HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-16 ARC Item 1 - ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)
SUBJECT: Review of a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23
RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements on the Master List
Historic Motel Inn property. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
2229 Monterey Street Phone Number: 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2363-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Submittal Date November 9, 2015
Complete Date January 11, 2016
Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan
Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location to construct a 55-unit motel/hotel
and 23 space RV/Airstream park at the Master List Historic Motel Inn property (Attachment 2,
Project Plans). The project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission (conceptual),
Architectural Review Commission (conceptual), and Cultural Heritage Committee (final
determination) as discussed in Section 1.1 below. The subject location includes a Special
Considerations Overlay which is governed by Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series); which includes
special standards that apply to the property (Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 1130). Staff finds the
design of the project to be consistent with Ordinance No. 1130, the Community Design Guidelines,
historic preservation standards, and applicable City standards and recommends support by the ARC
as discussed in section 3.0 below. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the Use Permit and
Mitigated Negative Declaration at a subsequent hearing.
Meeting Date: March 21, 2016
Item Number: 1
ARC1 - 1
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 2
PC Conceptual
Review
8-26-2015
ARC Conceptual
Review
10-19-2015
CHC Review
01-25-2016
PC Review
03-23-2016
ARC Review
03-21-2016
1.0 BACKGROUND & COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
1.1 Background
On October 19, 2015, the ARC performed a conceptual review of the subject application. The
ARC was supportive of the conceptual plans and provided direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review; no specific directional items for changes to the design were
provided (see Attachment 7: ARC Minutes 10-19-2015).
On January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the subject application
and found the project consistent with historic preservation standards (see Attachment 8: CHC
Staff Report 01-25-2016, Attachment 9: CHC Minutes 01-25-2016, and Attachment 10: CHC
Resolution).
1.2 Purview
The Commission is tasked with the following:
1. Review the project’s consistency with previous ARC direction (no specific directional
items in this instance, other than to return for final design review).
2. Review the project’s consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 (Attachment 3), the
Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards.
3. Comment on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 11). The
Planning Commission will take final action on the MND at a subsequent hearing.
4. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 10) and take
final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
A detailed description of site information and setting can be found in the October 19, 2015 ARC
Staff Report which is Attachment 6 to this report.
2.2 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Background and discussion regarding Ordinance No. 1130 is provided in the August 26, 2015
Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4) and the October 19, 2015 ARC Conceptual
Review Staff Report (Attachment 6). Ordinance No. 1130 is provided herein as Attachment 3.
2.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans):
ARC1 - 2
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 3
1. Construction of a motel/hotel with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23
RV/Airstream Trailer hookups.
a. 12 rooms within the main lobby building
b. 40 rooms among twelve detached bungalow units.
c. Lobby building and bungalow units are located behind the previously approved
restaurant building which contains the remaining Motel Inn Historic features on
the north facing elevation of the approved restaurant building (shown for
reference in Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet A-3.6).
2. Mission Revival style architecture with features including:
a. Bell tower, arched windows and doors, curved parapets, red-tiled roof, and
overhanging eaves with exposed rafters.
3. 121 parking spaces provided
a. 10% parking reduction request (13 spaces). The request will be evaluated by the
Planning Commission.
4. Tree removals (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet L3.0). No removal of heritage trees.
The City Arborist supports tree removals that are within the footprint of the proposed
structures.
2.2.1 Notable Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review
1. Additional entrances facing the creek (compare Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet
A1.2 & Sheet A4.1, “Site Elevation B to Attachment 12: Previous View from the
Creek)
2. Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces (see Attachment 2: Project
Plans, Sheet A1.3)
3. Added three housekeeping buildings (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 and
A3.5 “Elevations - Housekeeping Bldgs”)
Table 2.2 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed Ordinance Standard
Street Yard ~45 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet + 10 feet for bell
tower/spire
45 feet1 + 10 feet for
architectural projections
Building Coverage (footprint) ~10% 75%
Parking Spaces 1212 131
Bicycle Parking 7 7 (1 short term, 6 long)
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, and
Ordinance No. 1130 was provided in the October 19, 2015 ARC Staff Report (see Attachment 6,
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are
within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces.
ARC1 - 3
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 4
Section 3.0). Except as provided below, no significant changes to the project have been proposed
since the ARC’s review of the project on October 19, 2015. As such, staff has provided findings of
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Ordinance No. 1130 in the recommended
resolution (Attachment 1).
Note: the 10-19-2015 ARC Staff Report (Attachment 6) included two items for ARC discussion;
“RV Parking creek buffering” related to the use of a split rail fence adjacent to the creek, and
“Motel bungalow units” related to openings facing the creek per Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #2
(see Attachment 6, ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015). At the 10-19-2015 hearing, the ARC indicated
that the use of split rail fencing and the proposed opening facings the creek were consistent with
Ordinance No. 1130. Per this direction, the designs remain unchanged, with the exception of
additional doors facing the creek per section 2.2.1 above.
3.1 Analysis of Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review
1. Additional entrances facing the creek.
Staff Response: The applicant modified the bungalow floor plans to create separate
entries to each unit, where entrances were previously shared (see figure below). The
revision has created several additional “openings facing the creek” which may present an
issue of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3 which states “building
openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.”
Additional entrances facing the creek may result in an increase in potential noise
producing activity along the creek area that is associated with patrons entering/exiting
hotel rooms (e.g. doors opening/closing, loud conversations, additional pedestrian
activity along the Creekside walkway). It is recognized that openings facing the creek
may be considered more of an issue of functionality rather than design and, as such,
staff is requesting the ARC provide feedback on this issue in order to inform the
Planning Commission’s upcoming review of the Use Permit.
2. Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces.
Staff Response: The RV spaces were shortened and the Airstream spaces were shifted
per requirements from the Utilities Department due to an existing utility easement with
underground water main. The site plan maintains the same level of maneuverability
shown on previous plans. Staff recommends the ARC support the revised layout.
3. Added three housekeeping buildings.
Staff Response: The three housekeeping buildings were added to provide additional
maintenance service for the hotel. The single story structures are designed to be
consistent with the project’s architecture and are low in scale. Staff recommends the
ARC support the propose structures.
3.2 Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation
As noted above, the proposed structures are located adjacent to the Master List Historic Motel
Inn. The CHC reviewed the project on January 25, 2016 (see Attachment 8: CHC Staff Report
ARC1 - 4
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 5
01-25-2016 & Attachment 9: CHC Minutes 01-25-2016) and found the proposed new structures
to be compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the
historic motel inn and project site, consist with historic preservation standards. The CHC also
reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 11) and found it to properly
characterize the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources,
and found the incorporated mitigations to appropriately ensure that potentially significant
impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. The CHC recommends approval of the
project to the ARC per CHC Resolution No. 1000-16 (Attachment 10: CHC Resolution No.
1000-16).
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 11).
The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, hazards & hazardous materials, and transportation/traffic
will be less than significant. The Planning Commission will perform the final review/decision
regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as
conditions of approval and/or code requirements.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines,
Ordinance No. 1130, historic preservation standards, and/or other pertinent City standards.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project plans
3. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
4. PC Staff Report 08-26-2015
5. PC Minutes 08-26-2015
6. ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015
7. ARC Minutes 10-19-2015
8. CHC Staff Report 01-25-2016
9. CHC Minutes 01-25-2016
10. CHC Resolution 01-25-2016
11. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12. Previous View from the Creek (shown on previous plans)
ARC1 - 5
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A 55-ROOM
MOTEL/HOTEL AND 23 SPACE RV/AIRSTREAM PARK WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ON
THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC MOTEL INN PROPERTY, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED MARCH 21, 2016 (2223 MONTEREY STREET – ARCH-2363-
2015)
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conceptual architectural review of
the subject project (ARCH-2363-2015); Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of historic preservation review of the subject
project and recommended approval to the Architectural Review Commission; Motel Inn L.P.
applicant; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of design review of the subject
application; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review 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 Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
design approval to the project (ARCH-2363-2015), based on the following findings:
1. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project is compatible in
scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with buildings in the Monterey Street
neighborhood.
2. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates
articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the
neighborhood.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 6
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 2
3. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates
sufficient articulation/wall plane movement throughout all elevations that avoids the
appearance of “boxy” structures.
4. That the project is consistent with the height/setback and design requirements of Ordinance
No. 1130 (1989 Series).
5. That, consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and as recommended by the
Cultural Heritage Committee (Resolution No. 1000-16), the proposed new structures are
compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the
Master List Historic Motel Inn and project site.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission finds that
the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly
characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts, and that the incorporated mitigation
measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are mitigated to a less than
significant level. Final review and decision on the MND will be performed by the Planning
Commission.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Conditions
Planning Division - Community Development Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working
drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of
project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to
where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials,
landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that
all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand
finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide final design details for the trash
enclosure(s). Final designs shall be consistent with the overall theme of the project and shall
incorporate screening plantings, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly demonstrate compliance with height
requirements of the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.040). The height of the proposed bell
tower/spire shall be adjusted for compliance.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 7
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 3
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related
window features.
6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-
sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that
light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3
b. Exterior wall sconce lighting (facing the creek) should be designed so that the light
can be switched on and off to avoid constant illumination of the exterior lights.
c. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, the
RV/Airstream area shall include bollard style lighting along the creek (rather than
pole mounted lighting).
7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If
any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted
for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately
screen them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening
will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
a. Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building
permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no
brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the
object of interest.
b. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, additional
landscape plantings shall be provided and maintained along the Highway 101
frontage for additional screening of the parking and RV/Airstream area. Caltrans
approval may be required dependent on location of landscape plantings relative to
property lines.
9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 8
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 4
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
Condition(s)
11. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance.
12. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building
permit issuance if required by the Building Division and/or Planning Division. Contact the
Planning Division to initiate the Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or subdivision process.
13. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with State HCD requirements for all
proposed RV and Airstream spaces.
14. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
15. The required off-site public improvements from the traffic study shall be completed with a
separate public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department
and Cal Trans. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate
encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. A separate improvement plan review
base fee payable to the Public Works Department shall be required for the Public Works
Department review of the improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said
review fee shall be in accordance with the improvement plan review fee resolution in effect
at the time of the building permit application submittal.
16. The miscellaneous public improvement plan submittal shall show modifications to the
driveway approach in accordance with the traffic study and the revised geometry of the 101
off ramp. All driveway work shall be in accordance with city engineering standards and shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
17. A separate encroachment permit and/or plan approvals may be required from Cal Trans for
any work or construction staging within or affecting the Cal Trans right-of-way.
18. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of
frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage
improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 9
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 5
19. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
20. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc.
shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in
not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed
covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle.
21. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking
per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific
conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details
and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks.
The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and
clearances to obstructions per city standard. The project summary shall include the required
and proposed bicycle parking accordingly.
a. Short-term bicycle racks of the inverted “U” design or “Peak Racks” shall be
installed in close proximity to, and visible from the main entry into the building.
Dimension the minimum clearances between racks shall be per city
standards/adopted guidelines.
b. Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers installed either within or
outside the building. As an alternative, a lockable room within the building(s)
labeled and reserved for bicycle storage may substitute for bicycle lockers.
Provide details and specs for bicycle lockers to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division.
22. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the
final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the Property Owner’s
Association or other property maintenance agreement accordingly.
23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades.
Services to the new structures shall be underground. Undergrounding to the new structures
and facilities shall be completed without a net increase of utility poles within the public right-
of-way unless specifically approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. All work in the public
right-of-way shall be shown or noted.
24. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 10
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 6
structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code
Chapter 17.84.
25. This property is located in an AE flood zone. Any structure located within the flood zone
must be constructed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation
(BFE). Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional savings on flood
insurance and is strongly encouraged.
26. The developer shall process a Letter of Map Change (LOMC) to show that the new structures
and building/site service equipment are located outside the Special Flood Hazard Area. The
LOMC shall be processed and finalized prior to building permit issuance. If the structures
will be removed based on fill, then a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
processed prior to building/grading permit issuance with a LOMR to be processed within 6
months of the completion of grading and prior to final inspection approvals/occupancy.
27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the
property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic
offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water
runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not
across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or
existing waterways.
28. The building plan submittal shall include complete topographic information along the creek
bank. Any proposed creek bank stabilization measures shall be to the satisfaction of the
Natural Resources Manager. The building plan submittal shall include the review and
recommendations from a soils engineer/engineering geologist on the stability of the existing
creek banks and any recommendations regarding building setbacks, site grading and drainage
recommendations, etc.
29. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan, Volume III, Drainage
Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include a complete hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis report to show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan and the
Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. The analysis shall be expanded or amended as
necessary to include any proposal for fill within the special flood hazard area.
30. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped
sites. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available
on the City’s Website.
31. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater
improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and
shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 11
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 7
32. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or
excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by
a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State
Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking
System (SMARTS).
33. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building
plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10
of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include
reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference.
34. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer’s, and/or the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit
waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading,
and/or building permit issuance if applicable.
35. Erosion control measures are required in accordance with the grading ordinance and
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Provide an erosion control plan
and/or erosion control notes on the plans to the satisfaction of the Building Official and
Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained
during all construction and ground disturbing activities. Add notes to the grading plan as
necessary. A detailed erosion control plan is required in accordance with Waterway
Management Plan Section 3.7 and Section 10.0.
36. A soils report will be required for development of all new structures, site improvements,
retaining walls, new parking lot areas, and for public improvements. The soils report shall be
included with the building permit submittal package and with the submittal of public
improvement plans if applicable.
37. The building plan submittal shall include a complete landscape plan including the planting
along the Highway 101 corridor adjacent to the site to accommodate screening of trees and
shrubs.
38. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed trees. The plan shall show
the trees to be removed, transplanted, and/or saved. A tree protection plan and/or strategy
shall be provided for all trees to be retained or transplanted to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance.
39. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 12
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 8
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. A separate report from a
Certified Arborist may be required at the discretion of the City Arborist. The City Arborist
shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the
dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree
protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist
at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included
with the building permit submittal.
40. A tree protection/transplanting surety shall be provided as part of the tree protection
plan/strategy. The surety shall be provided prior to building permit issuance and shall remain
on file with a sunset date as established by the project arborist to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist.
Building Division – Community Development Department
Code Requirement(s)
41. Verify plans provide a “Code Analysis” to show compliance with CBC requirements
Chapters 5, 6, 7, & 10.
Utilities Department
Condition(s)
42. Any private water or sewer services that cross one proposed parcel for the benefit of another
shall provide evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been
recorded prior to final Building Permit.
43. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided
with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
44. The project’s Utility Plan shall clearly show the extent of the City’s existing sewer easement
through the property. Private storm drainage structures and trees will not be permitted in the
City’s easement.
45. The Utility Plan shall clearly show landscape water meters for each parcel. One landscape meter
may be used for all three parcels if the parcels are under the same ownership and a Lot-Tie
Agreement is provided.
Code Requirement(s)
46. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) shall not exceed 50 percent of maximum
applied water allowance (MAWA) which is required during the declared drought emergency.
47. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and
dust control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program. Information on the program is available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 13
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 9
Fire Department
Condition(s)
48. Access and water supply shall comply with the Fire Code as required by the California Health
& Safety Code for Recreational Vehicle/Special Occupancy Parks. Access road shall be at least
20 feet in width with no parking. Fire hydrants, on minimum 6” mains, shall be spaced so as
not to exceed 150 feet from any RV space. Show location of all on-site fire hydrants. Show
minimum 6 inch underground fire line (or lines) to feed all buildings and hydrants. Show how
underground fire line will serve all buildings that are within the scope of this project .
49. All permanent buildings in this project shall have fire sprinklers designed and install to NFPA
13 standards, fire sprinkler risers shall be in a sprinkler riser room with exterior door access.
Show locations of all riser rooms. Show location of backflow device and Fire Department
Connection.
50. All buildings shall be constructed to CBC Chapter 7A standards for exposure to wildfire, with
the exception of glazing. Add note to plans submitted for a building permit.
51. Clarify that the fire sprinkler system backflow device and Fire Department Connection will be a
maximum of 20 feet from the public water main tie-in.
52. Add note: The proposed fire apparatus access turnaround hammerhead will be achieved using
the “acceptable alternative to hammerhead” in the 2013 California Fire Code, Appendix D, page
544.
Natural Resources Division
Condition(s)
53. The riparian open space area shall be encumbered by a permanent open space easement, per
Ordinance 1130, to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and City’s Attorney’s
Office.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of March, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 1
ARC1 - 14
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 15
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 16
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 17
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 18
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 19
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 20
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 21
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 22
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 23
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 24
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 25
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 26
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 27
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 28
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 29
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 30
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 31
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 32
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 33
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 34
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 35
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 36
(
E
)
O
a
k
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
Pa
v
e
r
s
E
)
O
a
a a
k
k k k
O
a
a a
(
E
)
O O
k k
29
5
30
0
30
5
295
30
0
30
0
30
5
29
6
29
7
298
299
30
1
302
303
304
29
6
29
7
2
9
8
2
9
9
30
1
297
2
9
8
299
301
302
303
304
30
6
30
7
30
8
29
5
29 29 29
5
29 29 29
5 95
29 9 29 29
5
29 29 2 29
5
29 29
29977797972929
01 01
30 0 30 0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Th
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
s
t
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
e
s
s
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
.
Th
i
s
o
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
d
m
a
n
y
f
i
n
e
s
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
pl
a
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
a
t
e
r
a
a
n
d
wh
i
c
h
c
a
n
b
e
s
e
e
n
i
n
m
a
n
y
p
l
a
c
e
s
i
n
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
a
s
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
in
o
l
d
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
.
Wh
i
l
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
n
a
n
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
y
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
,
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
i
t
r
u
s
tr
e
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
.
T
h
e
ta
b
l
e
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
L
-
3
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
p
l
a
n
t
s
t
o
be
r
e
-
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
:
•
H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
/
B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a
x
b
l
a
k
e
a
n
a
•
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
/
S
y
z
i
g
i
u
m
p
a
n
i
c
u
l
a
t
u
m
•
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
/
P
i
t
t
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
u
n
d
u
l
a
t
u
m
•
N
o
r
f
o
l
k
I
s
l
a
n
d
P
i
n
e
/
A
r
a
u
c
a
r
i
a
e
x
c
e
l
s
a
•
B
i
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
/
S
t
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
r
e
g
i
n
a
•
W
i
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
l
a
m
/
T
r
a
c
h
y
c
a
p
r
u
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e
i
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
,
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
li
s
t
e
d
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
L
-
2
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
e
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Sh
e
e
t
L
-
2
t
a
b
u
l
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
us
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
.
T
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
wi
l
l
u
s
e
6
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
(
M
A
W
U
)
a
n
d
m
e
e
t
s
C
A
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
2
f
o
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
.
M
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
pl
a
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
a
r
e
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
a
n
d
dr
o
u
g
h
t
t
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
.
F
E
B
1
7
,
2
0
1
6
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
F
i
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
F
i
r
m
a
_
M
o
t
e
l
_
I
n
n
_
P
R
E
L
I
M
1
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
2
_
1
2
_
1
6
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
/
1
5
/
1
6
L-
1
.
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
M
a
t
c
h
l
i
n
e
S
e
e
S
h
e
e
t
L
-
2
.
0
Qu
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
)
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Ti
p
u
T
r
e
e
/
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Tr
e
e
s
Re
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
G
u
m
/
S
w
e
e
t
S
h
a
d
e
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
/
N
e
w
Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
T
r
e
e
Ol
i
v
e
/
C
o
a
s
t
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
Wi
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
a
l
m
/
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
F
a
n
P
a
l
m
Ci
t
r
u
s
/
B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
in
t
h
e
O
l
d
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
s
t
y
l
e
Na
t
i
v
e
R
I
p
a
r
i
a
n
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
/
S
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
h
r
u
b
s
an
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
s
LA
W
N
No
r
t
h
0
1
0
'
2
0
'
40
'
4
0
'
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
4
0
'
-
0
"
SU
R
V
E
Y
E
D
T
O
P
O
F
C
R
E
E
K
NO
D
I
S
T
U
R
B
A
N
C
E
B
E
L
O
W
Ho
n
g
K
o
n
g
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
Au
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
Wi
n
d
m
a
l
l
P
a
l
m
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
No
r
f
o
l
k
I
s
l
a
n
d
P
a
l
m
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 37
2
F
i
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
F
i
r
m
a
_
M
o
t
e
l
_
I
n
n
_
P
R
E
L
I
M
2
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
_
2
_
1
2
_
1
6
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
0
2
/
1
2
/
1
6
L L -2
.
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
N
o
t
e
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Un
i
f
o
r
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
l
o
w
t
o
m
e
d
i
u
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
La
w
n
i
s
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
u
s
e
i
c
a
n
o
c
c
u
r
;
l
a
w
n
a
r
e
a
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
5
%
o
f
o
v
e
r
a
l
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
.
.
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
b
e
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
3
"
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
u
l
c
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
to
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
o
i
l
.
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
N
o
t
e
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Un
i
f
o
r
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
l
o
w
t
o
m
e
d
i
u
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
pe
r
W
U
C
O
L
S
.
T
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(
M
A
W
A
)
a
n
d
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
(
E
T
W
U
)
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
E
T
W
U
i
s
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
t
h
e
M
A
W
A
.
Wa
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
i
t
y
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
m
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
re
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
.
Th
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
f
i
n
-
l
i
n
e
d
r
i
p
e
m
i
t
t
e
r
s
.
E
a
c
h
c
i
r
c
u
i
t
sh
a
l
l
b
e
a
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
•
S
h
a
d
y
a
r
e
a
h
y
r
d
o
z
o
n
e
•
S
u
n
n
y
a
r
e
a
h
y
r
d
o
z
o
n
e
•
L
I
D
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
b
o
t
t
o
m
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
•
S
l
o
p
e
s
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
o
i
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
b
a
s
e
d
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
in
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
p
l
a
n
t
'
s
n
e
e
d
s
,
a
s
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
L
I
D
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
T
i
e
r
1
o
r
T
i
e
r
2
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
•
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
o
n
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
i
l
m
e
d
i
a
,
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
•
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
e
t
/
d
r
y
a
d
a
p
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
•
C
o
b
b
l
e
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
.
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
L
i
s
t
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
Z
o
n
e
Tr
e
e
s
Ar
e
c
a
s
t
r
u
m
r
o
m
a
n
z
o
f
f
i
a
n
u
m
Qu
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
Eu
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
f
i
c
i
f
o
l
i
a
Re
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
G
u
m
Ch
a
m
a
e
r
o
p
s
h
u
m
u
l
i
s
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
F
a
n
P
a
l
m
Ci
t
r
u
s
s
p
.
