resources Manager noted to the ARC that the edge of the riparian vegetation had been extended in this area by 10 feet in the last five years. MotelInn Component - a decomposed granite pedestrian pathway encroaches partially in the creek setback area behind the bungalow units. The ARC supported this exception since it was not structural and the decomposed granite surface would allow for water percolation. The Commission indicated that modifications to the location of the pathway might be explored if other plan changes were contemplated. The ARC also wanted to document that two other factors were important in their support of the requested creek setback exceptions: • Removal of several buildings located in the setback along the top of creek bank; • Removal of invasive plant materials and replacement with more desirable riparian plants to create a better quality habitat within the corridor. If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781=7168. Sincerely, `J all •C 611 Pam Ricci, for Ronald Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Dave Watson 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ATTACHMENT4 - Oc- Attachment 7 ORDINANCE NO. 1130 (1989 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP FROM C-T TO C-T-S FOR PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MONTEREY STREET BETWEEN 1603 AND 2223, INCLUSIVE, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP TO EXPAND THE C/OS-5 ZONE ALONG SAN LOIS CREEK BETWEEN MONTEREY STREET AND SAN LUIS DRIVE AS DEPICTED ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings to consider amending the zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the Government Code, and Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed zoning is consistent with the general plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning will not have a significant affect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the proposed "S" (Special Considerations) designation is to address land use compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That the area shown on the map attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and included herein by reference be reclassified from C-T (Tourist Commercial) to C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial-Special Considerations). SECTION 2. That the boundary between Tourist Commercial and Conservation Open Space (5 acre minimum) be modified in accordance with the aerial photographs attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference. icor :+r..,a.?..':-C`•'�-"a-.,. :.- . .. ATTACHMENT Qc- Attachment 7 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) CR 1405 Page 2 SECTION 3. That existing development depicted on the aerial photographs attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and included herein by reference shall retain the zoning conformity status enjoyed as of the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 4. The City will provide written notification to all property owners within 300 feet of any new development or use or expansion of existing development or use subject to Planning Commission review under the "S" designation or subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission, in addition to posting a sign on the property and published notice in the newspaper. SECTION 5. That any new development or use or expansion of any existing development or use approved after the effective date of this ordinance shall be subject to the following design criteria: 1. All new structures approved after adoption of this ordinance shall be setback a minimum 20 feet from the relocated C/OS - 5 boundary. The setback area may be occupied by landscaping, fencing, and pedestrian walkways and like features as determined by the Planning Commission. No new facilities for parking, active recreation or noise generating equipment may occupy the creek setback area. 2. Building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized. 3. Screening shall be provided between the buildings and the creek which may include fencing, decorative walls and landscaped berms, but shall at a minimum include restoration and enhancement of the creekside vegetation. 4. Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification and shall be designed to not shine offsite. 5. The expansion or redevelopment of properties shall make maximum use of common driveways. ATTACHMENT 4 r.L Attachment 7 Ordinance NO. 1130 (1989 Series) CR 1405 Page 3 6. All new uses must be found by the Planning Commission to be compatible with the riparian habitat and adjacent residential uses, considering such variables as light and glare, privacy, noise and'fraffic. In all cases, uses shall be adequately buffered from the creek and adjacent residences in a manner which mitigates potential offsite impacts. 7. Noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer. 8. All drainage to the creek shall be directed in a manner which does not erode the creekbank, harm the creekside vegetation or degrade the quality of the creek and its riparian habitat. This may include the use of debris and rubbish screens, oil and grease traps and erosion control/energy dissipaters subject to the approval of the City Engineer and State Department of Fish and Game. 9. Building height shall be restricted as follows: Within 50 feet of the revised C/OS-5 boundary, maximum height shall be 25 feet. Beyond 50 feet from the revised C/OS-5 boundary, maximum height shall be 45 feet. 10. Grading within the creek setback area shall be limited to that necessary to stabilize the creekbank.and to accommodate landscaping, and shall be done in a manner which does not increase erosion of the creekbank or result in the removal of creekside vegetation. 11. As a condition of every new use established or expansion of existing use, that portion of a commercial lot which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be dedicated as a perpetual open space easement. 12. In special circumstances and by making findings for a variance, the Planning Commission may vary the height and setback standards established by this ordinance . 13. The revised C/OS-5 boundary and design criteria contained in this ordinance shall be be recorded and referenced on the title of all affected parcels. SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage. A copy of the full text of this ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk on and after the date following introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any interested plember of the public. N .t'x:'•�tr_.t����},. •::r..•...... . ..�;y__ .pv.�.:R�Y... .. _ � '!1.w- .c.:\'Yftl:"�" �t,1y.�� „ ,1^ '� �A•7N' }��1,...�•'9$•ra,^"^w„ ..3T,�'+ivrlv>��• 4"f 4.. �{ ..e ,l f4.� f ... ..5•_ ��M.rt��i iw�Faf .i ...... ..r..._ •..:sl:_ ._ ., :. .., r�+..4a., .. _ sr `til.. . a Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Attachment 7 Series) • CR 1405 Page 4 INTRODUCED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the 7th day of February 1989, on motion of Councilman Settle seconded by Councilwoman Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa and Vice-Mayor Peg Pinard. NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Reiss and Mayor Dunin -------------- � d!400 901 SE; yor Ron Dunin ATTEST: Ci�y Clerk Pam Vog APPROVED: City A ministrative Officer City A rney 1114 �- Community Development Director r �•J 13-a� ,.•M'.� ��-��„���}}}� Y 4 � ice. W6 wo �l • JPM �.u�::•. ''yi':”' •,I:'..••�:may._ : AN roffi . I �IMY �..'l�i'• ..� , l do �'�� •-' `\ Vin.•::'>>� r• i' ''�� • •,•:. 17A ENT4 ORDINANC$ N0. 1130' (1989.Series Attachment 7 FINALLY PASSED this 21st day of February 19 89 on motion of Councilmember Settle , seconded by Councilmember Rappa and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Rappa, Pinard, Reiss and Mayor Dunin o NOES: None ABSENT: None -.0040 unin ATTEST: P"' V _ t Cit Clerk Pam VO es .,• y� t f., .. Atta cmCHe I J 4 8 on the side within the 1996 city limits shall be 20 feet 17.16.025 Creek setbacks. and the setback on the annexed side shall be as A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to: provided in part 2 below. 1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and natural 2' Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife creek in an area annexed to the City after July 1, 1996, habitation, rest, and movement. the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a specific plan or development plan approved by the City 2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded Council provides a larger or smaller setback, consistent habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat with the purpose of these regulations and with General corridor can be established. Plan policies. 3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the a. Fifty-foot Setbacks. The setback along the creek corridor. following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek (all of main branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from 4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion San Luis Obispo Creek (main branch) to the confluence and flooding. with Acacia Creek; Stenner Creek. 5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans. b. Thirty-five-foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo Creek; Froom B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback Creek; Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East requirements shall apply to all creeks as defined in the Fork tributary, from the confluence with Acacia Creek to Open Space Element and shown on that element's Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its Creek Map, and only to those creeks. tributaries west of Broad Street (Highway 227); the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks generally parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad shall be measured from the existing top of bank (or the Street (Highway 227), from Broad Street to Fuller Road. future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration c. Twenty-foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks reflected in a plan approved by the City), or from the except those listed in parts "a" and "b" immediately edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, above shall be 20 feet. (Informational map is available whichever is farther from the creek flow line (Figure in the Community Development Department.) 4.1). The Community Development Director may determine the predominant pattern of riparian 3. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially significant vegetation, where the edge of the vegetation varies environmental impacts in compliance with the California greatly in a short length along the creek, in a way Environmental Quality Act, or to implement adopted City unrelated to topography (for example, the Director will plans, when approving a discretionary application the not base the setback line on individual trees or City may require setbacks larger than required by parts branches extending out from the channel or on small 1 and 2 above, or further limitations on the items which gaps in vegetation extending toward the channel). may be placed within setbacks. (Also, other City Where riparian vegetation extends over a public street, regulations may restrict or prevent development in a no creek setback is required on property which is on the floodway or floodplain.) side of the street away from the creek. D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of 4. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly riparian vegetation shall be shown on all project plans approved creek setback smaller than required by this subject to City approval. The location of these features section, prior adoption of this section, by action on a is subject to confirmation by the Community tract or parcell map (whether or not a vesting map Development Director, based on observation of actual architectural review application, use permit, Planned conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of persons Development zoning, or Special Considerations zoning, with expertise in hydrology, biology, or geology. that smaller setback shall remain in effect so long as the approval is in effect. E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback F. Items Prohibited within Setbacks. dimensions are established in recognition of different The following shall not be placed or constructed within a parcel sizes and locations of existing structures for creek setback, except as provided in part G below: areas within the city in comparison with areas which structures; paving; parking lots; in nonresidential zones, may be annexed, and in response to different sizes of areas used for storing or working on vehicles, the creek channels and tributary drainage areas. equipment, or materials. 1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks G. Exceptions to Creek Setbacks. within the city limits as of July 1, 1996, the setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in parts E.3, E.4 or G below. Where the city limit follows a creek, the setback 1. Entitled Replacement Structures. city of san Luis oaispo 36 zonm4 aeGuWtions n MACIi N 4 VC. Attachment 8 Where a structure lawfully existed on or before October chimneys, solar collectors, shading louvers, water 3, 1996, within a creek setback required by this chapter, heater enclosures, and bay or other projecting windows the following shall apply. This part is not intended to that do not include usable floor space. allow replacement of paving that existed on or before October 3, 1996, with new paving or a building, unless a 4. Discretionary Exceptions. discretionary approval is obtained pursuant to part 17.16.025.G(4). a. Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure that are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no may occupy the same footprint, within the creek practicable alternative to the exception. Generally, such setback, as the previous structure, without obtaining a exceptions are limited to small parcels that are essentially discretionary exception. (See also Section surrounded by sites that have been developed with 17.16.020(E)(1)(d).) setbacks smaller than those in subsection E of this section. In the case of pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the and bridges, the site may be large, but there are no encroaching part of the structure (for example, by options for avoiding a crossing of the creek or adding stories). encroaching into the creek setback. c. The part of a structure that is nonconforming due b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than solely to the creek setback encroachment may be required by subsection E of this section may be approved remodeled without regard to the limits of Section by city action on a plan for public facilities approved by 17.14.020(B) and (C) of this title. the city council or on a specific plan, development plan under planned development zoning, land division, use 2. Entitled Accessory Structures and Uses. permit, or architectural review. Where one of these types The following items may be located within the required of applications is not otherwise required for the proposed creek setback, without obtaining a discretionary feature, an exception request shall be in the form of an administrative use permit. exception, provided that they. do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any c. Public Notice. Public notice for a project involving a creek setback exception, regardless of application type, flooding capacity pursuant to the city's flood damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one- shallprop sed to a clear description of the feature or features half of the setback area; are consistent with other proposed to receive the exception, and the extent of the property development standards of the zoning exception. regulations. d. Findings. Each discretionary exception shall be a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with subject to each of the following findings, regardless of the buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the type of project application under which the request is setback area on any development site. considered. b. For a single-family dwelling: uncovered parking i. The location and design of the feature receiving the spaces, patios, and walkways. (Pedestrian paths and exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, bicycle paths require a discretionary exception as water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities provided in part 4.) for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and c. Decks, stairs, and landings which are no more than ii. The exception will not limit the city's design options for thirty inches in height. providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies; and d. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and storage sheds, play houses, and similar uses, provided iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of the projected roof area does not exceed one hundred city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse twenty square feet. environmental effects of implementing such plans;and e. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as gazebos, provided they are constructed using an open size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally lattice design and lightweight materials. to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other 3. Entitled Architectural Features.The following property in the vicinity with the same zoning;and architectural features may extend into the setback up to thirty inches:cornices, canopies,eaves, buttresses, city of san Wis osispo 37 zonmq nequtations I-')9 ATTACHMENT 4 v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege -an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations Attachment 8 upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; L and vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and vii. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. ("Reasonable use of the property" in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, "reasonable development" may mean no additional development considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design, or density.) e. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualified, independent person shall be required for each discretionary exception request, to provide the basis for making finding subsection (G)(4)(d)(i) of this section, unless waived by the community development director upon determining that no purpose would be served by such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception. f. Application Contents. In addition to any other information required for a project application, a request for creek setback exception shall include the following i. A description of the feature or features proposed for exception and the extent of the exception. ii. A description of potential design changes for the project which would eliminate or reduce the need for the exception. iii. A statement why an exception is deemed necessary by the applicant. iv. Mitigation proposed to offset any harmful effects of the exception. city of san Luis owspo 38 zomnq RtGulations ATTACHMENT 4 ec- Attachment 8 edges of predominant creek i riparian tree canopy -�1 creek setback; ' �;. ' setback creek corridor M n I I 1 I '•N I I �y5 i ip 1 I I I r I •X y y ., tr,b +..rtl - 'r: 4. I C n JM!1 '�� fwle `i -- I t 1 f t(•y I��- i d "� fJ:i 3. 00-0f,b n t- ft F.ar_ `r. -� gection View A = x edge of predominant creek riparian tree canopy -�; creek setbadci setback I creek corridor 'e °-, 1 , ' ¢ b edges of groundcover or E_understory riparian plants I r 7 ,�.irictb 1y��a M 1� - • - �aH,- *T e � tt.VYpktG�� "7 1�. � i.�J! +�.. ,• i +'L• TGl^�.T1'r �R �J �{y`^.�} s,,�;S, rs' �F.,,h��q & 5���".' � .fr b � �, •b� ,w x"-+{tau'S"{. 5,e�ya+�£e'�:: r �C '$ 'e�'�`:5,,:�����d',wP]f ;l.T „-`�rtu ,`«rv��'uE� •` r"7..� ye� 5�a.7� 9"`. a�„sr � '�,,�� i����1 c�.+p �S'r�� ,.,�• >l **,y4��n�rV*S's.a,• • + '.3,'�'* a�.]� •e o �� -. � � jT � .. .. its 7 �XW'+ah.n..�`u.....�.t.�.