Ci
t
r
u
s
(
t
o
b
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
)
Hy
m
e
n
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
f
l
a
v
u
m
Sw
e
e
t
S
h
a
d
e
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
m
i
m
o
s
i
f
o
l
i
a
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
Me
t
r
o
s
i
d
e
r
o
s
e
x
c
e
l
s
a
Ne
w
Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
T
r
e
e
Ol
e
a
e
u
r
o
p
e
a
Ol
i
v
e
Pl
a
t
a
n
u
s
r
a
c
e
m
o
s
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
a
g
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Li
v
e
Oa
k
St
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
n
i
c
h
o
l
a
i
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Ti
p
u
a
n
a
t
i
p
u
Ti
p
u
T
r
e
e
Tr
a
c
h
y
c
a
r
p
u
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e
i
Wi
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
a
l
m
Sh
r
u
b
s
Al
y
o
g
y
n
e
h
u
e
g
e
l
i
i
Bl
u
e
H
i
b
i
s
c
u
s
Ca
l
l
i
s
t
e
m
o
n
‘
L
i
t
t
l
e
J
o
h
n
’
Dw
a
r
f
B
o
t
t
l
e
b
r
u
s
h
Sa
l
v
i
a
l
e
u
c
a
n
t
h
a
Me
x
i
c
a
n
S
a
g
e
St
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
r
e
g
i
n
a
e
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Vi
n
e
s
Di
s
t
i
c
t
i
s
b
u
c
i
n
n
a
t
o
r
i
a
Bl
o
o
d
-
r
e
d
T
r
u
m
p
e
t
V
i
n
e
Ma
c
f
a
d
e
n
y
a
u
n
g
u
i
s
-
c
a
t
i
Ca
t
’
s
C
l
a
w
Wi
s
t
e
r
i
a
s
i
n
e
n
s
i
s
Ch
i
n
e
s
e
W
i
s
t
e
r
i
a
Su
c
c
u
l
e
n
t
s
Ag
a
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
‘
M
e
d
i
o
-
p
i
c
t
a
’
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
Ag
a
v
e
‘
B
l
u
e
G
l
o
w
’
Bl
u
e
G
l
o
w
A
g
a
v
e
Al
o
e
n
o
b
i
l
i
s
Go
l
d
e
n
T
o
o
t
h
e
d
A
l
o
e
Al
o
e
s
t
r
i
a
t
a
Co
r
a
l
A
l
o
e
Na
t
i
v
e
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
Z
o
n
e
Sh
r
u
b
s
Mu
h
l
e
n
b
e
r
g
i
a
r
i
g
e
n
s
De
e
r
Gr
a
s
s
Rh
a
m
n
u
s
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Co
f
f
e
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ri
b
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
o
s
a
Fu
c
h
s
i
a
F
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
Go
o
s
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ro
s
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
W
i
l
d
R
o
s
e
Su
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
h
a
d
e
Z
o
n
e
(N
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
)
Sh
r
u
b
s
Al
p
i
n
i
a
z
e
r
u
m
b
e
t
Sh
e
l
l
G
i
n
g
e
r
Be
g
o
n
i
a
r
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
e
n
s
i
s
Be
g
o
n
i
a
Cl
i
v
i
a
m
i
n
i
a
t
a
Ka
f
f
i
r
L
i
l
y
Li
r
o
p
e
m
u
s
c
a
r
i
Bi
g
B
l
u
e
L
i
l
y
T
u
r
f
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
r
o
e
b
e
l
l
i
n
i
Py
g
m
y
D
a
t
e
P
a
l
m
Ra
p
h
i
o
l
e
p
i
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
‘
B
a
l
l
e
r
i
n
a
’
Ba
l
l
e
r
i
n
a
In
d
i
a
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
Ti
b
o
u
c
h
i
n
a
u
r
v
i
l
l
e
a
n
a
Pr
i
n
c
e
s
s
F
l
o
w
e
r
Tu
p
i
d
a
n
t
h
u
s
c
a
l
y
p
t
r
a
t
u
s
Um
b
r
e
l
l
a
T
r
e
e
F
E
B
1
7
,
2
0
1
6
No
r
t
h
0
10
'
2
0
'
4
0
'
40
'
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
4
0
'
-
0
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
A
T
E
P
A
L
M
RE
T
A
I
N
O
R
R
E
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
I
T
E
30
6
xt25;AeccDbFace (AeccLand100)
xt0
.
0
2
6
0
4
;
3
6
"
E
U
C
31
1
29
5
30
0
29
0
2
8
5
29
0
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
31
0
2
9
0
3
0
0
2
9
5
3
0
1
3
0
2
30
6
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
M
a
x
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(
M
A
W
A
)
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
(
E
T
W
U
)
:
97
%
C
i
t
y
St
a
t
e
Z
i
p
!
!
"
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
l
o
c
i
t
y
.
o
r
g
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
d
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
/
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
.
p
d
f
En
t
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
:
MA
W
A
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
7
1
2
,
8
0
4
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
5
4
9
7
5
M
A
W
A
U
n
i
t
s
9
5
2
.
9
5
Tu
r
f
2
7
4
5
Lo
w
(
D
r
o
u
g
h
t
T
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
)
3
9
1
4
0
E
T
W
U
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
6
8
9
,
9
0
8
.
0
0
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
1
3
0
9
0
E
T
W
U
U
n
i
t
s
9
2
2
.
3
4
Hi
g
h
(
T
h
i
r
s
t
y
)
0
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
0
Ve
g
e
t
a
b
l
e
s
0
[c
h
e
c
k
t
o
t
a
l
]
5
4
9
7
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
Mo
t
e
l
I
n
n
Na
m
e
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Ti
t
l
e
Te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
N
o
.
Fa
x
N
o
.
Em
a
i
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
Co
m
p
a
n
y
St
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
A
%
!
#
!
$
"
"
#
&
,
4
3
3
3
+
4
3
3
;
-
@
6
;
)
5
7
"
*
&
!
#
$
"
#
#
#
!
@
3
)
9
3
%
!
"
#
!
,
"
#
"
$
!
#
-
@
3
)
8
4
@
"
!
@
"
!
,
"
!
#
"
(
%
#
!
-
$
"
#
#
#
!
@
3
)
5
3
@
#
#
!
!
@
&
!
'
!
"
$
!
#
@
!
!
#
&
,
:
3
>
-
#
"
@
#
"
!
9
6
:
"
@
,
#
-
,
3
)
8
4
-
.
3
)
6
7
0
?
3
)
7
7
0
/
@
,
#
-
,
)
3
8
4
-
,
,
0
-
*
?
-
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 38
xt0
.
0
2
6
0
4
;
3
6
"
E
U
C
31
0
31
2
297
295
2
9
4
2
9
4
2
9
4
30
2
2 2
30
2
30
293
29292
291
2
29191
2
9
0
298
2
9
9
9
8
2
8
5
2
9
0
2
9
5
29
6
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
296
2
9
6
2
9
6
29329
30
3
30
4
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
F
i
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
F
i
r
m
a
_
M
o
t
e
l
_
I
n
n
_
P
R
E
L
I
M
3
_
t
r
e
e
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
_
2
_
1
2
_
1
6
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
/
1
6
/
1
6
L-
3
.
0
Tr
e
e
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
No
r
t
h
0
1
0
'
2
0
'
4
0
'
40
'
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
T
r
e
e
C
a
n
o
p
y
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
Pa
v
e
r
s
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
CA
N
O
P
Y
,
T
Y
P
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
e
e
s
C
a
l
i
p
e
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
1.
C
a
n
a
r
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
D
a
t
e
P
a
l
m
3
0
"
S
a
v
e
/
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
2.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
3
0
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
3.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
4.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
5.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
2
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
6.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
2
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
7.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
8.
E
u
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
3
6
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
9.
F
i
c
u
s
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
10
.
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
11
.
W
e
e
p
i
n
g
B
o
t
t
l
e
b
r
u
s
h
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
12
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
1
0
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
13
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
/
B
r
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
14
.
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
1
0
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
15
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
16
.
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
1
4
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
17
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
1
4
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
18
.
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
8
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
20
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
8
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
21
.
C
e
d
a
r
1
6
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
22
.
O
a
k
2
4
"
S
a
v
e
23
.
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
1
8
"
S
a
v
e
24
.
P
i
t
t
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
u
n
d
u
l
a
t
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
R
e
m
o
v
e
25
.
B
l
a
c
k
A
c
a
c
i
a
1
6
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
4
2 3
5
9
10
15
16
1718
19
20
21
F
E
B
1
7
,
2
0
1
6
8
14
13
12
11
6
7
22
232425
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 39
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 40
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 41
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 42
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 43
Attachment 2
ARC1 - 44
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 45
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 46
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 47
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 48
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 49
Attachment 3
ARC1 - 50
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual Review of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new
motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: USE 1035-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy
Director
Phone Number: 781-7177
E-mail: ddavidson@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff
and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with Ordinance 1130.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Zoning C‐T‐S (Tourist‐Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Subject to preparation of an
Initial Study due to creek
adjacency, historic property
status and highway 101 location.
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of a project
that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various
buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the
creek. Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria.
After complying with Planning Commission direction on consistency with Ordinance 1130,
the project applicant will finalize plans to move forward to the Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission prior to returning to the Planning Commission for final
action.
Meeting Date: August 26, 2015
Item Number: 1
PJD
PJD
DD
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 51
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project is expansion of a formerly existing motel use and includes a new RV parking use.
Both aspects are subject to a Planning Commission Use Permit. The purpose of the use permit is
to review the project for consistency with specific design criteria that are intended to protect the
creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood. This conceptual review process is
intended to receive feedback and early direction regarding the consistency of the project with
Ordinance 1130 prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with detailed
design plans.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres
Present Use & Development Parking lot , accessory structures, and ruins of the Historic Motel
Inn
Topography Generally level
Access North end of Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: C‐T‐S, Apple Farm Inn
South: R‐1‐S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood
The project site is roughly four acres on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, adjacent to
Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property. On the
south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are adjacent to
the motel portion of the property.
The former Motel Inn on this site was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as
the Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed around 1925 when Monterey Street
was the highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade.
Many of the motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration;
however the original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original
restaurant. Portions of the site are paved with asphalt and contain foundations of the original
motel structures and pool. The site is included in the City’s Master List of Historic resources.
2.2 Project Description
The project intends to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn, along with a
restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a courtyard setting. The remaining
portions of the original structures would be retained and integrated into the project. Thirty-two
(32) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings with some of
the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a separate building at
the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of the Motel Inn.
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 52
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 3
The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to
accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short term park. A total of 25 RV spaces are
proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site available
for overnight guests.
The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking
requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The
restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would
occur with final review of the use permit.
2.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2
Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 30 feet 45 feet1
Building Coverage (footprint) 13% 75%
Parking Spaces 119 1302
Bicycle Parking 29 16
Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to
HWY 101
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The C-T zone is designed to accommodate visitor serving uses such as a motel. However, new or
expanded uses require Planning Commission review due to Ordinance 1130 and the RV park use
triggers the review of PC Use Permit regardless of Ordinance 1130. The Use Permit is contingent
on findings for consistency with Ordinance 1130 and for compatibility with this unique location
adjacent to the creek, the highway and a residential neighborhood. The CHC’s future review
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within
the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The
restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses.
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 53
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 4
will rely on the project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Program guidelines while the
ARC’s future review will rely on the Citywide Community Design Guidelines.
A very similar project, absent the RV park, was reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission for this site in 2003. The previous project was larger in scale. Construction permits
were not pursued for the previous project and the entitlements have since expired.
3.1 General Plan Policy
The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially
appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper MontereyStreet region is
concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants.
Land Use Element policy 3.6.2 is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses:
“The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses,
including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train
station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be
located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts,
where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses
have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area;
at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.”
Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential
neighborhoods as the first priority.
Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3:
“In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential
uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.”
The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the
project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are
multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between
the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these
policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses.
Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay)
In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were
rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility
concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential
land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect
the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3).
Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130
since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are
detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways.
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 54
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 5
However, staff’s primary concern is that the RV park may conflict with the spirit of the
ordinance since it may be viewed as an outdoor recreation use. Ordinance 1130 states that
outdoor recreation uses or parking areas be on the interior of the site or should be shielded from
the creek by buildings. The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key
design criteria of Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity.
1. Creek setbacks
Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking
areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan).
2. Building openings
Openings facing creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard setting
surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the creek are
detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the buildings
contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the buildings
appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of the patios
and decks face inward towards the center of the site.
3. Screening between buildings and creek
This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other
sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis
Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from
the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood.
4. Lighting between buildings and creek
At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify
lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed
with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions
can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek.
5. Common driveways
The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be
perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is
instead alongside the proposed development.
6. Land Use compatibility
The low scale motel use is an ideal complementary use adjacent to the creek and the San
Luis Drive neighborhood. However, the RV park may be contrary to the objective of
Ordinance 1130 by positioning RV spaces facing the creek along with potential noise,
additional light and glare. Although the RV park is conceptually a good use for this
freeway oriented, narrow site, its accompanying potential impacts may not be compatible
with riparian or residential land uses as expressed in the ordinance.
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 55
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 6
7. Noise generating uses such as parking and active recreation uses
This is the criteria that appears to specifically conflict with the RV parking use.
Ordinance 1130 specifically notes that parking and “active recreation” uses should be on
the interior of the site using buildings as a buffer from the creek and residential uses. The
project proposal identifies seven RV parking spaces located at the creek setback, along
with spaces for several of the applicant installed airstream trailers. The RV parking
spaces would act as camp sites, and although outdoor fire pits are not allowed in the City,
this may be considered an outdoor active use. Fortunately, the creek provides heavy tree
screening at this location and much of the land opposite the creek is not lined with
sensitive residential uses. Although this is a creative use for the site, it appears to be
inconsistent with Ordinance 1130 unless it can be clearly buffered from the creek.
Figure 2: Site plan identifying proposed RV park location
8. Site drainage
Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff
or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria
have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will
guide the project design.
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 56
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 7
9. Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary.
The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court
development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone.
3.5 Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130:
a. Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common
area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review
by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants
receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and
lighting will be required.
b. Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the
western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on
Monterey Street while allowing logical access. Details of enclosures will need to be
included with the final project design.
c. Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and
motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a
more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking
spaces, however the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The
parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces
are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use
for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as
guests as the hotel.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As proposed the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101,
and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the
initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the
project’s consistency with Ordinance 1130. The design of the motel project appears consistent
with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130. However, the unique RV parking
proposal may conflict with the ordinance provisions and may need additional creek buffering in
order for the Commission to make positive use permit findings. The following discussion items
have been identified to formulate discussion:
1. RV Park creek buffering. A landscaped screening wall with a natural stone appearance
designed with varying heights and setbacks may allow the RV sites to be consistent with
Ordinance provisions while helping to block light and potential noise. However, this wall
would alter the quality of the RV park from the users perspective.
2. Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with
walls or removed from the proposed building design.
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 57
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 8
Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in
the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include
public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity (Land Use) map
2. Reduced-scale project plans
3. Ordinance 1130
Attachment 4
ARC1 - 58
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 59
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 60
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 61
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 62
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 63
Attachment 5
ARC1 - 64
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)
SUBJECT: Conceptual Review of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new
motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY:Steve Matarazzo, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1992-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy
Director
Phone Number: 781-7169
E-mail: tcorey@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff
and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
other direction that may be a part of the conceptual review hearing.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan
Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Subject to preparation of an
Initial Study due to creek
adjacency, historic property
status and highway 101 location.
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of a project
that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various
buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the
creek. Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project conceptually on August 26, 2015 and found the
project to be consistent with land use and zoning designations of property; and, consistent with
the “S”, special considerations, overlay zone (Ordinance 1130). The applicant is now requesting
a conceptual architectural review of the preliminary site and architectural plans prior to
proceeding with final review of more complete plans to the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission.
Meeting Date: October 19, 2015
Item Number: 1
TAC
SM
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 65
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 2
The developer is also working with the City and Caltrans to determine the extent of roadway
improvements/restrictions that may be needed to reduce the speed of vehicles accelerating onto
the Highway 101 north-bound on-ramp, immediately adjacent to the site. Other conflicting
traffic movements at the on-ramp/off-ramp locations will also be evaluated with final
recommendations going to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project proposes an expansion of a former, existing motel (the historic Motel Inn) and would
include a new RV parking use. Both land uses are subject to Architectural Review Commission
site and architectural plan approval and Planning Commission use permit approval. This
conceptual architectural and site plan review process is intended to receive feedback and early
direction regarding the consistency of the project with Ordinance 1130 and the community
design guidelines prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with more
detailed design plans.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres
Present Use & Development Parking lot , accessory structures, and remnants of the Historic
Motel Inn
Topography Generally level
Access North end of Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: C-T-S, Apple Farm Inn
South: R-1-S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood
The project site is approximately four acres, on the very northeast end of Monterey Street,
adjacent to Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property.
On the south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are
across the creek and otherwise adjacent to the motel portion of the property.
The former Motel Inn was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as the
Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed circa 1925 when Monterey Street was the
highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade. Many of the
motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration; however the
original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original restaurant. The site
is also included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 66
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 3
2.2 Project Description
The project proposes to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn (Mission revival
architectural style), along with a restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a
courtyard setting. The remaining portions of the original structures would be retained and
integrated into the project. The developer has agreed to design the new structures attached to the
historic building remnants so that there is sufficient differentiation between the old and new.
Fifty-two (52) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings
with some of the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a
separate building at the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of
the Motel Inn.
The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to
accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short-term rental park. A total of 25 RV spaces are
proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site (with
permanent utility hookups) available for overnight guests.
The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking
requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The
restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would
occur with final review of the use permit.
2.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2
Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 30 feet 45 feet1
Building Coverage (footprint) 13% 75%
Parking Spaces 119 1302
Bicycle Parking 29 16
Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to
HWY 101
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within
the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The
restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 67
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 4
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Design
Conceptually, the project satisfies the Community Design Guidelines regarding commercial
project design outside of the downtown area. Section 3.1 of the commercial project guidelines
addresses the following design objectives:
1. Consider the city’s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding area;
2. Avoid boxy structures with large flat wall planes;
3. Preserve the design integrity of historically significant structures;
4. Provide landscaping to help screen parking and storage areas;
5. Provide safe access to the site and design parking to avoid awkward turning movements;
6. Consider the need for signs and their appropriate scale early in the design process;
7. Locate outdoor equipment and trash enclosures in the least conspicuous parts of the site;
8. Neighborhood compatibility design objectives include having an appropriate design theme,
having buildings of proportional scale and size, having appropriate building setbacks and
massing and using appropriate colors, textures and building materials;
9. Architectural design should involve a consistent use of colors, materials and detailing
throughout all elevations of the buildings.
The proposed project is consistent with the above guidelines by keeping the scale of
development relatively low profile, and it is well buffered from the adjoining neighborhood by
creek vegetation and setback. The Mission Revival style reflects the historic parts of the former
motel and avoids boxy building shapes, providing consistent design, materials and detailing (e.g.,
tiled gabled roofs, trellis and porch elements, cap pieces, recessed windows, small paned
windows, wood framing above windows, and decorative exterior stairways).
As there are no permanent buildings proposed on the other half of the property, primarily site
plan considerations are directed toward the recreational vehicle park. The site plan is well-
designed for its purpose easily accommodating the proposed 25 RVs. The 10 proposed Airstream
vehicles will be of a more stationary nature, but still moveable. Therefore, what appears to be a
“tandem parking” situation adjacent to the short-term RV parking, will not present a problem.
Further, some of these mobile vehicles are shown to be located within an existing water
easement (along the northerly property line) and an access easement (along the easterly property
line). The developer will need to contact the water department to coordinate activities in the
water line easement area. The 50 foot access easement is currently being researched by staff.
However, this easement area should not present a problem for the site plan as the Airstreams are
moveable, if and when required. (The applicant believes this is some kind of trail easement
which would eventually go under the freeway to connect with a future trail system.) The
Commission should also consider any screening issues of the RV park within its site plan
orientation. Existing vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way on one side, and the riparian
corridor of San Luis Creek on the other appear to provide excellent visual screening from the
traveling public on Highway 101 and across the creek to the adjacent neighborhood.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 68
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 5
3.2 General Plan Policy
The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially
appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper Monterey Street region is
concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants.
Land Use Element policy 3.6.2 is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses:
“The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses,
including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train
station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be
located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts,
where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses
have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area;
at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.”
Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential
neighborhoods as the first priority.
Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3:
“In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential
uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.”
The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the
project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are
multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between
the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these
policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses.
3.3 Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay)
In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were
rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility
concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential
land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect
the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3).
Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130
since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are
detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways. The
The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key design criteria of
Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 69
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 6
1. Creek setbacks
Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking
areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan).
2. Building openings
Openings facing the creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard
setting surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the
creek are detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the
buildings contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the
buildings appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of
the patios and decks face inward towards the center of the site.
3. Screening between buildings and creek
This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other
sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis
Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from
the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood.
4. Lighting between buildings and creek
At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify
lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed
with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions
can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek.
5. Common driveways
The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be
perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is
instead alongside the proposed development.
6. Land Use compatibility
The low scale motel use is consistent with the zoning, will not adversely affect the creek
and will be well buffered from the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Also, in its conceptual
review, the Planning Commission did not see a problem with the complementary use of a
small RV parking area within the motel site.
7. Site drainage
Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff
or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria
have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will
guide the project design.
8. Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary.
The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court
development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 70
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 7
3.4 Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130:
a. Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common
area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review
by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants
receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and
lighting will be required. Highway vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way
appears adequate to screen the property, and in particular the RV parking area.
b. Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the
western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on
Monterey Street while allowing easy access. Details of enclosures will need to be
included with the final project design.
c. Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and
motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a
more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking
spaces; however, the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The
parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces
are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use
for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as
guests of the hotel.
d. Signs: The project will retain the historic free-standing motel sign. Other signage
will be subject to future ARC review and approval.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As proposed, the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101,
and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the
initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the
project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The design of the motel project
appears consistent with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130. The following items
have been identified to formulate discussion:
1. RV Park creek buffering. The City’s Natural Resources Manager is recommending a
wooden rail fence with appropriate signing to address potential trespass into the riparian
area. This type of pedestrian restriction would still allow the visual enjoyment of the
resource.
2. Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with
walls or removed from the proposed building design.
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 71
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 8
Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in
the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include
public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity (Land Use) map
2. Reduced-scale project plans
3. Ordinance 1130
Attachment 6
ARC1 - 72
DR
A
F
T
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
October 19, 2015
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair
Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioners. Ken Curtis and Allen Root
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Interim-Community
Development Liaison Marcus Carloni, Natural Resources Manager Bob
Hill, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Consulting Planner Dave Watson, and
Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was modified to move item 2 (224 Tank Farm Road) into the item 1
position.
MINUTES
There were no minutes presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 224 Tank Farm Road. ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new
Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water tower, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review; Verizon Wireless, applicant.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a date uncertain to allow time to consider and take
action on the Use Permit application associated with this project.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to continue to a future
Architectural Review Commission Meeting.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Root.
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 73
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 2
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
2. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-1992-2015; Conceptual design review of a proposed
hotel adjacent to the historic Motel Inn. Project proposes 52 one and two story units, up
to 25 Recreational Vehicles, two pools, a restaurant, and associated parking and site
improvements; C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones; Motel Inn, LP, applicant.
Chair Wynn and Commr. Soll recused from this item due to conflict of interests and left
the conference room at 5:05 p.m.
Community Development Director Codron summarized the purpose of a Conceptual
Review, noting that in these cases applicants seek feedback before the project is
presented for approval and for public notification; explained that due to the complexity of
the project, the format is altered, thus allowing applicants the opportunity to present
before providing staff with a framework for the conversation.
The Applicant provided an overview and brief history of the project; stated the project
met ordinance requirements, noting the improvements to the current design.
The applicant answered Commission’s questions regarding the patio and picnic areas
for the RV parking, indicating that each RV space would have its own picnic area, and
would have access to all of the Motel amenities.
In response to Commr. Nemcik, the Applicant noted the surface on the street would be
made of pavers and asphalt.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a quick overview of the
project site, recommending that the commission formulate discussions regarding the RV
Park creek buffering; stated that the City’s Natural Resource Manager recommended a
wooden rail fence with signs to address potential trespassing into the riparian area;
suggested a discussion on the Motel bungalow units, stating that the decks or patios
facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed
building design.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie acknowledged correspondence received by Bob Lucas; reviewed the
contents of an email from Commr. Root, expressing his support for the project; and
noting that the project meets Ordinance 1130 and setback requirements.
In response to Commr. Nemcik, Community Development Director Codron, stated the
fence would be a split-rail fence, which is the City standard design for creek corridors.
Commr. Andreen, asked staff for interpretation on the meaning of the word “should” as
opposed to “shall” in City Ordinance 1130.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the language in question
is generally designed to provide flexibility.
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 74
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 3
Community Development Director Codron expounded on the previous comment, noting
the use of the word “should” is subject to intent; explained the intent in this case is to
preserve the residential feel of the surrounding area.
In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, regarding the reason for the rail fence as opposed to
a wall fence that could potentially help mitigate noise and light issues, the Applicant
stated that the Planning commission was pleased with the rail fence noting that a solid
wall was not needed due to distance, thick riparian area and the fact that RV guests will
not be using the space as a recreational area.
In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, the Applicant stated the studies submitted between
2003 and 2005, including a noise study, remain current; declared that a masonry wall
would be a mistake in this area and would not be needed due to the kind of activities
that would take place in the RV area, noting that noise from the highway would be
greater than the noise generated in the RV area.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, affirmed his support for this project from a neighbor’s
perspective; opined the project represents a low intensity type of recreation appropriate
for this particular property, noting that he does not anticipate an excessive amount of
noise; expressed his belief that the project would be an enhancement to the city.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commr. Andreen expressed appreciation for Mr. Garth’s perspective; voiced concerns
over the use of the word “should” in section 7 of Ordinance 1130; acknowledged the
general consensus that RV users are typically a respectful group; opined that she does
not believe this would be a major noise generator; asserted interest in seeing noise
studies; opined that this project would be appropriate and attractive, posing no major
concern with regard to the open spacing of the creek or fencing choices; voiced support
for seeing the project move forward.