�a.:1g �Zj1 K�piiY�j�P1I+.COY 1 3 �,lF +. _ n gection View B low-growing riparian plants , required setback/ tops of banks - z - flow :- - - — -- - fi ripariantrees � ----- - . t` . . required setliaoli Plan View crty of san tars osrspo 39 zoning aequtatrons STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRA` RTATION.AND HOUSING AGENCY \ '���jcHMta1'TT Y DAVIS,Governo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50A STREET LUIS L Attachment 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415 TELEPHONE (805) 549-3111 Flex yourpowel TDD (805) 549-3259 Be energy efjcien http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05 November 6, 2002 SLO-101 PM 30.22 Motel Inn Remodel - Motel Inn Driveway Options Choice Mr. Terry Sandeville City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 995 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Dear Mr. Sandeville; Thank you for your phone call last week concerning your need for a formal statement from the California Department of Transportation (Department) for its choice among the three options for the relocation of the driveway for the Motel Inn Remodel project. The Department requests that the City promote as a condition of approval for this project, Option # 1 as mitigation, to include the following: • Provide only one driveway and relocate as far south along Trellis Court frontage street as possible. • Lengthen the northbound Route 101 on-ramp by approximately 180 feet. • Add a left-turn lane to the northbound 101 off-ramp. (Striping of the left- turn lane to be formally approved during the Encroachment Permit application process). • Prohibit parking along the east side of Monterey Street from the Apple Farm Inn to the northbound on-ramp. • . If the costs associated with the mitigation on the State highway system are under $1 Million, then the project proponents will need to apply for an Encroachment Permit. Please call Mr. Steve Senet, Senior Permit Engineer at 549-3206 for more information on the permit application process. If the costs are over $1 Million, then the project proponents will need to do a Project Study Report (PSR), with a Department Project Manager to be assigned for quality assurance of the document. improves mobility across California" 0^ ATTI ACHMEHT 4 Mr. Terry Sandevillc November 6, 2002 9(_ Attachment 9 Page 2 The Department prefers Option # 1 because based on the limited amount of detail provided in preliminary Option layouts, Option # 1 most closely adheres to the standards set forth in the 5th Edition of the Department's Highway Design Manual (HDM), Topic 504-2, Interchange Design Standards for Single Lane Freeway Entrances and Exits. Option # 1 promotes an on-ramp curve radius geometric that will permit higher approach speeds and the on-ramp extension is close to standards described in Figure 504.2A on page 500-11 of the HDM. I hope this gives you an understanding of the Department's concerns regarding this project. If you have any questions please call me at 549-3683. Sincerely; James Kilmer District 5 Development Review cc: File, D. Murray, R. Barnes, S. Senet, T Houston 4? " :altrars improves mobility across California" rg n - Al IRLIIMtN1 4 9 Attachment � 1 � a C30 o ;� e0 g z, :;0 pow g � i i / Eli Q 1♦ ••• @9 It ♦ f ♦ Tl�p� Attachment 10 i December 18, 2002 v E N T u R E S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Califomia 93401-3249 Re: "DEVELOPER's STATEMENT of PROPOSED USE and DEVELOPMENT" for MOTEL INN - APPLE FARM, San Luis Obispo, California DEVELOPER's STATEMENT Project Objectives It the owner's objective to create a master plan for development on the subject sites. The proposed use will include the rehabilitation / reconstruction of the historic Motel Inn site, including repairs to the main hotel and restaurant building, and the reconstruction of the courtyard bungalow buildings around the footprint of the original courtyard. Additions of new hotel and visitor-serving uses will include additional units for the Motel Inn, developed around the historic structure and courtyard, and the expansion of hotel rooms for the Apple Farm to the north of the Motel.Inn site. Further additions proposed include the creation of a spa for guests to the site, and meetings rooms/facilities for both the Apple farm and Motel Inn uses. 124 hotel rooms are proposed in the projects, with a 3,600 SF spa, 6,486 SF of conference, banquets and meeting rooms, and 178 new parking spaces. Proposed Improvements The projects would include development of supporting infrastructure including driveways, curbs,gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage systems above and below ground, wastewater collection and transmission lines, water distribution systems, and underground wire utility systems. Improvements are also anticipated to the northbound Highway 101 on- and off-ramps adjoining the site, reorientation of driveway access from Monterey Street, signage and striping improvements, and restrictions to street parking to improve visibility. Motel inn/Apple Form Projects "Developer's Statement" King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX t r Al IAUMMLN 14 12/18/2002 Page t - Attachment 10 Hours of Operation The project will primarily be a commercial, tourist serving facility. Local services for dining and meetings will also be provided. As such, dining and meetings service are anticipated from 7AM to 12PM, and the hotel accommodations will be a 24 hour operation. Employees Preliminary estimates of employees for the proposed use include our estimates of maximum numbers of needed maintenance and management personnel. Generally, on average, we estimate about 65% of the maximum numbers of employees year-round. This is due to seasonal fluctuations in personnel to meet visitor demands. They break down as follows: Motel Inn & Spa Apple Farm II Expansion Total 76 rooms - 10 maids 48 rooms - 5 maids 15 maids Site - 3 grounds Site - 2 grounds 5 grounds Spa - 6 staff 6 spa staff Restaurant- 10 10 restaurant Management- 4 Management- 1 5 management 41 new employees Averaged Daily New Employees (65% of max.) = 27 employees Affordable Housing Compliance To the degree required, we will comply with City ordinances in this regard. Exceptions To City Development Regulations Exceptions to city development standards proposed include (1) creek setback exceptions for emergency path, (2) mixed-use parking space reductions, and (3) building height encroachments into the C/OS-5 overlay zone. Details of these proposed exceptions are included in our plan submittals. List of Agencies to Approve Project We are not aware of any other agency permits required. MOTINNptrip02Cev8tmt Motel!nn/Apple Farm Projects "Developers Statement" f � V� e RIIAUHMLN14 Attachment 10 V E N T U R E S Apple Farm Expansion) Condo-Hotel Project Description Our proposed project consists of 48 visitor-serving condominium units located adjoining the Motel Inn main building restoration, new hotel units, spa,restaurant, conference facility, and lobby buildings(see attached map). These units are proposed to be built over a large parking facility to serve both the Apple Farm 2 and Motel Inn projects. These 48 condominium hotel units are designed to provide amenities typical of a visitor unit, including a separate bathroom for each unit, a balcony or porch area; a jacuzzi tub for each unit, and a modest closet area for the guests. The Apple Farm 2 units average 503 SF in size, and do not contain kitchens or other`residential" amenities that would encourage extended stays. Single or double unit occupancies are planned to accommodate family and business travelers needs. In all respects the units look, feel like and will be used as a commercial visitor-serving unit. A leading purpose for proposing the condominium hotel format is for generating capital for the overall construction project. The concept as proposed at the Apple Farm 2 expansion includes marketing each of the 48 units to potential investors that are interested in the economic upside of a hotel property. The subdivided airspace is delineated in the same fashion as a traditional condominium.format (condominium plan is surveyed and recorded that defines the three- dimensional airspace). But unlike a"timeshare" interest where you typically purchase a week of time each year, in a condo-hotel each investor acquires a single unit s=pdwrw airspace interest. The owner also assumes various obligations and operational rules comprising the CC&R's for the site, which include among others a requirement for unified management of the condo-hotel, so that the city may address a single management entity, and so that all rentals of the units are coordinated through the unified management entity. These CC&R rules are also designed to insure payment of transient occupancy(or"bed")taxes, to insure maintenance of the site, and to restrict use of the units so that they are not converted to long term residential use. All these matters, and others, are to be managed on-site by the hotel operator, on behalf of the owners. Each unit will have specific limitations on owner occupancy to prevent residential use, and to provide optimum visitor serving rental use. Owner use will not exceed 28 days per year aggregate, including a Imitation of no more than 7 days between Memorial and Labor Days. Condominium unit development will include covenants, conditions, and restrictions assuring primary use of the units for transient occupancy. A sample set of CC&R's contemplated for the hotel are attached to this"Project Description". As suggested earlier, these CC&R's will require all occupancies by owner's to include payment of all occupancy taxes to the city. This is achieved by utilizing the posted corporate occupancy rate for all owner occupancies, and then applying the city's current occupancy tax to this rate. In this fashion, all occupancies of units at the proposed Apple Farm 2 expansion will pay this tax. AFSLOp,ojde=ip01mndosoW 17/18!= King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544 4444 805 544-5637 FAX (. i ATTACHMENT 4 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND L Attachment 10 2 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: 3 King Ventures 4 290 Pismo Street 5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 7 Apple Farm Phase II, San Luis Obispo, California 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 SECTION - DESCRIPTION PAGE 10 Section 1.0 - RECITALS 2 I1 Section 2.0 - DEFINITIONS 3 12 Section 3.0 -TRACT MAP AND EASEMENTS 5 13 Section 4.0 - SITE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION 14 AND MAINTENANCE 6 15 Section 5.0 -,USE AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS 9 ps 16 Section.6.0 -ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF PROJECT 10 17 Section.7 0 - ENFORCEMENT AND:REMEDIES 10 18 Section 80 -AMENDMENTS 10 19 Section.9.0 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 11 20 EXHIBITS 21 EXHIBIT - DESCRIPTION 22 Exhibit "1" - Legal Description 23 Exhibit "2° -Tract map 24 Exhibit "3° -Visitor-Serving Deed Restriction 25 Exhibit "4" - Public Access Easements 26 Exhibit "5° - 27 Exhibit "6° - Page 1 10117/2002 Draft f �8� ,- Al IA RNI4 v Attachment 10 1 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2 Apple Farm Phase II Hotel Development, San Luis Obispo, California 3 SECTION 1.0: RECITALS 4 1.01. Description of Real Property. Declarant is the Owner of that certain real 5 property in the city of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, State of California, 6 commonly referred to as the "Apple Farm Phase II°. Said Property is more 7 particularly described on Exhibit "1", attached hereto and incorporated herein by 8 reference. 9 1.02. Resort Development Project. Declarant intends to improve the real 10 property by constructing improvements to include condominium hotel units, a dobby, 11 administrative and maintenance facilities, landscaping, creek and habitat restoration. 12 areas, trails and paths, recreational facilities and ancillary and.related improvements 13 in accordance with resort development plans and permits approved by the City of 14 San Luis Obispo. By this Declaration„ Declarant intends to establish certain 15 occupancy and use restrictions for the Project, as well as prescribe various common 16 and shared access, parking, .jrecreation, maintenance, easements and similar 17` considerations for the operation of the total tesort Project. 18 1.03. Common Plan For Development Proiect. By this Declaration, Declarant 19 intends to establish a common scheme and plan for the possession, use, enjoyment, 20 repair, maintenance, restoration, improvement, management and occupancy of the 21 resort. Integral to this Project is the adjoining Motel Inn development, which contains 22 speck elements of the resort as noted in the aforementioned permit approvals. 23 Coordinated improvements, development, construction, maintenance and use of the 24 parcels as a visitor-serving commercial resort are required under said permits. 25 1.04. Destination Resort Character. This Project is specifically designed as a 26 destination resort and appurtenant facilities for accommodating public visitation to 27 the Project on an accommodation basis as required in the Project approvals granted 28 by the City of San Luis Obispo. Each Owner acknowledges and agrees to abide by 29 and be bound by the occupancy limitations for the visitor units enumerated in Page 2 10/172002 Draft I�� COMM o(- Attachment 10 1 Section 5.0 herein. Each Owner further acknowledges and agrees that coordinated 2 use, operation, and management of the Property is an integral element to the 3 success of the Project. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the real property described on 5 Exhibit 1° shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, mortgaged, encumbered, leased, 6 rented, used, occupied, sold and improved, subject to the following declarations, 7 limitations, covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements, all of which are 8 declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a parcel subdivision for the Project, and .. 9 for the purpose of enhancing, maintaining and protecting the value and': '. 10 attractiveness of the Property, and the Project, and every part thereof, in accordance I l with the plans for improvement of the Property. 12 Consistent with California Civil Codes, all of the following limitations, covenants, 13 conditions, restrictions,. and easementsshall' .constitute covenants which shall run 14 with the land, be enforceable by equitable servitudes, andshall be binding upon 15 Declarant and its successors and assigns, and all parties having or acquiring any 16 right, title or interest lin, onto, any part of the Property or the Project. 17 SECTION 2.0. DEFINITIONS 18 2.10. Condominium Plan. Shall mean the final air space condominium plans 19 recorded 2003, as 20 2.15. Com. Shall mean the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California. 21 2.25. Hotel. Shall mean the hotel units and ancillary facilities located on Lot 1 of 22 Tract No. 2500. 23 2.30. Owner. Shall mean the fee title holder/ subdivider of Tract 2500 referred to in 24 Section 2.35, below, and on Exhibit "2" of this Declaration. Owner shall also refer to 25 the condominium air space owner of those certain portions of the project for which a 26 condominium map and plan has been recorded as referred to herein. Page 3 10/17/2002 Draft 1 -191) ATTACHMENT 4 Attachment 10 1 2.35. Tract Map or Map. Shall mean the final subdivision tract map recorded 2 2003, in the County of San Luis Obispo Recorder's Office, Volume 3 Page , establishing one (1) lot for condominium purposes for the 4 subject Property referred to in Exhibit "1° of this Declaration. 5 2.40. Project. Shall mean the approved resort project for the subject site, including 6 but not limited to, a _ unit transient lodging visitor resort comprised of 7 condominium air space visitor lodging units, administrative and maintenance 8 facilities, landscaping, roads, paths, patios and pools, spas, and related 9 improvements as shown on City-approved plans and as evidenced by City of San 10 Luis Obispo permits referred to herein. 11 2.45. Property. Shall mean the property described on Exhibits "1" and "2" hereof, 12 and more particularly the entire resort development. that is the subject of this 13 Declaration, exclusive of the buildings. Property shalt.be.,used herein to make 14 reference to the utilities, roads, paving and. paths, landscaping, recreational 15 improvements and allother improvements and facilities of.the_resort other than the 16 hotel, health spa, restaurant, conference and lobby buildings located within the Motel 17 Inn project area adjoining the7ract 2500 Apple Farm;Phase 11 site. 18 2.50. Responsible Party. Shall mean that. person, entity, company, or firm duly 19 designated under the.'Wanagernerit Agreement" (or his/their designee) referred to in 20 Section. 4.0 hereof, ,that shall be the primary person, entity, company, or firm to 21 handle management of the total resort operations. Such person, entity, company, or 22 firm shall maintain contacts with all governmental agencies, private vendors and 23 interested individuals on behalf of and to the benefit of the resort project and will be 24 duly authorized to act on behalf of the Owner(s) of the resort project. 25 2.60. Transient Occupancy Tax. Shall mean the fees collected by the City of San 26 Luis Obispo for transient occupancies of the subject resort. pursuant to City 27 ordinances in effect and the conditions of the subject Project, as they may be 28 modified from time to time. Page 4 10/17/2002 Draft - ATTACHMENT 4 V L Attachment 10 1 SECTION 3.0: TRACT MAP AND EASEMENTS 2 3.01. Tract Map. A Tract Map ("Map") No. 2500, recorded , 2003, in the 3 County of San Luis Obispo Recorder's Office, Volume , Page , 4 establishes one (1) parcel for the subject Property. This Map is attached hereto and 5 incorporated herein as Exhibit "2". Said Map describes the entire Property and resort 6 Project. Said parcel is subject to this Declaration, including deed restrictions and 7 easements of record and the City's Permits for use and development of the subject 8 Property. 9 3.02. Easements. The Map describes a series of reservations and exclusive and 10 non-exclusive easements for use of the site. These easements include (a) access 11 easements of ingress and egress over all lots within.the subject site in. favor of all 12 parcels, (b) easements for public access parking and pedestrian access as required .. 13 by City permits, (c) public safety easements in the formof access, emergency 14 services, and public utility access easements,,and..(d) easements to public utilities 15 and City for water main, wastewater, creek and habitat restoration, power, 16 communications, utilities and similar services for the purpose of entering upon the 17. property to perform _such maintenance, repair, or replacement, if any, as the 18 Declarant dr.Gity or Utility Companies elects to do in accordance with the provisions sp 19 of this Declaration, :or as may otherwise be required in the future to service any 20 portion of the Property or Project. Exhibit "4" of this Declaration describes a series of 21 public pedestrian, vehicular and parking access easements that are of record, 22 consistent with City permits. In addition to the Map, Declarant may reserve and/or 23 record additional easements in favor of one or more public or private parties as they 24 may relate to the resort Project, which easements shall not conflict with the terms 25 and conditions of the development and use permits (including all easements and 26 deed restrictions required therein). Page 5 10/17/2002 Draft ATTACHMENT 4 ipc- Attachment 10 1 SECTION 4.0: SITE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 2 4.01. Coordinated Management. At the time of subdivision of the Property, the 3 underlying property comprising Tract No. 2500 shall be owned as an undivided fee 4 interest by the future Owners of the condominium units of the hotel air space units. 5 The hotel air space condominium interests may be conveyed to various individual 6 Owners. The negative effect of separate managing interests that could result shall 7 be avoided through a cooperative program for managing the mutual interests and 8 concerns of the various Owners. 9 4.02. Management Agreement. The operation and use of the Property shallbe 10 administered under a "Management Agreement" executed by and between each of 11 the Owners of the Property. Said "Management Agreement" shall address those 12 issues of operation and maintenance of the Project that are of mutual interest, 13 including but not limited to, shared pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, 14 restoration areas, recreational areas and facilities, lobby areas, utility lines and 15 services, right to enter any or all of the individual' lots to cure violations of this 16 Declaration, maintain, repair or replace.improvements`or property located on the 17; subjectsite toinstall maintain, iepa�r or.replace utilities, and to address such other 18 responsibilities:'and oWigations',as may be consistent with the stated use and 19 operation of the subject°resort Project. 20 4.03. Responsible Party. Said "Management Agreement" shall designate a 21 °responsible party° to serve as the primary contact for, and act in furtherance of, 22 management related issues for the entire resort Project and Property. 23 4.04. Retained Responsibilities of Owners. Nothing herein shall relieve individual 24 Owners of those responsibilities unique to their ownership interest, including, without 25 limitation, payment of special, supplemental and regular taxes, charges, fees and 26 assessments, individual utility services for which utility meters and service are 27 established for the subject Owner's parcel, insurance, maintenance, repair and 28 replacement of any buildings and ancillary and structural building improvements on 29 Owner's parcel, all equipment, furnishings and contents of the buildings and units on Page 6 10/17/2002 Draft l- 113 MACHMENT4 9L Attachment 10 1 individual parcels, recreational and pool/spa equipment located within individual 2 parcels, and such other customary, extraordinary or routine needs, costs and 3 expenses unique to an Owner's interest in a parcel. 4 4.05. Shared Fees and Assessments By Owners. It is the express intent of 5 Declarant to provide for regular and special fees and assessments to be levied 6 between the various Owners in a manner necessary to carry out the purposes and 7 responsibilities of the Project. To accomplish this, the following provisions shall 8 govern all Owners: 9 4.05(a). Duty to Maintain, Repair and Replace Property Improvements. Owners . 10 of the subject Project, as defined herein, shall have a duty to maintain, repair 11 and replace, as necessary, all Property improvements, including, without 12 limitation, shared pedestrian and vehicular access;: landscaping, restoration 13 areas, on-site storm drainage facilities, public improvements, recreational 14 areas and facilities, administrative and maintenance areas; utility lines and 15 services, to install, maintain, repair or replace utilities,..and to address such 16 other responsibilities and.obligations as may be consistent with the stated use 17 and operation of the subject resort Project. This Section is specific to the site 18 improvements and does. not..:include shared responsibilities for maintaining 19 pafcel-specific buildings as;referenced in Section 4.04, above. Maintenance 20 standards may be further detailed in the "Management Agreement" noted in 21 section 4.02, above, however, all maintenance shall, at all times, be 22 conducted in a manner consistent with the permits for use of the Project 23 issued by County. 24 4.05(b). Allocation Of Costs To Maintain, Repair And Replace Property 25 Improvements. Owners of parcels shall share the costs of maintenance, 26 repair and replacement of Property improvements in equitable prorations 27 based on final unit counts of the approved hotel project. 28 4.05(c) Responsible Party To Estimate, Inform and Enforce Cost Allocations. 29 The responsible party shall have the duty to provide regular and special 30 estimates for work to be performed, and Owners proportionate share of said Page 7 10/17/2002 Draft �0(4 - ATTACHMENT 4 lec- Attachment 10 1 estimates in a written allocation. The responsible party shall maintain all 2 records, receipts and such other information that shall be made available to 3 Owners upon request. Regular estimates shall be presented to each Owner 4 annually, on or before January 1 st of a given calendar year. Owners share of 5 regular estimates shall be due and payable as frequently as monthly, but no 6 later than quarterly, said calendar year for which the estimates apply. Special 7 estimates may be distributed to Owners as frequently as necessary to 8 maintain, repair and replace the Property, and are due and payable upon 9 receipt. All proceeds of these estimates shall only be used for the purpose or 10 purposes for which the estimates were made. 11 4.05(d). Failure To Pay Estimates; Lien Rights. Should any,parcel Owner fail to 12 pay his share of any estimate, then the responsible party and/or any Owner 13 may, in addition to exercising any other available remedy,`send a notice to: 14 such Owner that his payment is d( linquent, and that failure to pay said: 15 estimate within :ten,'(1'0): days after the,:date of the notice will subject the 16 Owner to interest on such delinquent amounf(s) at the ra#e of ten percent . ..,:.. 