Commr. Nemcik noted that the design is elegant and beautiful; stated the applicants are
heading in the right direction and have been cautious in addressing all of the points in
Ordinance 1130; opined that the split rail fence would be appropriate; indicated support
for the project.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie stated this project would add value to the community; expressed
satisfaction with the way ordinance 1130 was addressed; asserted interest in reviewing
the noise study; noted no concerns with the patio spacing; voiced support for seeing the
project move forward.
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 75
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 4
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review. No specific directional items were provided from the
ARC.
Chair Wynn and Comm. Soll rejoined the meeting room at 5:50 p.m.
3. 1299 Orcutt Road. ARCH-0224-2014; Continued review of the “West Creek” project
design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land;
Robbins/Reed, applicant.
Scott Martin, Architect with RRM Design Group, provided an update on the changes
made to the project since the previous conceptual hearing and addressed previous
directional items; noted adding a round-a-about which created changes in circulation
and connectivity. The applicant pointed out changes in geometry, including additional
retaining walls, based on recommendations from the Natural Resources Manager Bob
Hill; stated the project meets pedestrian connectivity based on the Orcutt Area Specific
Plan; provided a new grading plan to help balance the site and proposed implementing
innovative parking solutions such as decupling the garages from the properties and
selling the garages separately; suggested having a shared “fun car” that could be made
available for rent as well as providing plenty of long and short-term bike storage; noted
ample parking in the single-family residential area as well as on the streets near Orcutt
Road; stated the neighborhood would not be impacted by parking issues.
In response to Commr. Andreen, the applicant stated the pool would not be accessible
to the single-family dwellings due to costly ADA requirements and would only be used
by the multi-family residents.
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiries regarding parking, the applicants noted they
would have no problem allocating some of the parking spaces in the PG&E easement
area to multi-family parking, and would have no issues for making the shared fun car or
truck available to all residents.
In response to Commr. Wynn’s inquiry, the applicants confirmed storage requirements
would be met notwithstanding the decupling concept and indicated there would be long-
term bicycle parking all throughout the site.
Applicants stated that they would like to receive feedback regarding parking, grading
and architecture.
City Consultant, Dave Watson, presented the staff report, reviewed improvements and
changes to the site-plans, evaluated directional items from the previous conceptual
review, and went over additional topographic information. Pointed out competing
policies relative to grading in the setback areas; advised the commission to establish a
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 76
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 5
minimum number of parking spaces and to discuss pedestrian linkage; noted that staff
agrees with mixing land usage but suggested common areas should stand-alone;
expressed support for the design styles and for positioning the garages in the rear
areas; suggested focusing the conversation to the directional items from the previous
conceptual review; noted that the information gathered from this review would be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council.
In response to inquiry by Commr. Andreen, Natural Resource Manager, Bob Hill, stated
that he visited the site on two occasions, in two different seasons; noted that the riparian
area was highly denuded; attested to the lack of strong concerns for the removal of
what is on site; explained that a 2 to 1 slope is steeper, indicating that it could be made
stable and has the potential for ample restoration; believes a more robust riparian
canopy could be achieved; confirmed the project is fully compliant with the creek
setback regulations as well as the setbacks specified for both creeks and wetlands in
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; explained that the community design guidelines have
language about grading in setbacks which would be used as the policy in this case;
expressed not having concerns with erosion, asserting that the site would have a water
erosion control plan which would be monitored by the water board.
In response to inquiry by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, Natural Resource Manager Hill indicated
there are no proposed bridges on the creek.
Community Development Director Codron, noted that the specific site policy does not
require additional discussions for bridges; asserted the applicant is working with staff to
develop a two-part parking reduction strategy with a proposal that could be effective;
noted confidence in the process.
In response to Commr. Andreen’s inquiry, Community Development Director Codron,
stated the City is responsible for maintaining the streets.
Civil Enginner Hal Hannula provided an overview of the PG&E easement area; opined
that fewer pavement and parallel parking spaces might be a better use of the area.
Staff clarified that all perpendicular parking on A2 Street is additional and not a part of
the parking requirement.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the plans indicate 26-feet
back up space available for vehicles in the alleys between units.
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 77
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 6
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Wynn acknowledged receiving correspondence from the applicant and Mr. Flores.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Community Development Director Codron responded to questions regarding decupling,
stating it is not a new concept but a widely recognized way for dealing with the need for
single-occupancy parking; noted that the Tolosa Ranch Apartments offer parking
separately; stated that analysis will be done to see how this would impact parking.
Chair Wynn stated that the idea of decupling is good, but noted concerns about its
sustainability; suggested a need to review Principal Transportation Planner Peggy
Mandeville’s input on the matter. Also voiced concerns with R-2 guest parking.
Commr. Nemcik stated the rationale items for reducing parking are a good idea but
does believe they would warrant a parking reduction; noted that even if people bike,
they would most likely also own vehicles; voiced concerns regarding sufficient parking.
In response to Chair Wynn, Consultant Watson clarified that in the R-4 zone the
applicants fall seventeen percent below the parking requirements.
Commr. Andreen expressed apprehension over the lack of parking; opined that people
in California rely on their cars and do not change quickly; stated the gap is too far from
the normal requirements.
In response to Commr. Soll, Consultant Watson, clarified that the proposal has 160
spaces of the 194 space requirement; suggested a viable solution would be to set a
threshold and let the applicants work with Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville
and staff to develop a plan.
Vice-Chair Edhaie concurred with Commrs. Nemcik and Andreen, voicing concerns
over the reduced parking; noted being in favor of setting a threshold and allowing the
applicant time to work through the issues.
Commr. Andreen stated that a 17 percent is not an acceptable reduction.
Consultant Watson suggested reducing to a ten percent threshold, noting that staff can
include contingency plans that would allow for more parking to be created to satisfy
demand.
Community Development Director Codron clarified that the additional parking reduction
is allowed within the zoning regulations.
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 78
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 7
The Applicant clarified that they are asking for a seven percent reduction on a project
that requires 200 spaces.
Chair Wynn expressed support for developing a contingency plan built into the parking
plan.
The Commission, having established concerns over parking, agreed to have the
applicant work with staff and Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville to come up
with a solution that could incorporate a contingency plan.
Chair Wynn shared concerns over the creek channel looking manufactured; suggested
adding bumps and pockets to add more naturalness; noted concerns with bicyclists’
ability to ride up the steep areas.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni, acknowledged concerns and
constraints due to grading; noted that staff is not against grading; stated that the goal
was to make the commission aware of those constraints.
Chair Wynn, expressed satisfaction with the grading; acknowledged the positive
direction of the project; requested to see the overall stepping of the site.
During the course of discussion, the Commission concluded there is connectivity;
suggested adding more pathways to Orcutt Road.
The applicant provided an overview of the new architectural styles, noting the addition
of a craftsman style house for which Chair Wynn and Commr. Andreen voiced support.
In response to Commr. Andreen, the applicant stated that the homeowners would have
an option to choose from a set of colors to ensure an eclectic color palate in keeping
with the San Luis Obispo style; noted that there will be trees in between the single
family homes.
The Applicant noted remaining concerns over parking; stated a commitment to working
toward the City’s requirements; voiced misperception over lack of consistency in the
requests made by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission
with regard to number of parking spaces; expressed appreciation for Commission
feedback.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review with the following directional items:
1. Note: The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on
conceptual information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full
application submittal for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans,
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 79
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 8
the ARC may require additional changes and or modifications to the project that
were not previously known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional
items.
2. Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City
checklists.
3. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-
street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk).
4. Provide details on the pedestrian connection to the adjoining Mobile Home Park
with final design plans.
5. Explore pedestrian connectivity from the connection of Street A-4 and Street A-
3 to Orcutt Road (between the residential lots).
6. Explore alternatives to proposed grading along the creek (especially within the
creek setback) to provide a more varied/naturally appearing slope bank.
7. Explore additional parking reduction options to be considered by the ARC with
final design review plans, based on a 10% reduction, with a minimum of 174
parking spaces (21 guest parking spaces and at least 153 resident spaces)
required unless an acceptable alternate or contingency plan can be
implemented with the final design.
8. In conjunction with Public Works review of the project, introduce extensions of
the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly towards A-2 Street to break up the
extent of common street parking, as a part of final design review by ARC.
9. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of
structures and relationship to topography.
10. Provide 3D renderings to illustrate the proposed use of taller retaining walls (in
particular: the tiered walls along Orcutt Road and the taller retaining walls
associated with the condo structures). Include landscaping/screening proposals
with these renderings.
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 80
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 9
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a forecast of
upcoming agenda items; noting an upcoming hearing on November 2, 2015 for
222 Tank Farm, and stated there will be a conceptual review on November 16,
2015 of the San Luis Ranch Project and an appeal of a guest house at 128
Chorro Street.
2. Commission:
The Commission discussed the new format for conceptual review hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary
Attachment 7
ARC1 - 81
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Item Number: #3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a hotel project with 52 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 24 RV
hookups on the Master List Historic Motel Inn property
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1992-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the Architectural Review Commission find the proposed project to be consistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative
Historic Status
Studio Design Group
Architects
Master List
Submittal Date
November 9, 2015
Complete Date January 11, 2016
Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial
with Special Considerations
“S” overlay)
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area 4.19 acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative
Declaration Pending
SUMMARY
The applicant has proposed a redevelopment project of the historic Motel Inn property with 52
motel guest rooms and a 25 space Recreational Vehicle Park at the rear of the site adjacent to
Highway 101 and San Luis Obispo Creek (Attachment 3, reduced scale plans).
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 82
ARCH-1992-2015
2223 & 2229 Monterey Street
Page 2
The project does not propose any changes to the previously approved restaurant building which
incorporates the remaining portions of the Master List Historic Motel Inn (Figure 1, below). Review
of the project is limited to determining the compatibility of new proposed buildings with the
approved restaurant building which incorporates the remaining portions of the Historic Motel Inn.
The project is located in an area of a Special Considerations overlay which requires Use Permit
approval by the Planning Commission to verify conformance with conditions that apply to
development in this area.
The Planning Commission previously conducted a conceptual review on August 26, 2015, and the
Architectural Review Commission conceptually reviewed the project on October 19, 2015. The
project requires review by the CHC in order to determine the compatibility of new development
around the already approved restaurant building/remaining historic features of the Historic Motel
Inn. Following CHC review, the ARC will review the project for final design review and the
Planning Commission will conduct a final Use Permit review.
CHC Purview
The project is before the CHC since the proposed new construction is located on the property of a
Master List Historic Resource. The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new construction in terms
of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for compatibility with the previously approved restaurant building which includes
portions of the original Historic Motel Inn building.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Description
The project site is 4.19 acres in area and is located at the northerly terminus of Monterey Street
along the south side of the U.S. 101 northbound onramp and the U.S. 101 freeway (Attachment 2,
Vicinity Map). The south and east side of the property are bounded by San Luis Creek and the San
Luis Drive residential neighborhood located across the creek. The Apple Farm Hotel is located to
the west of the property.
The Historic Motel Inn is on the city’s Master List of Historic Resources, recognizing that the
property once accommodated the world’s first motel (former Motel Inn), built in 1925. Originally
known as the Milestone Motel Inn, the property was commonly used as the overnight midpoint
between Los Angeles and San Francisco for auto travelers passing north and south over Cuesta
Grade1. Most of the original motel complex which had been significantly altered and no longer held
historic significance was demolished in the early 2000s due to extensive deterioration. However,
the original motel lobby/office building and a portion of the wall of the original restaurant have
been preserved as a condition of a prior condo-hotel development known as “Apple Farm II”,
approved in 2003. The preserved remnants of the old Motel Inn are proposed to be retained in the
new project, and are currently part of an active building permit for the former, approved project.
(See Attachment 4, Historic Resources Inventory). The remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn
consist of a façade wall from the original restaurant and portions of the lobby building which
1 Westways magazine article, Matthew W. Roth, May/June 2000
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 83
ARCH-1992-2015
2223 & 2229 Monterey Street
Page 3
include a three tiered bell tower with a copper dome (Figure 1, below). The building which will
include these remaining historic features was approved previously and is not a part of the current
project proposal being evaluated (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A 1.2 & A-3.6).
Figure 1 – Previously approved restaurant building/Motel Inn structures within dashed boxes
Project Description
The project proposes construction of a hotel with 52 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 24
RV hookups (Attachment 3, Project Plans). The hotel room configuration includes 12 rooms within
the main lobby building and 40 rooms within 12 detached bungalow units. The proposed lobby
building and bungalow units are located behind the previously approved restaurant building which
contains the remaining Motel Inn Historic features on the north facing elevation of the approved
restaurant building (shown for reference in Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A-3.6). The
architectural characteristics of the project reflect the Mission Revival style consistent with the
theme of the original Motel Inn with architectural features that include a bell tower, arched
windows and doors, curved parapets, red-tiled roof, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafters.
The proposed lobby building (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A-3.0, A-3.1, and A-3.1b & c)
and detached bungalows (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A-3.2 through A3.5) will be located
to the south and southeast of the building which contains the historic Motel Inn remnants. The
proposed 24 space recreational vehicle park is located on the east side of the property (Figure 2,
below & Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A1.1 & A1.3)
Figure 2 - Site plan showing previously approved “not a part” restaurant
Main
Hotel
Hotel Units, typ.
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 84
ARCH-1992-2015
2223 & 2229 Monterey Street
Page 4
EVALUATION
The CHC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards.
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Section 3.1.1 of the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines states: “Construction in
historic districts and on properties that contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals
and policies of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines, the
Community Design Guidelines, any applicable specific or area plan, and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.”
Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards
This project is most appropriately characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards of
Treatment since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the property, and
rehabilitation is the only treatment standard which includes an opportunity to accommodate a
contemporary use through alterations and additions.2
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #9 states: “New additions, alterations, or related new
construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10 states: “New additions and adjacent or related new
construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.”
Staff Analysis: The previously approved restaurant building at the entrance to the property
contains the two significant historic elements of the old Motel Inn including portions of the historic
lobby building with the three tiered bell tower and a portion of the façade from the original
restaurant building. This “not a part” portion of the project has an active building permit and the
architecture of that approved permit set will not change. The proposed new construction in the
project which should be evaluated for compatibility with the remaining historic portions of the
Motel Inn consist of the new lobby building with 12 hotel rooms, 10 detached bungalow units with
a total of 40 rooms, and the short term RV park located on the east side of the project site.
Proposed development will be located approximately 20-feet behind the previously approved
restaurant building (which includes the historic features) and the scale of the lobby building and
bungalow units will not block views, nor overwhelm or detract from the remaining historic features
(See Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A-4.1 “site elevation A – View from 101. Note that
“proposed motel inn lobby” is located behind “restaurant – not a part”). The proposed architectural
2 Secretary of Interior Standards, Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, Introduction
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 85
ARCH-1992-2015
2223 & 2229 Monterey Street
Page 5
style of the new development incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to
the original Motel Inn architectural style. The new work will not detract from or destroy any of the
character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved restaurant building and
the proposed structures will preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property. The
RV portion of the property is of a relatively low intensity with only 25 potential RV spaces on the
site plan. The parking of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, will not detract from the original
motel setting, or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist-oriented use is
consistent with the historic, visitor-serving purpose of the property.
Archeological Preservation Program Guidelines
Archaeological investigation and testing was conducted in 2002 in association with approvals for
the previously approved project. Because of the possibility that archaeological deposits could be
discovered during major earth movement activities; archaeological monitoring during construction
was recommended3. A mitigation measure is included in the initial study and incorporated as a
recommended condition of approval #1a (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution) which requires the
submittal of a monitoring plan by a qualified subsurface archaeologist in conformance with the
requirements of the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. In the event
excavation activities encounter historic artifacts, the construction will stop until a qualified
archaeologist has reviewed the materials, assessed significance, and determined the appropriate
course of action in accordance with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has prepared a Draft Initial Study that will be reviewed by the ARC and PC for final action
(Attachment 5, Draft Initial Study). Pertinent evaluation within the Initial Study for CHC
consideration can be found in the Cultural Resources section (Section 5). The initial study cultural
resources evaluation found the project would not detract from the remaining historic resources on
site and would have a less than significant impact (Attachment 5, Initial Study). The initial study
evaluation found less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with incorporation of
monitoring requirements as a mitigation measure which will be incorporated into project conditions
of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft Cultural Heritage Committee Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the
Architectural Review Commission find the project to be consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Recommend denial of the project. Action denying the application should include findings that
3 Extended Phase 1 Testing for the Motel Inn Complex, Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002.
4 City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 86
ARCH-1992-2015
2223 & 2229 Monterey Street
Page 6
cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of the Interior’s standards.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Plans
4. Historic Resource Inventory
5. Draft Initial Study
Attachment 8
ARC1 - 87
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
January 25, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to
order on Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located
at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee
(arrived at 5:56 p.m.), James Papp, Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich,
and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Codron, Senior Planner Brian Leveille,
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni,
Contract Planner Shawna Scott, and Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES
By consensus, the committee approved the Minutes of November 23, 2015 were
approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no members of the public desiring to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Citywide. ARCH-2408-2015; Review of City wayfinding signs: Downtown
Orientation Map kiosks and a new City Hall Information Center and Wayfinding
Kiosk in the Downtown Historic District, City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works
Department, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 88
CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 2
Associate Planner Cohen narrated a PowerPoint presentation and presented a brief
timeline of events, noting that the project was developed with the assistance of RRM
Design Group and Rademaker Design.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no members of the public desiring to speak.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Associate Planner Cohen presented the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosk mock up
samples, describing the dimensions: 7 feet tall and five feet 6 inches wide; added that
the information displayed on the kiosk will be double-sided and located in pedestrian
walkways in locations that will be identifiable from a distance; stated that the City Hall
mailboxes will be relocated and the City Hall Information Center and Wayfinding Kiosk
will replace the existing kiosk.
Associate Planner Cohen presented a map of the proposed locations of the kiosks,
highlighting that the Wayfinding Kiosk will be located in front of City Hall and incorporate
similar colors and design to the City Hall Building.
Chair Hill recognized Engineer III McGuire, Debbie Rudd of RRM Design Group, and
Pierre Rademaker of Rademaker Design to answer inquiries made by the Committee.
Committee Member Kincaid inquired about the lack of a kiosk in the quadrant near the
Firestone Grill area, noting that visitors enter the downtown in that general area.
In response to Committee Member Kincaid’s inquiries, Engineer III McGuire stated that
the primary locations have been determined near parking garages and secondary
locations have been cited for future consideration.
Chair Hill inquired about the use of the existing directory signs; questioned if feedback
has been provided from the public and asked why existing style and signage are not
replicated for consistency.
In response to Chair Hill’s inquiries, Mr. Rademaker explained that the new kiosks have
been developed to include maps, highlighting that the kiosks are strictly for pedestrian
use. Community Development Director Codron stated that the presented kiosks are in a
different classification for signage in the downtown area.
Vice Chair Brajkovich inquired about the location of the kiosk site near City Hall.
In response to Vice Chair Brajkovich, Mr. Rademaker explained that the sign near City
Hall has been developed to help assist pedestrians in determining locations for City
facilities.
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 89
CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 3
Mr. Rademaker and Ms. Rudd narrated a PowerPoint presentation, noting that this
project is in the second phase; emphasized that this phase is conceptual, pending
design development phase for maps, orientation, and content. Mr. Rademaker spoke on
the influence of the current concepts and characteristics of kiosks from Russel Square,
London and New York, New York, highlighting content presented in the different kiosks:
pedestrian crossings, historical landmarks, and other pedestrian map information. Ms.
Rudd explained that the maps may include additional information such as website links
to historical maps and visitor information.
Mr. Rademaker presented photos of the mock up kiosks in their anticipated locations
respectively and spoke on the anticipated design for the City wayfinding Kiosk, noting
that the style of the kiosk has been developed to reflect a similar style to the City Hall
building.
During the course of discussion individual members of the committee concurred that the
following recommendations should be considered: change to color contrast, refine
locations of signs, and review the scale and height of the kiosks.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the ARC approve the project based on findings
and subject to conditions.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Chair Hill, to
forward a resolution recommending approval to the Architectural Review
Commission with the following revisions: (7:0)
1. Provide better color contrast between the background sign color and the map on
the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks.
2. Refine the locations of signs considering potential for sign clutter with existing
signage and various sign types included in the Wayfinding Sign Program.
3. Include a context map along with the detailed map on the Downtown Orientation
Map Kiosks.
4. Review the scale/height of Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks for compatibility in
the Downtown.
5. Provide alternative illumination for the signs (internally illuminated cabinet signs
not allowed in downtown)
6. Review cohesiveness of the different style of signage in front of City Hall.
2. 1009 Monterey Street. HIST-2592-2016; Historic Significance Determination for a
Contributing List property at 1009 Monterey Street, C-D-H zone, Rossi/King
Organization, applicant. (Rachel Cohen).
Contract Planner Shawna Scott narrated a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the
contents of the staff report, highlighting that the building’s original style has undergone
several modifications and the current structure does not retain the original historic
character and is not historically significant.
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 90
CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Applicant Rob Rossi provided a brief background of the building, presented a timeline of
events, and described the current building to be in poor condition, echoing his previous
comments at the meeting held on December 7, 2015.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
During the course of discussion the individual members of the Committee discussed the
lack of support for the building qualifying for the City’s list of historic resources. The
Committee encouraged the applicant to reflect the history of the building by
incorporating graphics or artwork in the new proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution removing 1009
Monterey Street from the City’s List of Contributing Historic Resources.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Committee
Member Baer, to adopt the resolution recommending the Council remove the
property from the Contributing List of Historic Resources (7:0).
3. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-2363-2015; Review of a hotel project with 52 rooms
and a recreational vehicle park with 24 RV hookups on the Master List Historic
Motel Inn property; C-T-S & C-O-S zone; Motel Inn, L.P., applicant. (Marcus
Carloni).
Associate Planner Carloni narrated a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the
contents of the staff report, explaining the project in terms of its consistency with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Applicant Rob Rossi provided a brief background of the property, presented a timeline
of events, and described the project site. Mr. Rossi explained that the previously
approved restaurant building includes portions of the original Historic Motel Inn and
noted that it is on the city’s Master List of Historic Resources.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Chair Hill inquired about the property being subject to the Mills Act.
In response to Chair Hill’s inquiry, Senior Planner Leveille stated that the property is not
under a Mills Act contract.
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 91
CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 5
Committee Member Papp inquired about potential noise impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood.
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiries, Applicant Rob Rossi explained that
the project site borders along the side of the U.S. 101 freeway , and that the site is at a
slightly lower grade than the freeway which reduces noise impact some. He added that
the new construction will likely block noise from the freeway and reduce noise in the
neighborhood and stated that the ambient noise of the highway is expected to be
greater than the anticipated ambient noise of the motel and RV park.
During the course of discussion the individual members of the Committee inquired
about the building’s significance and proposed construction in terms of its consistency
with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior
Standards for compatibility, deliberating about the layout of the 52 rooms and a
recreational vehicle park with 24 RV hookups.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the ARC approve the project based on findings
the project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and
the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee
Member Larrabee, to adopt the resolution recommending the Architectural Review
Commission approve the project (7:0).
4. 1516 Broad Street. ARCH-2225-2015; Review of a new 2-bedroom dwelling behind
the Master List Renetzky House in the Old Town Historic District; R-2-H zone;
Bagnall Gary W. Family, applicant (Walter Oetzell).
Senior Planner Leveille narrated a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the proposed
project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Peg Pinard, San Luis Obispo, stated that her property will be most affected by the
proposed project due the mass and scale; announced that during her role as a former
Council Member and Mayor, she worked to preserve the Old Town Historic District,
including the preservation of other historic properties; expressed concerns with the
project in terms of compatibility and presented an aerial photo of property, noting that
the proposed structure will have a negative impact of allowing sunlight and air flow to
her adjoining property.
Senior Planner Leveille presented a map to the Committee, highlighting the surrounding
properties of 1516 Broad Street.
Leo Pinard, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the orientation of homes in the surrounding
area; expressed concerns with the proposed project, stating that the proposed
secondary unit is near the property line.
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 92
CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 6
In response to the Public Comments, Chair Hill clarified that the Committee’s role is to
provide recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the historic
preservation standards and guidelines.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Omni Design Representative Jonathan McAlpin provided a brief summary of the
proposed project and responded to the Committee’s inquiries, regarding the height of
the existing main residence and proposed unit. Mr. McAlpin explained that the main
house has undergone a complete restoration.