17 (100/0),per annum until-the:delinquent amount and accrued interest are paid in 18 . full, and.further,-that the responsible:pa6 may execute, acknowledge and 19 record:.a: claim of lien against the delinquent Owner's parcel in the Office of 20 the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, California, without 21 further notice to Owner. The responsible party shall provide a copy of the 22 claim of the lien to County. In the event that the lien is not satisfied within 23 ninety (90) days after filing said lien, the responsible party may proceed with 24 foreclosure on said parcel and lien. Nothing contained in this section shall be 25 construed as limiting the remedies available to the responsible party or 26 Owners of other parcels for default by any Owner hereunder. Any claim of lien 27 shall not be prior and superior to the rights of the holder of any encumbrance 28 made for value on the parcel of the defaulting .Owner recorded prior to 29 recordation of any claim of lien. Page 8 10/17/2002 Draft /� MACHMENT 4 e c- Attachment 10 1 SECTION 5.0: USE AND OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 2 5.01. Visitor-Serving Use. The Project shall continuously be managed, operated 3 and used as a transient, visitor lodging facility with ancillary services and facilities. 4 The uses permitted for the site shall be consistent with that certain Deed Restriction 5 recorded as Recorder's Series Document No. on 2003, in the 6 County of San Luis Obispo Recorder's Office, Volume Page . This 7 Deed Restriction, attached hereto and included herein as Exhibit "3°, further 8 specifically precludes conversion of any of the subject resort units to permanent 9 residential use. 10 5.02. Owner's Occupancy and Payment of Transient Occupancy tax.. As 11 consideration for Owners purchase of a unit, Owner shall be.entitled to occupancy 12 of their unit for a period not to exceed twenty-eight:(28)Aays within any calendar 13 year. Said occupancy shall further be limited to no more than seven (7) consecutive 14 days between the period of May 25th.1hrough September 10th of a given year. 15 Owner's shall be responsible for payment of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for 16 their occupancyof their unit.. at any and all times.: TOT payments for Owner's 17 occupancy°.shall be calculated against the corporate 'rate available at the Hotel, 18 rnultiplted by;the City's then current TO.T.rate. Payment of Owner's TOT shall be 19 made.to the. Hotel at the conclusion>'of Owner's occupancy in the same manner as 20 for any other Hotel visitor. 21 5.03._ No Offensive Activities. No noxious, offensive or unlawful activity shall be 22 carried on, in or upon any parcel or any part of the Project, nor shall anything be 23 done thereon which may be, or may become, an annoyance or nuisance to the 24 resort operation or which shall in any way interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the 25 Property and Project. All roads, driveways, public or private utility easements, 26 pedestrian accessways, entries and passages shall remain unobstructed and shall 27 not be used for any purposes other than ingress and egress and other intended 28 uses. 29 5.04. Uses Consistent With Permit Approvals. All uses of the subject Property and 30 Project shall be consistent at all times with City permit approvals referred to herein. Page 9 10/17/2002 Draft I -9 lv ATTACHMENT 4 Attachment 10 I SECTION 6.0: ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF PROJECT 2 6.01. Architectural Design. The resort shall maintain consistency with 3 City-approved color schemes and architectural design, as provided for in City 4 permits and approvals on file at the City's Planning Department. Deviations from 5 these architectural design standards shall require written approvals from City. 6 6.02 Signs. A uniform sign program providing for thematic consistency for unit 7 identification, directional signs and other identification signs for the resort will be 8 installed and maintained consistent with City approvals and permits. 9 SECTION 7.0: ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES 10 7.01. Enforceability. The covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Declaration 11 shall run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by any 12 Owner, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors:and assigns. These 13 covenants, conditions, servitudes, rights, reservations, limitations and restrictions 14 may be enforced through any and all available legal remedies, including, but not 1,5 limited to, injunction, declaratory relief and action to abate'a nuisance by any party of 16 interest in the;Project Prevailing parties 'in any such action shall be entitled to 17 reasonable attorney's fees and costs for bringing such legal action. 18 7.02. Alternative Dispute Resolution. If agreed to between the parties to such an 19 action; disputes may be submitted to binding arbitration in an effort to resolve said 20 disputes. 21 SECTION 8.0: AMENDMENTS 22 8.01. Amendments To Declaration. This Declaration may be amended through 23 mutual written consent of 75% of the Owners of the units referred to in Section 3.0, 24 above. 25 8.02. City Approval Required. No amendment, change, modification or termination 26 regarding the provisions of this Declaration specifically related to the City's approvals Page 10 10117/2002 Draft - ATTAGHMLN 14 Attachment 10 1 of the Apple Farm Phase II Project shall be effective for any purpose until approved 2 in writing by a duly authorized representative of the City of San Luis Obispo. 3 SECTION 9.0: GENERAL PROVISIONS 4 9.01. Term. This Declaration shall have an initial term of ninety-nine (99) years 5 from the date of recording, and shall be automatically extended in successive ten 6 (10) year terms unless an action to suspend or terminate such an extension of this 7 Declaration is entered into in writing by 100% of the parties hereto; provided further 8 however, that City shall be considered a party to this Declaration to the extent their 9 permit approvals and the conditions for operation and use of the Projectwould be 10 affected by such suspension or termination. In such case, City written.approval to 11 suspend or terminate this Declaration shall be required. .. 12 9.02. Easements Reserved and Granted. Any easements :appurtenant to a parcel 13 referred to in this Declaration shall be deemed reserved and/or:granted by reference 14 to this Declaration in any deed to said parcel. 15 9.03. Successor(s). The rights and responsibilities of Declarant in this Declaration 16 shall be assigned to any successor to all, or any.part,;of any of Declarant's interest 17 in. the Project. Any transfer by Declarant of one or more of the parcels of the Map 18 referred Wherein shall include :a:'transfer of such interest to a successor through a 19 recorded deed or by an assignment incorporated in any other recorded instrument 20 making'.: express reference to such an assignment. A mortgagee acquiring 21 Declarant's interest in the Project by foreclosure or deed in-lieu of foreclosure shall 22 be deemed to be a successor to the rights and responsibilities of the Declarant. 23 9.04. Severability. Should any provision, or portion hereof, be declared invalid or in 24 conflict with any law by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of all other 25 provisions and portions hereof shall remain unaffected as to binding effect and shall 26 remain in full force and effect. 27 9.05. Benefit of City. The provisions of these CC&R's which are reasonably related 28 to assuring compliance with the City's permit approvals shall run with the land and Page 11 10/17/2002 Draft -9� MACHMEW4 v (- Attachment 10 1 bind the Property and it's Ownt benefit of the City, as may be 2 applicable. v E N TJ U R E S 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration and hereby 4 certifies that Declarant consents to the recordation of same, and said Declaration 5 shall be effective beginning the date of recordation. 6 Dated: 12003 7 By: 8 9 10 12 EXHIBITS 13 "I" Legal Descnption (Written) 14 a2"- Final Tract Map 15 03"- Visitor-Serving Deed Restriction 16 `4"- Public Access Easements 17 °5"- 18 "6"- Page 12 10/172002 Draft King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX 1 -019 Al IAUHMtN14 Attachment 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 122-01 1. Project Title: Apple Farm& Motel Inn Master Plan 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: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner (805) 781-7168 4. Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist-Commercial 7. Zoning: C-T-S, Tourist-Commercial with the Special Consideration overlay zoning 8. Description of the Project: The project includes retention of some, and demolition of other, architectural elements of the main Motel Inn hotel and restaurant building. The applicant's intention is to retain the key character defining architectural elements of the main building, namely the domed tower with arcade that was the office area and portions of the opposite end of the building that housed the restaurant. Plans show that the bungalows behind the main building will be demolished and replaced with c- Attachment 11 new buildings, but that the Mission Revival architectural style and traditional courtyard configuration will be retained. Other new buildings with the same architecture are planned to the east and west of the main building and bungalows. The Motel Inn complex of buildings will house 76 guest rooms, conference facilities, a banquet room and a spa. In addition, there will be buildings housing 48 guest rooms to the north. This building will have more of a Victorian architectural style similar to the existing Apple Farm complex to the south. A total of about 85,000 square feet of building area is proposed in the project including 124 hotel rooms. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is located on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, and is adjacent to the Highway 101 on its north side. The site backs up to San Luis Obispo Creek on its south side and the single-family neighborhood along San Luis Drive. Other motel projects surround the site to the north and west. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The project requires environmental review, architectural review and a Planning Commission Use Permit. A tract map for a commercial condominium has also been submitted which will allow for the units in the new Apple Farm development to be individually sold. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Project will require permits from Caltrans, and potentially the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish& Game. `i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1-1 V I Al I&Me11 i q @(- Attachment 11 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Transportation& Quality Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance X Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the X payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review X 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)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2001 I -100 Al I RUMN 14 i 9c Attachment 11 DETERMINATION: 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 Rrepared. 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 X made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.is re uired. 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 miti ation measures that are imposed u on the vroposed proiect, nothin further is required. January 16,2003 Signature Date John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name maw i� CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 I-cu 3 ATTACHMENT 4 q c- Attachment 11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ]. 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 analysis in each section. 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. 'Potentially Significant Unless 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 17, "Earlier Analysis,"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) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 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. 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 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 address site-specific conditions for the project. _r CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKuST 2001 S A'tYJc��ment X11 Issues,Discussion and Supporting'Information Sources Sources ,.,entially Potentially Cess Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 6 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a Have a substantial verse effect on a scenic vista. 2 b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic 2 X buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 X The Motel Inn is architecturally distinctive, historically important, and a tamlllar landmarktothose driving along Highway 10 1 through San Luis Obispo. The site has been neglected for many years now, and the main building and bungalows are in a state of disrepair. Development of a successful project concept for the site is complicated by its irregular shape, and adjacency to Highway 101, San Luis Creek, and single-family homes on San Luis Drive. Because of the site's visual prominence and its challenging constraints, project plans were sent to both the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and Architectural Review Commission(ARC)for conceptual review for early consultation and input prior to completing this initial study. Back in 1989, the site and other commercial properties on the east side of Monterey Street were rezoned to add the "S", Special Consideration overlay zoning to the underlying C-T, Tourist Commercial zone. The implementing ordinance, City Council Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites in the affected"S" overlay zone. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental quality are addressed in the adopted design criteria. The design criteria include conditions on the locations of building openings, lighting performance standards, screening between uses, riparian corridor protection, building height, grading limitations, and drainage. In addition to the ARC's review of plans,the site's C-T-S zoning requires the processing of a use permit. The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the ARC's final review of project plans. The potential neighborhood compatibility and environmental impacts will be the focus of the Planning Commission's review of the required use permit. The applicant has prepared a visual analysis to help City staff, the ARC, the Planning Commission, and project neighbors understand the visual impacts of the developed project. This analysis is attached to this initial study as Appendix A. At the ARC's conceptual review on February 19, 2002, a video version on the visual analysis was presented. The video shows a computer model of proposed buildings superimposed on the existing natural backdrop. This visual analysis shows three principal views of the project: • Motel Inn component from Loomis Street across Highway 101, and the Monterey Street off-ramp at Highway 101 north. The visual simulation does not show significant changes to these views with project development. There are added roof forms between existing building elements, but the scale is in keeping with character-defining building components that will remain, like the bell tower. The added construction does not adversely impact views of the background hills. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. • Apple Farm component from Highway 101 northbound. Given that this area of the site is undeveloped and the new building is relatively tall, with two levels of building area over parking, the visual impacts from these vantage points will be the most significant in terms of changes to existing conditions. While there will be a significant change, that change is not necessarily adverse. The new building will be prominent, but it does allow for existing views of the background hills to remain. With views from the highway, the portions of the building, which are visible, are well articulated with a corner tower element with conical roof and varied roof forms Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 c-IDs ENT Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources ..,rentially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Mitigation Impact Page 7 Incorporated Mitigation Measure: The Architectural Review Commission shall carefully evaluate project building colors and details of the Apple Farm building to insure that the project's massing appears in context with existing vegetation and the hills beyond when viewed from the highway corridor. • Both Components from across San Luis Creek. Because of the proximity of the site to an existing established R-1 neighborhood, land use compatibility issues are especially important with the review of this project. The visual analysis shows that the existing canopy of vegetation in the riparian area will screen views of the project. Project landscaping plans also show that substantial new planting will be added to the riparian area and other portions of the site that will further enhance this screening. In addition, the substantial depth of the corridor helps to diminish the impacts of the new construction. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. In terms of glare and lighting issues,Ordinance No. 1130 had the following condition: 4. Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification and shall be designed not to shine offsite. The ARC routinely reviews all exterior lighting locations and details with its consideration of project plans. The existing ARC process provides for adequate review to assure that all fixtures direct light downward and prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. However, given the sensitivity of neighbors to potential glare issues from the site, the following mitigation measure is recommended to explicitly document what is expected with project lighting. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or spill onto adjacent properties to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification. Plans submitted for final review by the ARC shall include details of wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall include decorative wall lights,as well as service area wall pack lights. If proposed,details of any pole or bollard lights shall also be included in plans reviewed by the ARC. New lighting standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height, from the approved finished grade to the top of the fixture. Illumination levels at the finished grade below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 footcandles under the fixture and 3 footcandles at the dimmest point, which shall be confirmed with photometric plans submitted with working drawings. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: aConvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland o Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of X the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? 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 X Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Further development ot the project site no potentia to aciversely arrect agricultural resources. CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1 -IOCp Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources ro.entially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 8 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 3,4,5 X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) 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 4,5 X (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Liased on anticipated traffic volumes,the project has ta potential to exceed contammant Uiresholds established bby-Fe County Air Polution Control District(APCD). Therefore,project plans,along with excerpts from the traffic analysis done by Keith Higgins for the project,were sent to APCD. The APCD responded with a Project Response Form. That form includes recommended mitigation measures. The following paragraphs discuss potential air quality impacts: Short-term Impacts During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. City Municipal Code Section 15.04.020 V.(Sec.3307.2)contains the following statement regarding dust control: "All graded surfaces shall be wetted,protected or contained in such manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street." While compliance with this generalized standard is often found to be adequate mitigation,the following mitigation measure is recommended which incorporates the more specific mitigations recommended by the APCD. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures shall constitute a dust mitigation plan which shall become a part of working drawings and be in effect during project construction: a. The amount of disturbed area shall be reduced where possible. b. The permanent dust control measures identified in the approved revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. c. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed I5mph. Reclaimed(non-potable)water should be used whenever possible. d. Exposed ground areas,which are to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading,should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. 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. f. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Long-Term Impacts San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMio(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in CITY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 - 1C)q Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources ..nentially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 9 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated diameter)air quality standards. The 1995 Clean Air Flan or San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted y the APCD to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook,land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds a day of reactive organic gases,oxides or nitrogen,sulfur dioxide,or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. The APCD Project Response Form indicates that the operational emmisions of the ozone precursor Nox are expected to exceed the 10 pounds per day threshold. Based on the size of the project,air quality impacts are considered to be potentially significant. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. The project will incorporate features such as required bicycle parking,on-site eating facilities,and extensive tree planting that will help to achieve the long-term goals of typical air quality mitigation measures like those recommended in the APCD's letter to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. However, projected operational vehicle emissions for the project would still exceed APCD thresholds for ROG,Nox, and CO and would fall under Tier 2 APCD thresholds. In order to minimize operational air pollutant emissions above County of San Luis Obispo APCD thresholds, the following mitigation measures shall be required: Mitigation Measure: The project will implement an aggressive parking demand reduction and management program. This program will include designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. The program will provide for preferential carpool/vanpool parking, continued shuttle service,and discount transit. The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to the City Transportation Division,for review and approval or amendment,which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved. Asbestos Another air quality issue with respect to the proposed development is the presence of naturally occurring asbestos. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the state and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. As required by the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining, a geologic evaluation is necessary to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is present on the site. If naturally occurring asbestos is present, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. These requirements may include but are not limited to an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan, which must be approved by the APCD before construction begins. An Asbestos Health and Safety Program is also be required by the APCD for some projects. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: aHave a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 6 X plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department 6, 9 X of Fish and-Game-or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 (-lDq 9 c- AttAMAN f Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources i-mentially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-0I Significant Significant Si Pagnificant Impact Page 10 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated c Conflict wiWanylocaf pokes or oar "finances pmtectmg biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or 7,8,9 X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? 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 6 X wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Endangered,Threatened or Rare Species The applicant's biological consultant,Levine-Fricke,did a May 2002 field assessment. The findings of this field assessment are published in a report entitled"Ecological Analysis of the Apple Farm Phase 2/Motel Inn Riparian Setback Encroachments"dated 8-20-02,which is attached to this initial study as Appendix B. The report indicates that there was no sensitive wildlife species identified at the time of their field assessment. However,the report also documents that the site and surrounding area provides suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog,Southwestern pond turtle,South-Central California Coast steelhead,and Yellow-billed cuckoo,as well as several bird species. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. Retaining the creek channel in an open condition as proposed will preserve the biological value this zone presently offers. As is discussed in the Riparian Habitat portion of this section of the initial study below,there will be a net gain in viable riparian habitat, and the value of that habitat will actually be enhanced, with project development. Even though City staff from experience on other projects in the nearby vicinity do not expect to encounter the California red-legged frog in or near the project work area, the following mitigation measure, which was recommended by the biological consultant, is included to conduct a protocol survey prior to project construction to determine definitively the presence of the California red-legged frog. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall have a United States Fish& Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol survey for the potential presence of the California red-legged frog conducted prior to the onset of project construction. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director for review and a determination of need for further action. If frogs are found in the creek, then appropriate protective facilities would need to be installed. If frogs are found on the work site,then City staff will consult with the USFWS. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between March Ist and August 30th, then the applicant shall hire a qualified biological consultant to conduct a follow-up inspection of the site to determine the status of the potential red-shouldered hawk nest and to identify any nesting birds in the area. If the nest is active, it may be necessary to reschedule construction activities to determine appropriate disturbance perimeters around the nest. Riparian Habitat(Creek Setback Requirements) The most important natural feature of the site is San Luis Obispo Creek.The City's Creek Setback Ordinance(Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations)formally adopted setbacks for new development along designated City creeks. At this location,a minimum of a 20-foot setback for buildings and other improvements from the top of the creek bank,or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater,must be maintained unless an exception is CITY OF SAN Luis O81SP0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 i Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources rotentially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-0] Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 11 Mitigation Incorporated granted.This setback was determined to be suthcient to allow for substantial tree p antmg etween a tree'—I iks an adjacent structures,and minimizes the need for future creek improvements for flood management and protection of structures. The creek setback is intended to protect scenic resources,water quality,and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest,and movement,as well as public safety. Submitted plans show in detail the edge of the riparian corridor and the required creek setback. The setback has been reviewed thoroughly in the field with the applicant's representatives,Community Development Department staff,and the City's Natural Resources Manager. With the subject site,some riparian vegetation, including willows,sycamores and oaks, extend beyond the actual top of physical creek bank. The ordinance provision for establishing the creek setback line based on the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation becomes important since the growth patterns of some of the riparian plants, most notably the sycamore trees, include prominent branches that extend,far into the site. As designed,there are three different types of proposed project improvements that would encroach into the creek setback area: 1. Portions of an emergency access road located along the east and south sides of the proposed.Apple Farm Phase 2 building. 2. Portions of the proposed Apple Farm Phase 2 building in the vicinity of an oak tree located in the narrowest part of the site near the existing stables. 3. A small extent of a decomposed granite pedestrian pathway behind the Motel-Inn bungalow units. On October 21,2002,the Architectural Review Commission(ARC)conducted a field trip to the site to review the riparian setback area and to discuss proposed creek setback exception requests. The ARC indicated their support for the requested creek setback exceptions based on what they determined to be significant extenuating circumstances and provided the following direction: 1. Emergency Access Road Based on the construction of the access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses, the ARC supported the location of the roadway within the setback area in certain locations as it allows for planting with habitat value and water percolation into the underlying soil. Another factor that the ARC cited was that the structural elements of the pavers would not be concrete,but a thin,hard plastic material that occupies less overall ground area than the more familiar concrete types. 2. Apple Farm Phase 2 Building(building encroachments) Given that this is the most constrained portion of the site, the ARC supported some encroachment into the setback here in order to develop a viable building footprint and accomplish other project goals. The following project objectives that make it more difficult to also comply with the required creek setback were cited: screening the parking lot from neighboring residential development by keeping it below motel units;providing emergency access;and maintaining access to a City water line easement on the north side of the building. The ARC agreed that Finding 4 for approval of a creek setback exception, which cites unusual site circumstances as a rationale for supporting exceptions,was applicable here. Other factors that the ARC found important in their conclusion regarding a rationale for support of proposed encroachments were: • The benefits of the habitat value of the proposed restoration areas. o The nature of the creek vegetation driving the setback line in this area is the rapidly growing willows. The Natural Resources Manager noted to the ARC that the edge of the riparian vegetation had been extended in this area by 10 feet in the last five years. 3. Motel Inn Component(decomposed granite pathway) The ARC supported this exception since it was not structural and the decomposed granite surface would allow for water percolation. The Commission indicated that modifications to the location of the pathway might be explored if other plan CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200/1' - 11D c. Attacf�m�en l�fill q Issues,Discussion and Stipporting Information Sources Sources r,,.entially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Pa12 Issues YJ Icss Impact Page Mitigation Incorporated changes were contemplated. The ARC also wanted to document that two other factors, were important in their support of the requested creek setback exceptions: • Removal of several buildings located in the setback along the top of creek bank, • Removal of invasive plant materials and replacement with more desirable riparian plants to create a better quality habitat within the corridor. Conclusion: Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. The ARC, the City's Natural Resources Manager, and the biological consultant, Levine-Fricke, have concluded that the project as designed, including proposed creek setback exceptions, will not have a significant adverse impact on the site's biological resources and the overall health and vitality of the riparian corridor. This conclusion is based on large part on proposed enhancements to the riparian corridor proposed along with the project and highlighted in the next portion of this Biological Resources section of this initial study. However, a final decision on the creek setback exception request will be made as part of the Planning Commission's review of the required use permit. The Planning Commission will consider the recommendations of the ARC, findings of the initial study,conclusions of the ecological analysis,and discussion included in the staff agenda report,to determine whether proposed findings for the needed creek setback exceptions can be made. Mitigation Measure: If the requested creek setback exceptions are approved by the Planning Commission,then the project.shall include the following riparian corridor enhancements: a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. Riparian Habitat(Corridor Preservation) The existing creek corridor is identified on the Creek Map(Figure 4)of the Open Space Element as a"perennial creek with good riparian corridor." The Open Space Element calls for the preservation and enhancement of riparian habitats by: providing adequate creek setbacks;maintaining creek corridors in their nature states;restoring degraded creeks;utilizing riparian vegetation when possible;prohibiting invasive and non-native plants in creek corridors;and avoiding tree removals in creek corridors. Currently there are site improvements and several buildings, including some of the old Motel Inn sheds and support structures that encroach into the riparian setback area. The Levine-Fricke ecological analysis documents that invasive plant species such as pampas grass and vinca have taken a major foothold in the creek area. Along with its further development, the City would like to see a healthier riparian habitat established at the site. As shown on the submitted exhibits, it is a major goal of the project to create a net gain in viable riparian restoration areas with project development. A Riparian Management Plan for the project was prepared by firma and is attached to this initial study as Appendix C. The purpose of the plan is to identify the existing riparian values of the site,and maintain and enhance those values during and beyond development. The plan identifies where the proposed encroachments into the creek setback occur and expands on how the project will increase certain riparian zones. The plan also provides a strategy for removing undesirable plant species that have become established within the riparian corridor and new proposals for planting to augment the existing species with good habitat value. The previously described encroachments into the required creek setback area comprise a total of 983 square feet,or 4%of the required setback area(required setback area of 22,082 square feet when measured as a linear setback zone along the creek). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STuOy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 [I--c I I Qc— Aftal NNIH11 Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Lcntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 13 Mitigation Incorporated To compensate for these encroachments,the applicants have increased the creek setback in other locations by a total of 6,841 square feet,which is about 31%of the total required creek setback area. Therefore,project plans show that the creek setback area will exceed the minimum requirement by about 27%with expanded setbacks in certain locations and taking into account encroachments. The project includes the removal of 3,063 square feet of buildings presently located within the required creek setback area in the vicinity of the Motel Inn. Zoning Code Sections 17.16.025.G.a and c(Exceptions to Creek Setbacks)permit the applicants to retain and in fact remodel these structures in their present location. Voluntary removal by the applicants will further enhance restoration of the creekside riparian habitat of San Luis Creek. In order for the riparian management zones to be viable for both the short-term and long-term,sensitive initial installation of new plant materials,the removal of invasive plant species,and an aggressive maintenance program will be necessary. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall provide a long-range maintenance program for the site's riparian zones which includes the following: a. Provision for"specialized"trimming and mowing of the grasses to be planted in the reinforced plastic grid structural system of the emergency access road, recognizing the effort to incorporate this area as a functional part of the riparian area. b. Installation of a "soft" barrier to discourage public access to riparian zones, such as a split-rail fence between riparian planting and other site improvements,and gates or bollards at the end of the emergency access road. c. Limitations shall be established for use of the emergency access road to ensure that it does not become a service and maintenance driveway that invites frequent use. d. Placements of educational signage at appropriate locations. e. Requirements for early and on-going inspections by Community Development Department staff and the Natural Resources Manager. f. Establishment of a 5-year monitoring program,which includes the submittal of semi-annual progress reports. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a use a substantial verse change in the significance of a 10,11, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 12, 13 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 14, 15 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Historic Resources The existing main building is included on the City's Master List of Historic Resources. It has a ranking of 3, which means that it is significant at a local level and also eligible for the National Register. The distinctive Mission Revival building was constructed in 1924-25. This main building has both architectural and historical significance. Arthur S. Heineman, the architect and builder, wanted to create an updated version of the missions with this prototype project. The most memorable feature of the building, its three-stage bell tower, is modeled on the Mission Santa Barbara. The building's main historical significance is that it has been touted as the first motel in America. Betsy Bertrando prepared a Historical Resource Inventory dated September 2000. It provides specific information on the main building, as well as describes the outlying historic bungalows and support buildings behind them. With project development, these buildings are proposed for demolition. As described in a report from structural engineers, Lampman & Smith, the buildings constructed of plaster over gypsum blocks have badly deteriorated because some of the center cavities �+ii CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 t4�- AttachrAupI 4 Issues,Discussion and Supportinglnforination Sources Sources c.,.cntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 14 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated were filled with sand and no concrete or grout was used to tie the blocks together. Given the potentially significant impacts to historic resources,the City's historical preservation board,the Cultural Resources Committee(CHC) reviewed project reports and plans on November 26, 2001. The CHC was supportive of the project with conditions regarding the demolitions,the proposed addition to the main historic building,and the new Apple Farm addition. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Impact unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures To assure that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties,the recommended conditions of the CHC are included as mitigation measures. a. A detailed HABS/HAER historic inventory report shall be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction. b. One of the rebuilt bungalows shall include some recycled building components from the demolished bungalows. c. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. The roof of the"Ramada"section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. e. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. f Retain the site's historic landscape features. g. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. It. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Farm addition. i. Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. Archaeological Resources The project site is considered to be an archaeologically"sensitive area"because it is within 200 feet of the top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. This designation requires that the applicant contract with a certified archaeologist to perform a surface survey and prepare a report of findings. Bertrando & Bertrando in January 20002 prepared an Extended Phase 1 Testing report,which is attached to this initial study as Appendix D. No archaeological deposits were identified as a result of the fieldwork conducted for this report. While no archaeological resources were discovered in the test trenches prepared for the Phase 1 study, it is possible that resources could be uncovered with project excavation and grading. The following measures are recommended to mitigate any potential archaeological or cultural impacts to a level of insignificance. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources,archaeological resources or cultural materials,then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. Mitigation Measure: 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 the grading and construction plans for the project. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: =a o _: adopted._."energy cons .n- 16 X c wton p ti)_ •Usemon-renewable resources in a wastefiil and inefficient 16 X CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 UP15 9 c. AttaAW111 I Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources ....entially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Pae 15 Issues Unless Impact Page Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? The Energy Element states that, eco development will a encourage to mmuntze the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code,which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand,as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner,the following standard mitigation is recommended: Mitigation Measure: The project shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: aExpose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other 17 X substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 18 X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 18 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 18 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 18 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 offsite landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, 18, 19 X liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 19 X or property? Seismic Hazards There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However,the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4,a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Landslide The site also lies in an area identified by the Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the"F",Franciscan Formation, zone that has a high landslide risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "the Franciscan Formation is composed of incompetent material of complex structure". The evaluation included in the element qualifies its applicability by noting that it is based on natural conditions and does not account for changes in stability that may accompany development. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1114 Q(_ AttachAPT1111L1�I Issues,Discussion and SupportffillInformation Sources Sources ntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant significant Significant Impact Pae 16 Issues Unless Impact Page Mitigation Incorporated Soils The soil underlying the site is classified as Conception loam(121)-a very deep,moderately well drained,gently sloping soil on marine terraces formed in old alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks. According to the soil survey,permeability is very slow and the available water capacity is moderate or high. Surface runoff is medium,and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The soil has high shrink-swell potential in the subsoil. Foundations and footings require special design considerations because of high shrink-swell potential, low strength and hardness to pack the subsoil. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. While the site is generally suitable for development,with proper grading and foundation designs,a soils report will be required to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications,and recommendations in the reports must be followed in the final project design.Grading operations will be done in accordance with the City's grading regulations and should not create any erosion or unstable soil difficulties.This process will assure that the soils present no problems in the near-or long-term. Mitigation Measure: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted,as approved, as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. d. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: aCreate a significant hazard to the public or the environment though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the X environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 18, emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 20 X substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list ofbazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety X hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are X interinmed with wildlands? Given the age of the motel inn complex, there is a high likelihoodt asbestos-containing materials were used to the original construction. In addition, a gasoline service station existed on the property from 1925 until the late 1940s. Given CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1- K, qc- Attachrr MNLI1ll Issues,Discussion and SupportinrInformation Sources sources .ttially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 17 Issues Mitigation on nIcss impact Incorporated these circumstances, a Phase I environniental site assessment was preparey eres ssocnates m cto er , w Ic Is attached to this initial study as Appendix E. The site assessment documents the following as potentially hazardous environmental conditions: . Possibility that underground storage tanks may exist at/or adjacent to the location of the former service station. . Need to properly secure or abandon two wellheads. . Potential for asbestos materials to have been used in the construction materials of the building. Recommendations are included in the site assessment regarding the potential issues noted above, which will require certain follow-up actions to correct. For 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 construction materials of the building. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall follow 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. 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 groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of preexisting X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide 21 X substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 21 X onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Drainage There will be an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces(buildings and paving)on the property with the development of the project,which could affect absorption rates and drainage patterns in the area. However,this impact is not as significant as might be expected with a project of this scale given the relatively large area of the existing site that is presently developed with buildings,parking lot areas and driveways,and concrete walkways and patios. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1'�Ii0 ra VL AttachAWMIL111 Issues,Discussion and SupportinTTnformation Sources Sources itially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 18 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated According to the General Plan,development near a creek should be designed so it does not cause,or make worse,natural hazards such as erosion,sedimentation,flooding,or water pollution. Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of porous paving,landscaping,or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff and aid in the ability for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. As discussed in Section 4.,Biological Resources,of this initial study a Riparian Management Plan was submitted for the project,which discusses how a healthier creek zone will be created,and identifies opportunities for increasing the extent of viable riparian restoration areas with project development. Three components of project plans that will help increase natural percolation into the soil are: • An overall increase in the size of the viable riparian restoration areas with project development. • Removal of several existing buildings located within the creek setback area. • Construction of the emergency access road with turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. A preliminary grading plan for the project has been submitted. Given that the site is relatively flat,proposed grading will not substantially alter site contours and generally result in a fairly close balance between needed cut and fill. Due to the site's topography and proximity to San Luis Obispo Creek,storm water drainage from the site naturally flows directly into the creek. The Public Works Department reviewed plans and commented that storm water run-off discharged from this site,as a result of the proposed increase to impervious surfaces,should not adversely affect downstream or adjacent properties. However,water runoff could potentially cause problems with water pollution,without proper mitigation. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal and to prevent drains from plugging up and overflowing. Best Management Practices(BMPs)for drainage shall be followed. Flooding According to the Flood Emergency Management Agency(F.E.M.A.)Flood Insurance Maps,the portion of the property where development is proposed is in Flood Hazard Zone B. During a 100-year storm event,there maybe some shallow over bank flooding. Sites in a B-Zone are considered to be outside of the special flood hazard zones(A-Zones),which require special construction techniques and mandate that owners carry flood insurance. However,the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations require that new development have a finished floor elevation that is at least one foot above the existing natural grade elevation. Submitted plans indicate that the proposed finished grades and floor elevations can comply with the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. Compliance with the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations will mitigate flooding impacts to a less than significant level. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: aConflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation ot 21, an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 23 X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans? 23 X General Plan Land Use Element(LUE) The site is designated Tourist Commercial on the General Plan Land Use map. According to the LUE,lodging and CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 (-A -1 Qc- Attachm&%�4�VILNI Issues,Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources tially Potemially t ess Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 19 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated conference facilities are appropriate uses in Tourist Commercial areas. e LUE also encourages the location of visitor- serving uses along the upper portion of Monterey Street(LUE 3.4.2). LUE Policy 3.4.5 establishes appropriate building intensity levels for tourist commercial developments within the City. According to the General Plan,the ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 2.5. The project is the construction of approximately 85,000 square feet of floor area on an approximately 4-acre site(a ratio of 0.47). The project is well below the maximum floor area ratio. Conclusion: No impact. The proposed uses,project location and floor area ratio are consistent with the General Plan LUE. Zoning Regulations Back in 1989, the site and other commercial properties on the east side of Monterey Street were rezoned to add the "S", Special Consideration overlay zoning to the underlying C-T, Tourist Commercial zone. The implementing ordinance, City Council Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites in the affected"S"overlay zone. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental quality are addressed in the adopted design criteria. The design criteria include conditions on the locations of building openings, lighting performance standards, screening between uses, riparian corridor protection, building height, grading limitations, and drainage. In addition to the ARC'S review of plans,the site's C-T-S zoning requires the processing of a use permit. The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the ARC'S review of plans. The potential neighborhood compatibility and environmental impacts will be the focus of the Planning Commission's review of the required use permit. The project site is zoned C-T-S(Tourist Commercial with the Special Consideration overlay zoning). The City's Zoning Regulations allow lodging facilities in the Tourist-Commercial zone. However,the`5"overlay zoning requires the processing of an administrative use permit with development to insure that the particular special considerations associated with this site are addressed. The special considerations with this site include:the site's relationship to the creek,and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek.Although the residential area is screened by established plant materials(large trees and shrubs)from the motel site,there still could be potential glare and noise impacts to residents. The required use permit can be conditioned to address potential compatibility issues associated with the development of lodging facilities at this site. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. The required use permit process is in place and will assure that the special considerations of the site related to land use compatibility are addressed with the review of development plans. Noise issues, which relate specifically to land use compatibility,are addressed in Section 10. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: aExposure of people to or generation of"unacceptabIC noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards 24,25 X established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 24,25 X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbotne noise levels? X d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 c - 119 VC Attachm8pW! � Issues,Discussion and Supportuis information Sources sources .ntially Potentially Less Than No ER 4 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 20 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated o miles of a public atrpo_ .or pu__ic use aupo would_ e project expose people residing or wonting ifi the project area to excessive noiseevels? Highway 101 Noise The site is located adjacent to Highway 101, which is the principal noise source affecting existing and future noise conditions. Hotels and motels are noise sensitive uses as designated by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. Outdoor noise levels in the 60-70 dB range are classified as "conditionally acceptable". This means that development may be permitted if it is designed to meet the identified noise exposure standards. Because of existing and projected noise levels at the site, the applicant was required to prepare a noise study to evaluate mitigation strategies for both meeting interior and exterior noise standards. That noise study prepared by Donald O. Asquith, Ph.D., which is attached to this initial study as Appendix F. 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 separation from the noise source does reduce the noise levels from traffic from what they would be if the noise source were at the same elevation. Given the influence of topography on noise levels, three separate maps were prepared showing expected decibel levels at the ground,second and third levels of project buildings. Outdoor spaces that are created with the project should be designed to consider noise sources and exposure of visitors to noise. The project contains several outdoor use areas including the patio area, new pool area, and roof garden of the spa within the Motel Inn complex, and the second floor roof garden of the Apple Farm Future noise levels will exceed 60 dB at some of the proposed outdoor use areas. Proposed buildings have been designed to act as noise walls that will attenuate sound by 10-15 dB to acceptable levels in all locations. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure The Architectural Review Commission with their review of project development plans needs to insure that outdoor use areas are properly attenuated from noise if they require significant changes to building heights or wall locations surrounding these areas. Project's Noise Impacts to Neighbors The project site is zoned C-T-S(Tourist Commercial with the Special Consideration overlay zoning). The special considerations with this site include:the.site's relationship to the creek,and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek. Ordinance No. 1130(1989 Series)which adopted the C-T-S zoning for the site,as well as other nearby sites on the same side of Monterey Street, included Design Criterion No.7 to address potential noise concerns. That criterion says"noise generating uses such as parking and active outdoor recreation uses should be located on the interior of the site,using buildings as a buffer." To a considerable degree,project buildings will help buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition,the main parking area for the project is mostly enclosed and located on the fust level of the new Apple Farm building. This allows for parking to be visually screened and any issues with noise and headlight glare to be reduced to insignificant levels. On the Motel Inn side of the project,there is a surface parking lot located at the project's far westerly side. Buildings on three sides surround this parking. Therefore,the project design can be found to be consistent with Design Criterion No.7 of Ordinance No. 1130. In terms of the main outdoor use areas including the pool bungalow courtyard,and common roof gardens,these also are consistent with Design Criterion No.7 in that they are proposed to be internal to the project. There are several outdoor balconies proposed on the creek side of the Apple Farm building. From a purely environmental perspective,the anticipated noise levels from conversations of guests sitting or standing on proposed decks would not be considered significant(over 60 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Vc- AttachrAWKIVI Issues,Discussion and Supportin". nformation Sources Sources 4ially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 21 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated However,Criterion No.2 of Ordinance No. 1130 recommends that balconies and other building openings facing the creek be minimized. Factors that may justify the balconies as planned include: • The amount of dense vegetation between the Apple Farm building and the closest homes. . The distance of homes from the locations where balconies are proposed. • The fact that an open space parcel borders the far northeast end of the project site,rather than homesites. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure: The Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No.2 of Ordinance No. 1130. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Conclusion: No impact. The project is the construction of a hotel, conference center, spa, and restaurant which will serve the traveling public. The developer's submitted statement indicates that on average there will be about 27 maintenance and management employees on site. It is not anticipated that the jobs created by the new tourist commercial uses would involve the relocation of people into the community. Therefore, no significant impacts to population and housing are expected to occur with implementation of the project. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government 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 ire protection. X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Conclusion: No mp . A looping emergency access road is shown on project plans,which extends from the roundabout in the main project driveway to a connecting point on the south side of the Apple Farm building. The inclusion of this road in the project addresses the City Fire Department's access needs. 14.RECREATION. Would the project: a crease the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? Conclusion: No Impact- The project does not involve the development of housing;no Impacts to Parks and Recreation are expected to occur. CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 I K77�oO (Pc- Attachrr JATV1171611I Issues, Discussion and Supportins information Sources Sources itially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 22 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated 15. TRANSPORTATIONR'RAFFIC. Would the project: a rue an increase in trattic which is substantial in relation to the 26, X existing traffic toad and capacity of the street system? 27 b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management 27 X agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. X farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, X noise,or a change in air traffic patterns? Project Traffic Impact: 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 delay 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) for this project, which is attached to this initial study as Appendix G. The TIS evaluates how traffic from the project will effect the operation of nearby intersections. According to the TIS, full development of the motel complex will generate about 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 forecasts how this additional traffic will be distributed to the following intersections and evaluates its impact on level of service. 1. Monterey Street &U.S. 101 NB On/OffRamps 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 concludes that under "existing + project" conditions, area intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (generally at LOS C or better), in compliance with San Luis Obispo Circulation Element standards. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. Cumulative Traffic Impacts: The Traffic Impact Study also considered this project's contribution to cumulative traffic volumes that will be experienced at area intersections at"build out"of the City's General Plan. Under cumulative conditions, the TIS evaluates build out traffic conditions,with and without the project's traffic being added in. This cumulative analysis shows 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 the project's traffic being added in. The TIS concludes that signalization does 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 stop controls. Given the awkward CITY OF SAN LUIS OnISPo INITIAL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 --L- 1�A QC AttachmeATIAYHRNI Issues,Discussion and Supportinrlinformation Sources Sources __.rtially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 23 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated configuration of this intersection, addi ional design analysis may be needed under build out conditions. This analysis should consider the installation of a roundabout as an alternative to signalization or all-way stop controls. Under build out conditions the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp(intersection#5)would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour,without project traffic being included in the analysis. The TIS concludes that signalization of this intersection does not meet Caltrans wan-ants, 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 must pay City Transportation Impact Fees ($665 per motel room). These revenues can be used to pay for mitigating adverse traffic conditions at area intersections. Payment of the TIF constitutes this project's fair share contribution to mitigating potential future substandard conditions. Design Features: A driveway on Monterey Street will provide Access to and from the project site. This driveway is a 40-feet wide (street width) facility that will serve both the project site and the existing Trellis Court Motel. By providing this consolidated facility, the project will not introduce traffic at the entrance to the northbound freeway on ramp—the current access point to the old Motel Inn. The project applicants have also proposed that the northbound off ramp of Route 101 be modified to include a left tum pocket that enables access to this new consolidated driveway entrance. The applicants have evaluated other driveway designs and reviewed them with the City Transportation Staff and with Caltrans officials. The project's TIS evaluates three optional designs for project driveway access to the site (shown as Exhibits 11, 12, and 13 within the TIS). The City staff believes that Options I and 2 are acceptable and workable and will provide adequate access to the site. In a letter dated November 6,2002 to Terry Sanville from James Kilmer(District 5 Development Review)Caltrans has provided written support for Option #1, which would maintain the northbound on ramp to the freeway at its current configuration. Neither City nor Caltrans staffs support the"roundabout"option(Option#3)at this location. The TIS also notes that the northbound on-ramp to the freeway is currently of substandard length. Exhibit 12 in the TIS illustrates how the eastern shoulder of the freeway can be modified and the tamp extended by 330 feet and terminated before it reaches the under-highway culvert for San Luis Obispo Creek. The exiting State highway right-of-way appears capable of accommodating this modification without encroachment onto the adjoining project site. The November 6, 2002 letter.from Caltrans also requests that the City include,as a condition of approval,the lengthening of the northbound Route 101 on-ramp by approximately 180 feet. The project contributes to the use of this on-ramp, although the extent of this use is judged by the TIS to be less than significant (less than 10%). Also, the less-than-standard design is a pre-existing condition. The applicant is proposing to provide a fair share contribution to Caltrans for the modification of this on-ramp. Modifications to these highway ramps are not a part of the City's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Therefore, any arrangements for financial contributions will be between the applicant and Caltrans and Caltrans will be responsible for establishing a financing program for upgrading the ramp. Based on the findings of the TIS, extending the ramp is not needed to address a significant adverse effect caused by the project. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. Parking:. A total of 172 automobile parking spaces and 24 motorcycle parking spaces are proposed to serve site uses including the motel rooms, restaurant, spa, and conference center facilities. Motels/hotels have a parking requirement of one automobile space for each room plus one space for resident manager's quarters. Based on 124 rooms, the motel portion of the project would have an automobile-parking requirement of 124 spaces. Other uses would also add to the project's parking demand. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Pc- AttachmentJMtNl Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources ntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 1 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated The applicant is requesting a o mixed-use and shared parking reduction as part of the require use permit. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. With its review of the required use permit, the Planning Commission will be considering the mixed-use and shared parking reduction. The Planning Commission agenda report will contain a thorough analysis of planned uses and parking requirements for automobiles, motorcycles and bicycles, along with a recommendation on the mixed-use and shared parking reduction. The number of motel rooms or the size of other facilities may need to be reduced if the Commission does not support the mixed-use and shared parking reduction. No further mitigation is necessary. 16. 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 treatment,wastewater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,the 28 X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X expanded water resources needed? d) 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 and addition to X the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 29 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Water Treatment&Distribution Facilities Utilities Department staff has reviewed this project. Comments note that the project is subject to water and wastewater 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 service it,as well as wastewater treatment facilities. Water Supplies The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected;change the use of land or buildings,whether or not a construction permit is also required;obtain a construction permit." The project will increase future water demand. The City currently has water to allocate,and does so on a"first-come,first- served"basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand. Solid Waste Reducing the amount of waste generated and disposed of,and increasing the amount of waste that is recycled,can extend the life of existing landfills,and reduce the need for expensive new sites or expansions of existing sites. The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority reports that per capita disposal,from all sources,in the State of California is approximately 4-5 pounds of waste per day.Cold Canyon landfill,the primary disposal facility for the City of San Luis Obispo, is projected to reach its capacity around 2018. CITY OF SAN LUIS Omspo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1 - I '\8 Qc- Attachmengljj[TVUVI Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources :ntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 25 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated Policy: Consistent with requirements specified in AB939,the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element calls for the diversion of 50%of all solid waste from landfills by January 1,2000 through source reduction,recycling,and composting activities. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Cumulatively,projects that do not provide for recycling in all phases of their construction and operation prematurely reduce the capacity of landfills and result in the consumption of raw materials and resources rather than reuse of recycled materials in the manufacture of new products. Mitigation Measure: To help reduce the waste stream generated: a. The project shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. b. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials,such as concrete,sheetrock, wood,and metals,from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director,prior to building permit issuance. c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components of the project and in surfacing wherever feasible. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. aDoes 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 X rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Without mitigation the project would have the potenti'al to have adverse impacts fora a issue areas checked tote table on Page 3. b) Does e project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable X when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects) e impacts identined in this initial study are specs is to this project and would not Fe categon--zed as cumulatively significant. c oes the project have environmental effects which wW cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectly? 1-Witti incorporation ot mitigation measures,the project wil not resu t m su stantr averse impacts on umans. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 f- IeA B(— AttachAIWUOi Ml a Issues,Discussion and Supportu,s Information Sources Sources _I;ntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 26 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated 18. SOURCE REFERENCES City Council Ordinance No. Series). Visual Simulation prepared by the Robert Richmond Company,August 2001. Municipal Code Section (Sec. oJect Response Porm from APCD dated10-21-02. s it QualityHandbook",August 1995. _�Ecoogical Analysis of the Apple Farm Phase 21Motel Inn Riparian Setback,Encroachments" ate - y Levine-Fricke. 7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek SetbackOrdinance(Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations). . City of San Luis Obispo Open pace ement AppleFarm/Motel nn Riparian Management Plan,August 2002. Historic Resources Inventory, December 1983. Historical reservation Program Guidelines,February 1987. Historical Resource inventory prepared by Betsy Bertrando dated September 2000. 13. ampman-&Smithstructural evaluation dated 9w 19-00. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Ciuldelines,October 1995. Extended ase I Testing,Bertrando&Bertrando,January 2002. City of SLU Energy Conservation Element,April 198 1. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist to compliance with the quist- no o Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990. 18. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element,July 2000. Soil urvey of San Luis Obispo County,US SoilConservation Service, 1984. Phase I EnvironmentalSite Assessment by Ceres Associates dated October 25, 1999. City of SLO Land Use Element,April 1997. Flood Insurance Rate Map(Community Panel 060310 0005 C)datedJuly 7, 198 1. 23. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations,February 1997. 24. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element&Guidebook, May 1996. Noise Investigation prepared by Donald Asquithate . Trip Generation, Institute of I ransportation Engineers,6th Edition,Volume 2. Motel moa ra is Analysis Report prepared by Higgins Associates dated March . City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations,June 1995. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element,Brown,Vence&Associates,July 1994. NOTE: All of the a ove.source references that are not attached as appendices are available upon request in the Community Development Department. 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall carefully evaluate project building colors and details of the Apple Farm building to insure that the project's massing appears in context with existing vegetation and the hills beyond when viewed from the highway corridor. Monitoring Program The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1 - li;� Vc- Attachme�ri Ui IdICIVI 11 )Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources __.ntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 27 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure 2: All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or spill onto adjacent properties to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification. Plans submitted for final review by the ARC shall include details of wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall include decorative wall lights, as well as service area wall pack lights. If proposed, details of any pole or bollard lights shall also be included in plans reviewed by the ARC. New lighting standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height, from the approved finished grade to the top of the fixture. Illumination levels at the finished grade below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 footcandles tinder the fixture and 3 footcandles at the dimmest point, which shall be confirmed with photometric plans submitted with working drawings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 3: The following mitigation measures shall constitute a dust mitigation plan which shall become a part of working drawings and be in effect during project construction: a. The amount of disturbed area shall be reduced where possible. b. The permanent dust control measures identified in the approved revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. c. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent airborne dust from leveling the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be use whenever possible. d. Exposed ground areas, which are to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading, should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. 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. f. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15mph on any unpaved surface at the construction.site. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the dust mitigation plan becomes a part of working drawings. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4: The project will implement an aggressive parking demand reduction and management program. This program will include designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. The program will provide for preferential carpool/vanpool parking, continued shuttle service,and discount transit. The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to the City Transportation Division, for review and approval or amendment, which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20011 � '1 tl AttachQA� H NT 4 Issues,Discussion and.Supporting Information Sources Sources .entially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 28 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Monitoring Program: City Transportation Division staff will be the lead in reviewing the parking demand reduction and management program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 5: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program: The applicant shall coordinate with APCD prior to building permit issuance to meet requirements. Community Development shall monitor by insuring that the requirement has been met prior to signing off on working drawings. Mitigation Measure 6:. The applicant shall have a United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol survey for the potential presence of the California red-legged frog conducted prior to the onset of project construction. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director for review and a determination of need for further action. If frogs were found in the creek area, then appropriate protective facilities would need to be installed. If frogs were found on the work site,then City staff will consult with the USFWS. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between March 151 and August 30th, then the applicant shall hire a qualified biological consultant to conduct a follow-up inspection of the site to determine the status of the potential red-shouldered hawk nest and to identify any nesting birds in the area. If the nest is active, it may be necessary to reschedule construction activities to determine appropriate disturbance perimeters around the nest. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager shall be the lead in reviewing the study and coordinating with other agencies. Mitigation Measure 7: If the Planning Commission approves the requested creek setback exceptions,then the project shall include the following riparian corridor enhancements: a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the working drawings for a building permit include all required enhancements and through subsequent inspections with the Natural Resources Manager. CITY OF SAN Lu1S OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 't - Id I - P Attachm�hi '"f TVICIV l I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources _.entially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 29 Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure 8: The applicant shall provide a long-range maintenance program for the site's riparian zones which includes the following: a. Provision for"specialized"trimming and mowing of the grasses to be planted in the reinforced plastic grid structural system of the emergency access road, recognizing the effort to incorporate this area as a functional part of the riparian area. b. Installation of a "soft" barrier to discourage public access to riparian zones, such as a split-rail fence between riparian planting and other site improvements, and gates or bollards at the end of the emergency access road. c. Limitations shall be established for use of the emergency access road to ensure that it does not become a service and maintenance driveway that invites frequent use. d. Placements of educational signage at appropriate locations. e. Requirements for early and on-going inspections by Community Development Department staff and the Natural Resources Manager. f. Establishment of a 5-year monitoring program, which includes the submittal of semi-annual progress reports. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager will be the lead in reviewing the long-range maintenance program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 9: To assure that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties,the recommended conditions of the CHC are included as mitigation measures. a. A detailed HABS/HAER historic inventory report shall be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction. b. One of the rebuilt bungalows shall include some recycled building components from the demolished bungalows. c. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. The roof of the"Ramada"section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. e. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. f. Retain the site's historic landscape features. g. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. h. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Farm addition. i. Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings fora building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 10: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 t- ice AttachARA HfN N14 Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources antially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 30 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 11: 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 the grading and construction plans for the project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 12: The project shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 13: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building permit applications: The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff will review the recommendations included in the soils engineering report along with working drawings submitted for a building permit. Mitigation Measure 14: The applicant shall follow 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 - c Attach WENT 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources entially I Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Pae 31 Issues Unless Impact $ Mitigation Incorporated Monitoring Program: The Fire Department shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent studies necessary and assuring that any site clean-up has taken place prior to building permits being issued. Mitigation Measure 15: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal and to prevent drains from plugging up and overflowing. Best Management Practices(BMPs)for drainage shall be followed. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plan_ s submitted for building permit primarily by the Utilities Department. Mitigation Measure 16: The Architectural Review Commission with their review of project development plans needs to insure that outdoor use areas are properly attenuated from noise if they require significant changes to building heights or wall locations surrounding these areas. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 17: The Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No.2 of Ordinance No. 1130. Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 18: To help reduce the waste stream generated: a. The project shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. b. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock,wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director,prior to building permit issuance. c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components of the project and in surfacing wherever feasible. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKfuST 2001 1 ^1 d� 4' AttachmeWNT 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources ..;ntially Potentially Less Than No ER# 122-01 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 32 Issues Unless Impact g Mitigation Incorporated Monitoring Program Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff with consultation with the Utilities Department. The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. The Planning Commission through Use Permit review, the Architectural Review Commission through final review of project plans, and City staff, and in some cases, other agencies, will review detailed project plans through building and grading plan checks, and occupancy release inspections, to accomplish compliance with these mitigation measures as discussed in detail in the monitoring programs above. Attachments: Appendix A Visual Simulation prepared by the Robert Richmond Company,August 2001. Appendix B "Ecological Analysis of the Apple Farm Phase 2/Motel Inn Riparian Setback Encroachments" dated 8-20-02 by Levine-Fricke: Appendix C Apple Fann/Motel Inn Riparian Management Plan,August 2002. Appendix D Extended Phase 1 Testing, Bertrando&Bertrando,January 2002. Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates dated October 25, 1999. Appendix F Noise Investigation prepared by Donald Asquith dated 3-14-01. Appendix G Motel Inn Remodel Traffic Analysis Report prepared by Higgins Associates dated March 4,2002. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 STATE OF CAU FORNIA—BUSINESS.TRAM. .CATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS.GoveMOT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HIGUEIZA STREET Attachment 5 SAN LUIS (IBISPO, CA 93401-5415 err TELEPHONE (805) 549-3111 rntr TDD (805) 549-3259 http://wm-w.dat.ca.gov/distO5 January 16, 2003 SLO-101 PM 29.98 Apple Farm and Motel Inn Master Plan - NOC SCH # 2002121093 Ms. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Dear Ms. Ricci: California Department of Transportation (Department) Staff has reviewed the atrove referenced document and as a result, the following comments were generated. (FeL Exhibit 5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment) The trip distribution and assignments for this project are somewhat suspect. According to Exhibit 5 of the Traffic Study, the project will,only generate 4 AM peak hour and 4 PM peak hour trips on the northbound 101/Monterey Street off-ramp, and 8 AM peak hour and 3 PM peak hour trips on the northbound 101/Monterey Street on-ramp. There also appears to be twice as many AM trips and three times as many PM trips coming from south bound Buena Vista Ave. Route 101 ramp. Why the higher percentage of people coming from the north compared to the south? K.so, the traffic study is saying that an overwhelming percentage of the lodging customers are locals coming from within the City of San Luis Obispo when compared to either the SB Buena Vista off-ramp or the North-bound on or off ramp at 101/Monterey Street, (17 AM peak hour and 23 PM peak hour on northbound Monterey and 31 AM and 21 PM peak hour trips on southbound Monterey). Logic would dictate that most of the Motel's (Motor Hotel) business would be coming directly from Route 101 and that they would therefore seek the most direct route to and from the motel. The Traffic Study needs to revisit the trip distribution and assignment numbers and assign a higher percentage (apt least a 50/50 split) of traffic utilizing the Monterey/Buena Vista Ramps. •caurans unpror es mabft across rWorn a- 1 - ria Attachment 5 Ms. Pam Ricci January 16, 2003 Page 2 (Re.f. Appendix G, Summary of Mitigation Measures Section B-1) The Department agrees with setting the Conditions of Approval of this project to include the construction of a left-turn lane on the Route 101 northbound off- rajnp at the project driveway location. . . (Ref. Appendix G, Summary of Mitigation Measures Section B-3) The traffic Study is recommending that since the project's contribution to peak hour traffic at the northbound 101/Monterey Street ramp is only lo% compared to the total peak hour traffic, that the project proponent's should only be required to contribute 10% to the cost of lengthening the north bound on-ramp approximately 330 feet - terminating at the box culvert. The Department disagrees and recommends that the Lead Agency condition this project for . approval to include the developer to lengthen the north bound 101/Monterey on-ramp to the approximately 330 feet as project specific mitigation. The Department reasons that the Trip Distribution and Assignment for the 1O1/Monterey on and off-ramps are to low, and therefore, the l0% figure mentioned above should be considered highly suspect. Furthermore and of p 3ramount importance, traffic leaving the Motel Inn and heading north involves going from a dead stop at the project exit, and accelerating to at least 65 miles an hour through a change in angular momentum in order to weave safely into through on Route 101 traffic. The existing ramp length is not long enough to accommodate acceleration from a dead stop to merge speed and thereby safely accomplish the weaving movement. Lengthening the north bound on-ramp to approximately 330 feet and reducing the curve radius of the same ramp needs to be included as mitigation for project specific impacts. Please be advised that these same issues will arise when the project proponents apply for the Encroachment Permit for mitigation improvements on the northbound ramp. Better to address these important issues now rather than in the Encroachment Permit Stage - avoiding eleventh hour problems. Please contact Mr. Steve Senet, Senior Permits Engineer at 549-3206 for more information on obtaining an Encroachment Permit. Please send a copy of the final Conditions of Approval for this project, addressed to James Kilmer in Development Review. Catbans improves mobfiay across CaVerma' ��i �3 Ms. Pam Ricci Attachment 5 January 16, 2003 Page 3 I hope this gives you an understanding of the Department's concerns regarding this project.If you have any questions please call me at 549-3683. Sincerely; es Kilmer District 5 Development Review cc: File, D. Murray, R. Barnes, S. Senet CaBrarns vnpmms mobday avoss Cahfomra' '1 -I � Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MOTEL INN SITE LOCATED AT 2223 MONTEREY STREET (APPLICATIONS#A& ER 122-01) WHEREAS, public hearings on this project regarding the use permit and environmental review were held before the Planning Commission on January 8, 2003, and the City Council on February 4,2003;and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Motel Inn Redevelopment Project finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with the inclusion of the following mitigation measures and monitoring program: Mitigation Measure 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall carefully evaluate project building colors and details of the Apple Farm building to insure that the project's massing appears in context with existing vegetation and the hills beyond when viewed from the highway corridor. Monitoring Program The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 2: All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or spill onto adjacent properties to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification. Plans submitted for final review by the ARC shall include details of wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall include decorative wall lights, as well as service area wall pack lights. If proposed, details of any pole or bollard lights shall also be included in plans reviewed by the ARC. New lighting standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height, from the approved finished grade to the top of the fixture. Illumination levels at the finished grade below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 footcandles under the fixture and 3 footcandles at the dimmest point, which shall be confirmed with photometric plans submitted with working drawings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 3: The following mitigation measures shall constitute a dust mitigation plan which shall become a part of working drawings and be in effect during project construction: a. The amount of disturbed area shall be reduced where possible. b. The permanent dust control measures identified in the approved revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. c. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent airborne dust from leveling the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. d. Exposed ground areas, which are to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading, should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. 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. Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 f. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the dust mitigation plan becomes a part of working drawings. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4: The project will implement an aggressive parking demand reduction and management program. This program will include designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. The program will provide for preferential carpool/vanpool parking, continued shuttle service, and discount transit. The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to the City Transportation Division, for review and approval or amendment, which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved. Monitoring Program: City Transportation Division staff will be the lead in reviewing the parking demand reduction and management program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 5: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and.shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program: The applicant shall coordinate with APCD prior to building permit issuance to meet requirements. Community Development shall monitor by insuring that the requirement has been met prior to signing off on working drawings. Mitigation Measure 6: The applicant shall have a United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol survey for the potential presence of the California red-legged frog conducted prior to the onset of project construction. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo ,1 -1'5r) Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 4 Community Development Director for review and a determination of need for further action. If frogs were found in the creek area, then appropriate protective facilities would need to be installed. If frogs were found on the work site, then City staff will consult with the USFWS. If construction activities .are scheduled to begin between March I" and August 30'', then the applicant shall hire a qualified biological consultant to conduct a follow-up inspection of the site to determine the status of the potential red-shouldered hawk nest and to identify any nesting birds in the area. If the nest is active, it may be necessary to reschedule construction activities to determine appropriate disturbance perimeters around the nest. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager shall be the lead in reviewing the study and coordinating with other agencies. Mitigation Measure 7: If the Planning Commission approves the requested creek setback exceptions,then the project shall include the following riparian corridor enhancements: . a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the working drawings for a building permit include all required enhancements and through subsequent inspections with the Natural Resources Manager. Mitigation Measure 8: The applicant shall provide a long-range maintenance program for the site's riparian zones which includes the following: a. Provision for "specialized" trimming and mowing of the grasses to be planted in the reinforced plastic grid structural system of the emergency access road, recognizing the effort to incorporate this area as a functional part of the riparian area. Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 5 b. Installation of a "soft" barrier to discourage public access to riparian zones, such as a split-rail fence between riparian planting and other site improvements, and gates or bollards at the end of the emergency access road. c. Limitations shall be established for use of the emergency access road to ensure that it does not become a service and maintenance driveway that invites frequent use. d. Placements of educational signage at appropriate locations. e. Requirements for early and on-going inspections by Community Development Department staff and the Natural Resources Manager. f. Establishment of a 5-year monitoring program, which includes the submittal of semi- annual progress reports. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager will be the lead in reviewing the long-range maintenance program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 9: To assure that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, the recommended conditions of the CHC are included as mitigation measures. a. A detailed HABS/HAER historic inventory report shall be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction. b. One of the rebuilt bungalows shall include some recycled building components from the demolished bungalows. c. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. The roof of the "Ramada" section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. e. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. f. Retain the site's historic landscape features. g. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. h. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Farm addition. i. Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. Aftachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 6 Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 10: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 11: 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 the grading and construction plans for the project. Monitoring.Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff.. Mitigation Measure 12: The project shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. 1 - 140 Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 7 Mitigation Measure 13: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building. permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff will review the recommendations included in the soils engineering report along with working drawings submitted for a building permit. Mitigation Measure 14: The applicant shall follow 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 Program: The Fire Department shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent studies necessary and assuring that any site clean-up has taken place prior to building permits being issued. Mitigation Measure 15: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal and to prevent drains from plugging up and overflowing. Best Management Practices(BMPs)for drainage shall be followed. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the Utilities Department. Mitigation Measure 16: The Architectural Review Commission with their review of project development plans needs to insure that outdoor use areas are properly attenuated from noise if they require significant changes to building heights or wall locations surrounding these areas. I - 1 � � �1\ .Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 8 Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans, Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 17: The.Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1130. Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with . their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 18: To help reduce the wastestream generated: a. The project shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. b. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance. c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components of the project and in surfacing wherever feasible. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff with consultation with the Utilities Department. SECTION 2. Use Permit. The City Council hereby approves Use Permit Application No. A 122-01, a request to allow further development of the site zoned C-T-S, including requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction, based on the following findings: Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 9 General Project Findings 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned by this use permit, and with development in accordance with plans ultimately approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC 122-01), is appropriate at this location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements in accordance with the Special Considerations "S" overlayzoning of the site. The special considerations with this site were implemented through Citywide Rezoning CR 1405 (City Council Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)) and include: the site's relationship to the creek, and land use compatibility issues with the nearby single-family homes on the other side of the creek. 4. The special considerations of the site will be adequately addressed by adopted mitigation measures and conditions of ARC and use permit approval. Creek Setback Exceptions 5. The location and design of the small encroaching portion of the Apple Farm Phase 2 building, the decomposed granite pathway, and the emergency access road will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement because the encroaching building is relatively minor in scale and is located along a portion of the creek where the adjacent willows have expanded significantly in recent years, the pathway is minor in extent within the setback and will allow for continued water percolation into the ground, and the road will be constructed of a reinforced plastic grid structural system that will be planted with riparian grasses. 6. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies because the project creek banks and stream channel will be essentially unaltered with project development.. 7. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans because along with the minor exceptions requested, the project will enhance the health and vitality of the riparian corridor by the removal of existing encroaching buildings and other invasive plant species. 8. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as shape and topography, that do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning because the project site is irregularly shaped and has an extensive amount of lineal creek frontage, about 977 1-1`�3 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 10 feet. 9. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege — an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning - because surrounding properties have significantly greater encroachments into the required creek setback and the project will remove existing structures which encroach into the setback. 10. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream because the project will screen the parking lot from neighboring residential development by keeping it below motel units, provide emergency access, and maintain access to a City water line easement on the north side of the building. 11. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project because the creek setback is only one of several significant site constraints which include access and circulation issues, proximity of Highway 101 and noise, a City water line easement on the north side of the property which structures cannot be built across, and the protection of an important historic resource. Specifically, the existing main building of the Motel Inn is a Master List historic property, and retaining this building in its present location, as well as rebuilding the bungalow units behind it, are a driving force in the project design and the ultimate location of building footprints, which limit development options on other portions of the site. 12. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property because the current design actually appreciably enhances the health and extent of the riparian corridor by the removal of existing buildings located in the creek setback area, removal of invasive plant materials that have taken a foothold along the creek bank, and new planting of riparian plant materials to augment existing desirable vegetation, and significant changes have already been made to the design of the project to eliminate units and pull encroachments out of the required creek setback areas. Further reductions in the number of motel units in the project could make the redevelopment of the site financially infeasible. 13. The encroaching portion of the Apple Farm Phase 2 building occurs where the top of bank and creek flow line are at their most distant points from one another, but the developable portion of the site is at its narrowest. This is also the location where adjacent willows have expanded significantly in recent years and have pushed the creek setback line further into the project site. C/OS Boundary Building Height Exceptions 14. The project is consistent with the height restrictions included in Criterion 9 of Ordinance No. 1130 because: • The proposed project includes a variable building facade along the creek bank, rather than a"flat" or uniform facade parallel to the creek; and r " I Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 11 • Project plans as submitted propose about one-half the volume that would be allowed within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary under the 25' height limit. Shared and Mixed-Use Parking Reduction 15. There is evidence to indicate that granting a 30% shared and mixed-use parking reduction will not result in poor on-site circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, with the addition of the proposed condition, which would allow for a review hearing prior to Phase 2 of project development being implemented. 16. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 A., Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." Moreover, the project satisfies the requirement for a shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 B. because there are two separate uses that share common parking areas. In addition, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.16.060 C., the times of maximum parking demand from the proposed uses will not coincide. 17. This approval is consistent with the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) land use planning strategies designed to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, and it can be expected that some trips are consolidated for both uses since motel guests, both from the site and other nearby motels, walk to the restaurant. 18. The shared and mixed-use parking reduction is appropriate because the range of uses proposed at the site allows for offsets in the peak hours of demand, there will be consolidated trips to the site because of the mix of uses, and a condition is proposed which allows for monitoring of project parking before the final phases are developed. 19. The project will comply with project parking requirements for proposed uses within the CT- S zone, with the approval of this use permit which includes a 30% shared and mixed- use parking reduction, and the condition allowing for project phasing and future review and monitoring of parking. SECTION 3. Use Permit. The City Council hereby approves Use Permit Application No. A 122-01, a request to allow further development of the site zoned C-T-S, including requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 12 Conditions I. The Monterey Street access improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and CalTrans prior to final project occupancy. The work may be completed concurrent with other project components with the submittal of documentation to the City from CalTrans that the final design documents for the improvements have their approval. 2. The applicant shall submit surveyed cross-sections along the creek channel prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to assure that the setbacks shown on working drawings for new buildings and other improvements are consistent with approved plans and any approved exceptions to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. 3. A soils engineer shall evaluate the condition of the creek bank adjacent to the project and submit a report to the Director of Public Works and Building Official for review. If the evaluation identifies recommended slope stabilization or erosion protection, the developer shall comply with said recommendations, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Oficial. Appropriate permits from applicable agencies must be obtained. 4. The demolition/remodel of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 5. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. 6. The Architectural Review Commission shall consider the following in their review of final project plans: a. The scale of the spa elevator tower; b. The use of glazing or glass block with ground floor patios of Motel Inn to further attenuate noise; and c. Elimination of rear floodlights as shown on the lighting plan. 7. The Planning Commission shall review the appropriateness of the full 30% shared and mixed-use parking reduction component of the use permit prior to the development of Phase Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 13 2 of the project, which is the construction of the new Motel Inn rooms and the spa, to monitor and evaluate whether the amount of provided on-site parking is adequate for all proposed uses. At the review hearing, the Commission may add, delete, or modify findings or conditions of approval related to the shared and mixed-use parking reduction component of the use permit, or reaffirm that the shared and mixed-use reduction is working effectively. 8. Details of how grading will be regulated within the dripline of riparian trees near the top of creek bank and other techniques for protecting the trees with development shall be specified on plans submitted for a building permit to the approval of the City Arborist and Planning staff. Code Requirements 1. Separate sewer, Water and other utility services are required to serve each separate parcel with development on any parcel, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, Public Works Director and the respective utility companies. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3.. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development with appropriate credit given for prior accountson the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 4. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system due to the existing well on the property. If the well is not to be used, this requirement can be avoided by properly destroying the well in accordance with the standards of the County Department of Environmental Health. If deemed suitable, the well can be used for irrigation purposes, thereby reducing the amount of the required water allocation. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research, and shall be located within twenty- five feet (25') of a public main. The project shall be coordinated With the County Cross- Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. 5. The subject property is situated primarily within Flood Hazard Zone B. The San Luis Obispo Creek and certain portions of"overbank" areas lie within Flood Zone A. The 100-year storm flood elevation varies between El. 285 and El. 295 (+/-) along the creek frontage of the site, from the southerly to northerly property lines. (1929 USGS datum) All proposed new Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 14 structures lie within a B-Zone, which simply requires all finished floors of new buildings to be at least one-ft. above current adjacent grade. 6. The grading and site plans and building elevations must utilize City datum and provide notes in this regard. It should be noted that the current City datum i's 0.749 m (2.46 ft.) higher than the 1929 USGS datum, which is the datum on the flood hazard maps. Appropriate cross- referencing of this equation is therefore required on the plans. 7. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 8. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003. i Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 6 Page 15 Mayor Dave Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Acting City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo LAMotel Inn\CC Res.Motel Inn use permit 1,149 Attachment 7 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ESTABLISH A 48-UNIT AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM AT 2223 MONTEREY STREET (APPLICATIONS#TR& ER 122-01) WHEREAS, public hearings on this project regarding the use permit and environmental review were held before the Planning Commission on January 8, 2003, and the City Council on February 4,2003;and WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Motel Inn Redevelopment Project finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with the inclusion of the following mitigation measures and monitoring program: Mitigation Measure 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall carefully evaluate project building colors and details of the Apple Farm building to insure that the project's massing appears in context with existing vegetation and the hills beyond when viewed from the highway corridor. Monitoring Program The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify _ - Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 2: All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or spill onto adjacent properties to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Lighting between the buildings and the creek shall be limited in intensity and scale necessary for security and identification. Plans submitted for final review by the ARC shall include details of wall-mounted light fixtures with illumination levels and shielding mechanisms. This shall include decorative wall lights, as well as service area wall pack lights. If proposed, details of any pole or bollard lights shall also be included in plans reviewed by the ARC. New lighting standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height, from the approved finished grade to the top of the fixture. Illumination levels at the finished grade below the lighting fixtures shall not exceed 10 footcandles under the fixture and 3 footcandles at the dimmest point, which shall be confirmed with photometric plans submitted with working drawings. Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 3: The following mitigation measures shall constitute a dust mitigation plan which shall become a part of working drawings and be in effect during project construction: a. The amount of disturbed area shall be reduced where possible. b. The permanent dust control measures identified in the approved revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. c. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent airborne dust from leveling the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15mph. Reclaimed(non-potable) water should be use whenever possible. d. Exposed ground areas, which are to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading, should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. 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. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 f. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Monitoring Program:. Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the dust mitigation plan becomes a part of working drawings. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4: The project will implement an aggressive parking demand reduction and management program. This program will include designation of a Transportation Coordinator who will manage transportation programs for the project and shall promote alternative modes of transportation. The program will provide for preferential carpool/vanpool parking, continued shuttle service, and discount transit. The project applicant will be required to submit an implementation plan to the City Transportation Division, for review and approval or amendment, which demonstrates how this mitigation measure will be achieved. Monitoring Program: City Transportation Division staff will be the lead in reviewing the parking demand reduction and management program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 5: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program: The applicant shall coordinate with APCD prior to building permit issuance to meet requirements. Community Development shall monitor by insuring that the requirement has been met prior to signing off on working drawings. Mitigation Measure 6: The applicant shall have a United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol survey for the potential presence of the California red-legged frog conducted prior to the onset of project construction. The results of this survey shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo I I S2- I Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 4 Community Development Director for review and a determination of need for further action. If frogs were found in the creek area, then appropriate protective facilities would need to be installed. If frogs were found on the work site, then City staff will consult with the USFWS. If construction activities are scheduled to begin between March 1S` and August 30`h, then the applicant shall hire a qualified biological consultant to conduct a follow-up inspection of the site to determine the status of the potential red-shouldered hawk nest and to identify any nesting birds in the area. If the nest is active, it may be necessary to reschedule construction activities to determine appropriate disturbance perimeters around the nest. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager shall be the lead in reviewing the study and coordinating with other agencies. Mitigation Measure 7: If the Planning Commission approves the requested creek setback exceptions, then the project shall include the following riparian corridor enhancements: a. Removal of several existing structures located within the required creek setback area as shown on the Demolition Site Plan. b. Removal of invasive plant materials as described in the Riparian Management Plan prepared by firma. c. Creation of expanded riparian restoration areas as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Riparian Management Plan. d. Construction of the emergency access road to be of turf pavers planted with riparian grasses. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff shall monitor compliance with this requirement by insuring that the working drawings for a building permit include all required enhancements and through subsequent inspections with the Natural Resources Manager. Mitigation Measure 8: The applicant shall provide a long-range maintenance program for the site's riparian zones which includes the following- a. Provision for "specialized" trimming and mowing of the grasses to be planted in the reinforced plastic grid structural system of the emergency access road, recognizing the effort to incorporate this area as a functional part of the riparian area. 1 - i �3 r. Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 7 Page 5 b. Installation of a "soft" barrier to discourage public access to riparian zones, such as a split-rail fence between riparian planting and other site improvements, and gates or bollards at the end of the emergency access road. c. Limitations shall be established for use of the emergency access road to. ensure that it does not become a service and maintenance driveway that invites frequent use. d. Placements of educational signage at appropriate locations. e. Requirements for early and on-going inspections by Community Development Department staff and the Natural Resources Manager.. f. Establishment of a 5-year monitoring program, which includes the submittal of semi- annual progress reports. Monitoring Program: The City's Natural Resources Manager will be the lead in reviewing the long-range maintenance program with the assistance of the Community Development Department. The provisions of the plan.will need to be in place prior to occupancy and will require on-going implementation. Mitigation Measure 9: To assure that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, the recommended conditions of the CHC are included as mitigation measures. a. A detailed HABS41AER historic inventory report shall be prepared on all existing buildings in the Motel Inn complex before demolition or construction. b. One of the rebuilt bungalows shall include some recycled building components from the demolished bungalows. c. The locations of the original courtyard pathways should be retained, although widths may be modified as needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. d. The roof of the "Ramada" section should be lowered as much as possible to resemble its original design. e. Retain architectural elements removed from the original buildings and reuse or display them in the museum on site. f. Retain the site's historic landscape features. g. Explore reducing the scale of the buildings in the northeast building wing of the Motel Inn. h. Reconsider the scale of the entry tower for the Apple Fane addition. L Provide further articulation of the conference building walls and roof to reflect scale and massing of original Motel Inn buildings. Resolution No. (2003 Series) Attachment 7 Page 6 Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 10: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation Measure 11: 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 the grading and construction plans for the project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through inspections during project construction by the Community Development Department staff. Mitigation.Measure 12: The project shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. � - ISS Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 7 Mitigation Measure 13: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff will review the recommendations included in the soils engineering report along with working drawings submitted for a building permit. Mitigation Measure 14: The applicant shall follow 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 Program: The Fire Department shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent studies necessary and assuring that any site clean-up has taken place prior to building permits being issued. Mitigation Measure 15: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient. pollutant removal and to prevent drains from plugging up and overflowing. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for drainage shall be followed. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the Utilities Department. Mitigation Measure 16: The Architectural Review Commission with their review of project development plans needs to insure that outdoor use areas are properly attenuated from noise if they require significant changes to building heights or wall locations surrounding these areas. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 8 Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 17: The Planning Commission with their review of the required use permit shall evaluate whether proposed decks as designed are consistent with the intent of Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1130. Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission shall monitor compliance with this requirement through the review of detailed plans. Community Development Department staff will then verify compliance with their review of working drawings for a building permit and subsequent inspections. Mitigation Measure 18: To help reduce the waste stream generated: a. The project shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. b. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance. c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components of the project and in surfacing wherever feasible. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily. by the Community Development Department staff with consultation with the Utilities Department. SECTION 2. Tentative Tract Map. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map Application No. TR 122-01 (County Map No. 2500), a request to establish a 48-unit air-space condominium,based on the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General 1 - tS��1 Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 9 Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the typeanddensity of development allowed in the C-T-S zone. 3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision. SECTION 3. Tentative Tract Map. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map Application No. TR 122-01 (County Map No. 2500), a request to establish a 48-unit air-space condominium, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions 1. The applicant shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 2. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates,NAD 83 -m). 3. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall establish CC&Rs for the regulation of land use control of nuisances and architectural control of the building and facilities. These CC&Rs shall be approved by the Community Development Director and administered by a property owners' association. 5. There shall be no change in city-regulated provisions of the CC&Rs without prior approval of the Community Development Director. 1 - ISS Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 10 6. The applicant shall include the following provisions in the CC&Rs for the condominium: a. The property owners' association shall be created to enforce the CC&Rs and provide for professional,perpetual maintenance of common areas, including, but not limited to,the driveway,parking lot,landscaping, sewer, utilities, and building exteriors. b. The right shall be granted to the city to maintain common areas if the property owners' association fails to do so and to assess said association for expenses incurred. C. Owner occupancy shall not exceed 28 days per year aggregate, including a limitation of no more than 7 days between Memorial and Labor days. d. Owners shall be obligated to pay transient occupancy taxes, or an equivalent fee in- lieu thereof,to the city in the form presented in the draft CC&Rs for the project 7. The Monterey Street access improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and CalTrans prior to development or recordation of the final map. 8. The applicant shall submit surveyed cross-sections along the creek channel prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer to assure that the setbacks shown on working drawings for new buildings and other improvements are consistent with approved plans and any approved exceptions to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. 9. A soils engineer shall evaluate the condition of the creek bank adjacent to the project and submit a report to the Director of Public Works and Building Official for review. If the evaluation identifies recommended slope stabilization or erosion protection, the developer shall comply with said recommendations, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official. Appropriate permits from applicable agencies must be obtained. 10. The final map shall include any required easements required for the reasonable development of the affected properties. Easements may include but are not limited to grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle tum-around, and utilities. Any maintenance agreements shall be completed and recorded before or concurrent with final map approval. 11. The demolition/remodel of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page I1 12. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. 13. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in.the defense. Code Requirements 1. Separate sewer, water and other utility services are required to serve each separate parcel with development on any parcel, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer, Public Works Director and the respective utility companies. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter(s) serving the development with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 4. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system due to the existing well on the property. If the well is not to be used,this requirement can be avoided by properly destroying the well in accordance with the standards of the County Department of Environmental Health. If deemed suitable, the well can be used for irrigation purposes, thereby reducing the amount of the required water allocation. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research, and shall be located within twenty- five feet (25') of a public main. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross- Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. ILPD Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 12 5. The subject property is situated primarily within Flood Hazard Zone B. The San Luis Obispo Creek and certain portions of"overbank" areas lie within Flood Zone A. The 100-year storm flood elevation varies between El. 285 and El. 295 (+/-) along the creek frontage of the site, from the southerly to northerly property lines. (1929 USGS datum) All proposed new structures lie within a B-Zone, which simply requires all finished floors of new buildings to be at least one-ft. above current adjacent grade. 6. The grading and site plans and building elevations must utilize City datum and provide notes in this regard. It should be noted that the current City datum is 0.749 m (2.46 ft.) higher than the 1929 USGS datum, which is the datum on the flood hazard maps. Appropriate cross- referencing of this equation is therefore required on the plans. 7. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 8. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be:submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: i — [61 Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 13 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003. Mayor Dave Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Acting City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo LAMotel Inn\CC Res.(Motel Inn tract map) Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A USE PERMIT AND TRACT MAP FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MOTEL INN SITE LOCATED AT 2223 MONTEREY STREET (APPLICATIONS#A,TR&ER 122-01) WHEREAS, public hearings on this project regarding the use permit, tract map and environmental review were held before the Planning Commission on January 8, 2003, and the City Council on February 4,2003; and WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration was considered by the City Council after extensive review by City staff and other agencies, and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public;and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Use Permit & Tract Mau. The City Council hereby denies Use Permit Application No. A 122-01, a request to allow further development of the site zoned C-T-S, including requested creek setback exceptions, C/OS building height exceptions, and a mixed-use and shared parking reduction, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed project is not appropriate at this location or compatible with surrounding land uses because of the scale of planned development and the associated impacts to the adjacent riparian corridor and nearby residences. 2. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Special Considerations "S" overlay zoning of the site given the need to ask for exceptions to C/OS building height restrictions included in Citywide Rezoning CR 1405 (City Council Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)). 3. Site circumstances do not justify approval of the requested creek setback exceptions based on . the required findings included in Section 1716.025 G. 4. of the zoning regulations because: (Council to identify specific reasons). Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 4. There is evidence to indicate that granting a 30% shared and mixed-use parking reduction will result in poor on-site circulation and adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood because the range of uses proposed at the site do not allow for offsets in the peak hours of demand. 5. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are inconsistent with the General Plan and the site is physically not suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C-T-S zone. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2003. Mayor Dave Romero Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Acting City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo LAMotel 1nn1CC Res.Motel Inn use permit-deny