Committee Member Papp announced his visit to a neighboring property and explained
similar concerns provided by Ms. Pinard were echoed by an adjacent neighbor;
expressed concerns with the mass and scale of the proposed unit that does not appear
consistent with the development pattern of the Old Town Historic District. He inquired on
the CEQA status of the property. Senior Planner Brian Leveille Responded that the
project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA as a small scale infill project.
Committee Member Kincaid thanked Ms. Pinard for her presentation and for expressing
her concerns to the Committee.
By consensus, the Committee expressed concern over the mass, scale, and access
configuration of the proposed dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to a date uncertain with directional items.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Brajkovich, seconded by
Committee Member Kincaid, continue the item to a date uncertain with the
following directional items: (7:0).
Reduce the scale, massing, and height of the proposed structure to be more
consistent with the pattern of secondary structures on historic properties in the Old
Town Historic District (subordinate to primary). Address impacts to adjacent Master
List properties by revising lot positioning and access away from neighboring
properties internal to the property.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast of anticipated CHC agenda
items for the February 22, 2016 meeting.
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 93
CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 7
2. Committee
The Committee discussed the desire to have an agenda item to discuss CEQA as
it relates to historic resources. The committee discussed concerns over a new
archaeology firm working on the next phase of the Chinatown project and inquired
on the status of an update on recent archaeological work on the project.
Chair Hill provided an update on the Downtown Concept Plan, Mission Plaza
Update project, and Sign Regulations Update project.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
John Paul Maier
Assistant City Clerk
Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on February 22, 2016.
Attachment 9
ARC1 - 94
RESOLUTION NO. CHC-1000-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE
COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION FIND THE PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE MASTER LIST MOTEL INN TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S
STANDARDS AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 25, 2016 (2223 MONTEREY
STREET – ARCH-2363-2015)
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-
2363-2015; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee 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 Cultural Heritage Committee of the
City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. That the proposed new structures on the Historic Motel Inn site are consistent with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, since
historic character-defining features will be retained because the proposed structures are
located approximately 20-feet behind the historic structures with no proposed modification to
the historic structures.
2. That the proposed new structures are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation because the new construction is differentiated yet complimentary and
compatible with the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the historic motel and
project site.
3. That the proposed new structures are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation because the new additions are adjacent to the historic structures and if
removed in the future will leave the form and integrity of the historic property/environment
unimpaired.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Cultural Heritage Committee finds that the
Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly
characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources,
and that the incorporated mitigations measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant
Attachment 10
ARC1 - 95
Resolution No. CHC-1000-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 2
impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
SECTION 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application
ARCH-2363-2015, subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
1. The project shall be in accordance with the mitigations measures identified in the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration including the following:
a. Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with
requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be
submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring
plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all
monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved
monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities
encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or
cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease
until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development
Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance
with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If
pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the
items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note
concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground
disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts (Mitigation Measure CR-1).
On motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee Member Larrabee, and on
t he following roll call vote:
AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Papp, and Walthert
NOES: None.
REFRAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th da y of January, 2016.
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
Attachment 10
ARC1 - 96
City of San Luis Obispo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
USE-1035-2015 (PR-0113-2015)
February 24, 2016
1. Project Title: Motel Inn & RV Park
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7176
mcarloni@slocity.org
4. Project Location:
2223 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Motel Inn L.P.
P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designation:
Tourist Commercial
7. Zoning:
C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with “Special Consideration” Overlay due to the San Luis Creek and
residential neighborhood bordering the property.)
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 97
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. Description of the Project:
The proposal is to construct a new
motel with a total of 55 rooms
spread across a main hotel/lobby
building and 12 detached
“bungalow” units. A recreational
vehicle (RV) park (23 spaces) is
also proposed on the easterly
portion of the project site. The
property address is 2223 Monterey
Street. The vicinity map is shown
on the right. Total floor area for the
buildings will be approximately
34,500 square feet. The property is
approximately 4.19 acres in area
and is situated at the northerly
terminus of Monterey Street. The
project site also includes remnants
of the Historic “Motel Inn” which includes a façade and portions of the original lobby. Portions
of the original historic Motel Inn are under construction and will be incorporated into an already
approved building which was issued a building permit under prior entitlements, and is not a part
of the current project under evaluation.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: Apple Farm Inn Motel
South: San Luis Creek and San Luis Drive residential neighborhood
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and the issuance of a use permit from the
Planning Commission.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 98
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources X
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
X
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 99
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
February 24, 2016
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron
Printed Name Community Development Director
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 100
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 101
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2 X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,2 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) The proposed buildings are situated in a previously developed area and are low scale that will not exceed two stories
(structure height of approximately 32 feet). The proposed project does not have the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas
and the project will not affect scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings.
c) The project site is located in an area zoned for commercial development and was previously disturbed with buildings and
site development associated with the Historic Motel Inn. The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines which address compatibility
of proposed development on the site and in relation to surroundings. Additionally, the Planning Commission will rev iew the
project for compatibility through requirements of Ordinance No. 1130. In 1989, commercial properties on the east side of
Monterey Street (including this property) were rezoned to include the “S”, Special Consideration, overlay district. The
implementing ordinance, Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites within the S
district overlay. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental
quality are addressed in the design criteria. The design criteria include specifications which limit building openings onto the
creek and address lighting, screening between land uses, riparian corridor protection, building height and grading limitations
and drainage control.
d) d) New sources of lighting will be evaluated as part of the review of ordinance No. 1130 to ensure that lighting remains on-
site and does not produce glare that could affect neighboring properties. The project will also be reviewed by the ARC and at
the time of building permit submittal for compliance with the City’s Night Sky Ordinance (SLOMC 17.23) which contains
provisions to minimize glare and protect the natural environment from excessive and/or misdirected light and glare.
Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
X
a),b),c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as
Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute
to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City’s Urban Reserve Line. No
impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with the p roject.
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 102
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion: a-c) No Impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3,4,5 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4, 5
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
4, 5 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
a-e) The proposed project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is
a commenting agency to assess air pollution impacts from both construction and operational phases of the project. The APCD
found potential impacts associated with operational and construction phase impacts unless recommended mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project. The APCD provided a letter dated November 17, 2015 (Appendix C) which included
recommended mitigations to address construction impacts, operational phase impacts, and sensitive receptors. With
incorporation of all mitigation measures and recommendations provided by APCD , impacts to air quality will be less than
significant. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Conclusion: a-e) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the
November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
6
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
6
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
7, 8,
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
6
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
3
X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 103
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ap proved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
(a-d) The proposed project complies with required setbacks from the creek bank and C/OS portion of the site . South-Central
California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo
Creek in the vicinity of the area of the project and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City’s Natural
Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or o therwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands
or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. However, due to the
proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of the site, there is the potential for construction-related
impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BIO-1) has
been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the ri parian corridor are utilized
under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP).
San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130
(1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank (on the project site) the creek channel is
vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All proposed structures and other improvements are
above the established top of bank. Residential propert ies across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang
the creek channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a
significant biological corridor. Its condition could be e nhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoration
and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), criterion No. 3. The City’s Natural
Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and has recommended mitigation measures (BIO-2) requiring a planting
plan which would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non -native plantings with
appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources
for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse,
complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species.
(e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. It is not anticipated that
any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the project site is not pa rt of a
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fueled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up
immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construct ion.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in
to the drainage/creek system.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Conclusion: a-f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
10,
11,
X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 104
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12, 13
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
14
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
13
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
13 X
Historic Resources
The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List
Historic Motel Inn was constructed in the 1924 -1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style.
The Motel Inn is significant historically since it is associated with events that made a broad contribution to California’s
history and cultural heritage. This is the first location to use the word “motel” and the first business to employ motoring
comfort accommodations which represented a shift away from auto camps and cabins. Building permits issued under
previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel
Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the façade remaining from the original
restaurant building. That said, these remaining building remnants from the historic Motel Inn are not a part of the currently
proposed project and will be incorporated into a building which is currently under construction pursuant to building permits
issued under previous entitlements.
a) The proposed project includes the construction of a lobby building with 12 attached hotel rooms, a mix of one and two
story detached bungalows with a total of 40 hotel rooms, and a 1.6 acre site with 2 5 RV hookups. Due to the fact that the
applicant has a current, approved building permit regarding pa rtial construction of those elements of the project which are of
historic value, no further evaluation is required for that part of the project. However, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
will still need to review the remaining components of the project to insure that the entire project is consistent with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines of the City and the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The proposed development requires an evaluation of the proj ects compatibility with the remaining character
defining elements of the historic Motel Inn which are incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building which is
under construction. The project’s compatibility with the approved restaurant building (including the remaining historic lobby
building and façade of the original structure) will be evaluated by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee for conformance
with relevant City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties. An evaluation has been provided by City Staff for review by the Cultural Heritage Committee which
finds that the proposed new construction will not detract from the historic significance of the rem aining historic features to be
incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building. Proposed development will be located approximately 20 -feet
behind the previously approved restaurant building (which includes the historic features) and the scale of the lobby building
and bungalow units will not block views, nor overwhelm or detract from the remaining historic features. The proposed
architectural style of the new development incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the orig inal
Motel Inn architectural style. The new work will not detract or destroy any of the character defining features of the existin g
historic elements of the approved restaurant building and the proposed structures will preserve the essential form and
integrity of the historic property. The RV portion of the property is of a relatively low intensity with only 25 potential RV
spaces on the site plan. The parking of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, will not detract from the original motel
setting, or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist -oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor-
serving purpose of the property. Less than significant impact.
Archaeological Resources
b-d) The project site is considered an archaeologically “sensitive area” because it is within 200 feet of the top of the bank of
San Luis Obispo Creek. In January, 2002, Bertrando & Bertrando prepared an Extended Phase I Testing report, which is
attached to this initial study as Appendix F. No archaeological deposits were identified. While no archaeological resources
were discovered in the test trenches, it is possible that resources could be uncovered with project excavation and grading.
The Phase 1 testing report found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could be impacted
during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with mitigation
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 105
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
incorporated.
Mitigation Measure CR-1:
Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological
Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring
plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be
carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities
encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities,
which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director
approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be
called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state
and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance
activities with clear notes and callouts.
Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
16 X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 16 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 16 X
IV. Landslides? 16 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 17 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
16,17
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
17 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
17 X
a) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which
extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, a nd
fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending
ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geo logically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 106
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, th e
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to t he northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seis mic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Building Code. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City
Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. No mitigation measures
are necessary. Less than significant impact.
b) The site is already partially developed and is an infill site located in an urbanized area. The project will not result in loss o f
topsoil to a level that would be considered significant.
c), d) A soils engineering report will be required by the Building Division at the time of submittal for building and grading
permits. The soils report will require data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, and conclu sions
and recommendations for grading and construction. Grading and build ing techniques must be designed in compliance with
the report. To ensure the proposed project does not pose a risk to occupants and structures the construction plans submitted to
the building division for review and approval shall be consistent with recommendations of the soils engineering report.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Conclusion: a-e) Less than Significant impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
5 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
5 X
a), b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passe d
Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will
result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consist ent
with City policies for infill development and efficient use of existing infrastructure. As discussed in the above air quality
analysis, the APCD has provided comments on the project to address construction and operational phase impacts of the
project (Appendix C). Compliance with recommended mitigation measure AQ-1 also includes measures to reduce the
production of greenhouse gas emissions which are also produced with operational and construction phase emissions
discussed in the Air Quality analysis. These characteristics of the proposal coupled with the requirement to address APCD
comments finds the project consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will result in less than significant
impacts.
Conclusion: a, b) Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 107
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
19,20
X
a) The proposed hotel and RV park use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No
Impact.
b) A Phase I environmental site assessment was prepared by Ceres Associates and is attached as Appendix G.
Recommendations are included in the report which will require certain actions. Since the site previously had a service station
use there may be underground tanks remaining in place. As an example, the site assessment recommends that ground
penetrating radar (GPR) be utilized to determine if any underground tanks exist, and that sampling be conducted to assess if
asbestos is contained in the remaining building on-site. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by
Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All
contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction.
c), d) The proposed project is not within one quarter mile of an existing school and the project would not involve the use,
transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. No Impa ct.
e), f), g) The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or private
airstrip. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and would not interfere with emergency response plans
or evacuation plans. No Impact.
i) The project site is not located within the wildland interface zone. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: a & c-h) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 108
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
20.21
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
20,21 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a), b) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post
Construction Requirements for storm water control. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not use or
otherwise deplete groundwater resources. The existing on-site water well is proposed to be removed but could be used for
landscape irrigation. No significant change is expected to the local groundwater table. The well site is down gradient from
the rural upstream properties that rely on groundwater. No impact.
c), d), e), f) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within
the City’s watershed. T he Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development
site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off and the proposed project does not increase impervious surface area. If
applicable, plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be
designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. The project will be
subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. These regulations address both water quantity and water quality.
The project will be required to retain and/or treat the runoff from the impervious surfaces including parking areas, drive
aisles, and roofs. A water quality upgrade is expected from this previously developed site. City Engineering Standards
address point source controls for solid waste and materials storage areas. Less than significant impact.
g), h), i) The project site is located within the 100-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map as is the majority of the downtown area. The project is therefore subject to showing compliance with the Waterway
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Per section 3.0 of the Waterways Management Plan, n ew development projects
and redevelopment projects within the FEMA designated 100 -year floodplain that are not located within the Mid -Higuera or
special Floodplain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are
met. Furthermore, the project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (flood ordinance). The engineer of record
has modeled the project to show that the structures are located outside the SFHA and that the project will not impact
adjoining properties. A Letter of Map Change will be processed as a condition of building permits. The project will be
required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1 -foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation at the time, or for
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 109
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of
FEMA “flood-proofing” measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The new structures and improvements will be
located away from the top of creek bank in accordance with the Creek Setback Ordinance. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
19,22 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
19,22 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated for Tourist
Commercial land uses by the General Plan which the proposed visitor-serving development is consistent. The project will not
physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plans. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
X
a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: No Impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
23,24 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne
vibration or ground -borne noise levels?
23,24 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
23,24 X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 110
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
X
a), b) The site is located adjacent to Highway 101, the principal noise source affecting existing and future noise conditions in
the vicinity. Due to existing noise from Highway 101, the project site is exposed to noise levels in the 60 -70dB range. The
General Plan Noise Element lists the acceptable range of noise as up to 60 db without the need for any specific noise studies
or mitigation. Hotels and motels are noise sensitive uses as designated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Noise
Element indicates that noise levels of 60 decibels (dB) are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB is acceptable for
indoor areas. Outdoor noise levels in the 60-70 dB range are classified as “conditionally acceptable”. This means that
development may be permitted provided it is designed to meet acceptable (for the proposed land use) noise exposure levels.
Due to existing and projected noise levels emanating from Highway 101, in previous approvals for the site, the applicant was
required to prepare a noise study to evaluate mitigation strategies for meeting interior and exterior noise standards. The n oise
study was prepared for a similar, but somewhat different hotel use, by Donald Asquith, PhD, and is attached as Appendix H.
The study notes how the freeway noise source varies in elevation above the site from west to east. The northbound on-ramp
from Monterey Street is approximately 5 feet higher at the westerly end of the site, increasing to 15 feet at the easterly end.
While noise exposure from the highway is still significant, this grade differential from the noise source does reduce the traffic
noise levels from what they would otherwise be if the noise source was at the same elevation as the project site.
Outdoor spaces that are created within the project site should be designed to consider the freeway noise and exposure of
visitors to the noise. For outdoor areas, similar to previous approvals, proposed buildings are sited such that outdoor areas
are situated on the opposite side of proposed structures which will attenuate freeway sound levels to acceptable outdoor noise
levels. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques for the motel units,
according to the noise study and consistent with the City Noise Guidebook. City staff also visited the project site on
December 17, 2015, measured noise from the freeway with a sound meter and found the noise levels to be consistent with the
prior Asquith study. Recreational vehicle parks are not listed in the General Plan Noise Element as Noise Sensitive uses. For
the RV park portion of the project it can be anticipated that recreational vehicle trav elers would anticipate freeway noise at
this location as it is somewhat common that RV parks are located adjacent to freeways and major roadways. It is not
anticipated that RV travelers would have the same expectation of interior noise reduction or quiet o utdoor or indoor noise
levels as motels or hotel accommodations. Less than significant impact.
Noise increases resulting from the proposed project
c), d) The hotel and RV park uses are not anticipated to produce sound levels which would exceed thresholds of the General
Plan noise element or Noise Ordinance. To a considerable degree, it can be anticipated that proposed structures will help
buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition, parking areas for the motel
use and RV parking are between 120 feet to 150 feet from the nearest residence on San Luis Drive, and further buffered by
San Luis Creek and a heavily vegetated riparian corridor. In addition, Ordinance 1130 contains specific provisions to ensure
compatible noise levels with residential uses across the riparian corridor which will be reviewed for conformance by the City
Planning Commission.
Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the
duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise
Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and ma ximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be
required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of
construction. Less than significant impact.
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 111
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e), f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, is not located within two miles of a public use airport, and
is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
a) The project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other infrastructure. The project would not
induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Less than significant.
b), c) The project would not displace any existing housing or substantial numbers of people. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
The proposal is for a tourist-oriented land use which will not require the provision of public facilities such as parks or
schools. There is also adequate capacity of water, sewer, police and fire protection to service the proposed development.
The development will be subject to the standard traffic and water impact fees.
Conclusion: No impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
a), b) The project does not include permanent residential units and the transitory nature of the hotel guests and RV park use
should not place an additional substantial burden on nearby residential facilities such that substantial physical deteriorati on
would be accelerated. No Impact
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 112
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion: No impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
27 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
25,
26,27
X
Project Traffic Impact
a), b) The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Monterey Street as an arterial road and adopts level of Service D (LOS
D) as the maximum acceptable level of traffic congestion during PM peak hour conditions outside the downtown. The
Circulation Element does not prescribe any modifications to Monterey Street northeast of its intersection with Grand Avenue.
Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) on the more intensive but similar motel project at this site, approv ed
in 2003. (See Appendix I, attached.) The TIS evaluated how traffic from the project would affect the operation of nearby
intersections. According to the report, full development of the motel would generate approximately 1,148 vehicle trips per
day, with 29 trips entering the project site and 52 trips departing during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips entering and 35 trips
departing during the PM peak hour. The TIS forecasted how this additional traffic would be distributed to the following
intersections and evaluated its impact on the traffic level of service (LOS). (The traffic impacts of the current, proposed
project will be significantly less based on an average daily trip generation of 475 trips, according to the Omni Means draft
Technical Memorandum dated November, 2015. See Appendices, attached.)
1. Monterey Street & U.S. 101 NB On/Off Ramps at Project Driveway
2. Monterey and Garfield
3. Monterey Street and Buena Vista
4. Buena Vista and Garfield
5. Buena Vista and U.S. 101 Southbound Off Ramp
6. Monterey Street at Apple Farm Inn Driveway
7. Monterey Street at La Questa Motor Inn Driveway
The TIS concluded that under “existing + Project” conditions, area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service
(generally at LOS C or better), in compliance with Circulation Eleme nt standards.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 113
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Cumulative Traffic Impacts:
The prior traffic impact study also considered the prior project’s contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at build -out of the
City’s general plan land uses. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis showed that intersections 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 listed
above will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For
intersection 2 (Garfield @ Monterey), the Garfield approach to Monterey would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour,
without that project’s traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization would not meet Caltrans warrants but that
actual conditions should be monitored as traffic conditions change to determine the future need for a signal, or possibly all -
way traffic controls.
Under build-out conditions, the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp (intersection 5, above) would
operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, without project traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization of this
intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants, but like the Garfield intersection, monitoring should be undertaken and
signalization may be warranted in the future.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact. (Note: This project will pay city Transportation Impact Fees a s required by
ordinance. Revenues from these fees are used to pay for mitigating area -wide traffic conditions as those mitigations become
necessary. Payment of the fee constitutes this project’s fair share contribution toward mitigating potential, future substandard
traffic conditions.)
Traffic Geometrics Concerns
d) Access to the Motel Inn site is challenging due to its immediate proximity to the northbound on ramp and southbound off -
ramp of Highway 101. Therefore, a traffic study was conducted by Omni-Means (November, 2015) to evaluate potential
impacts of the proposed new traffic to the area and identify the most reasonable measures to mitigate road and driveway
geometric issues. The study was conducted in partnership with Caltrans. The study re commends: (1) restricting southwest
(SW) left turns for approximately 120 feet of the Northbound (NB) 101 off ramp; (2) providing a west -bound (WB) left turn
refuge/acceleration lane for hotel traffic; (3) realigning the Monterey Street curb line; and (4 ) making minor adjustment to
affected motel driveways along Monterey Street. A conceptual graphic of the recommended mitigation is shown below.
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 114
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source: Omni-Means
Mitigation Measure: MM-1
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as
recommended in the traffic study which is depicted above, and as approved by the City and Caltrans.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns. No Impact.
e) The site has been reviewed by City emergency services and found to comply with requirements for emergency access.
No impact.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
28 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
28 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 115
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
29 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a) b) c) The City Water Resource Recovery Facility and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the
project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer laterals to convey wastewater to the sewer main that
parallels the project’s western property line. All on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the
standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for
capacity at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of
future development. The site includes existing pubic water and sewer mains in easements along the northern and western
property lines. This water main is the transmission water main from Reservoir 1. Proposed development at the site shall be
sited outside of these easements. Storm drainage facilities in the vicinity are adequate to serve the proposed project and no
expansion is required which could result in significant environmental effect s. Less than significant impact.
d) Water demand from the project was anticipated as part of General Plan build out. Future site development is subject to
water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cos t of constructing the water
supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. Less than significant impact.
e) f) g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939 ) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the wast e
stream generated by this project, consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, r ecycling facilities
must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials
must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling
to reduce the waste stream generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Less than
significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
X
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 116
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
indirectly?
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
None.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal ysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions of the project.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 1130, 1989
2. Project Plans
3. Municipal Code
4. Response Letter from Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2015
5. APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
6. Ecological Analysis of Apple Farm II, 8/20/02, Levine-Fricke
7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek Setback ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations)
8. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, 2006
9. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory, December, 1983
10. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines, 2010
11. Historical Resources Inventory of Property, Bertrando, September 2000
12. Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of the Motel Inn, August 2004
13. Archaeological Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002
14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, 1995
15. Extended Phase I Testing Report, Bertrando, 2002
16. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, State Geologist (Alquist -Priolo Map), 1990
17. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984
18. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates, October, 1999
19. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, 2014
20. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005C)
21. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan, Above Grade Engineering, San Luis Obispo, November 2015
22. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations
23. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element & Guidebook
24. Noise Investigation , Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 117
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9 th Edition, 2012
26. Motel Inn Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, March 2002
27. Traffic Report, Omni-Means, November 2015
28. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations
29. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, 1994
Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon
request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENTS: (ONLY BOLD ITEMS ARE ATTACHED)
(OTHER ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
Appendix A: Project Plans
Appendix B: Not Used
Appendix C: Air Pollution Control District Letter Dated November 17, 2015
Appendix D: Ecological Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek, Levine-Fricke, May 2002 and
USFWS Protocol Survey, Levine-Fricke, June 2003
Appendix E: Historic American Building Survey of Former Motel Inn, 2004 (with limited attachments)
Appendix F: Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, 2002
Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ceres Associates
Appendix H: Noise Study, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001
Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study, OMNI-MEANS, Nov. 2015 & Higgins Associates, 2002;
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the
November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
Monitoring Program AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill
prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the
drainage/creek system.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to
contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development and
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 118
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Public Works Departments, and the City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building
Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement plan as necessary
to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized
while working within the creek corridor.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of
City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and
construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground
disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then
construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community
Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall
comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground
disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building
plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be
clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental
site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior
to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction.
Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on
grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be
presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action.
Mitigation Measure: TT-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway
channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as
approved by the City and Caltrans.
Monitoring Plan, TT-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November
2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with
the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final
inspections by City staff.
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 119
Initial Study Appendix F
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 120
Initial Study Appendix F
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 121
Initial Study Appendix F
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 122
Initial Study Appendix F
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 123
Initial Study Appendix F
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 124
Initial Study Appendix F
Attachment 11
ARC1 - 125
ARC1 - 126