HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-6-17 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Architectural Review Commission
Monday, March 6, 2017
5:00 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Brian Rolph, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the
Commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that
does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on any item
presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for formal discussion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be
limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak,
please give your name and address for the record.
1. 1845 and 1865 Monterey Street. ARCH-4242-2016: Architectural review of a modification
to a previously approved design of a porte-cochère at the Monterey Hotel, with a
determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration; C-T-S zone; 1865 Monterey Street Investors, L.P., applicant. (Shawna Scott)
2. 2074 Fixlini Street. APPL-0141-2017: Review of an appeal of the Director’s approval of a
new single-family residence with a three car garage that includes tandem parking on a
sensitive site (Lot 6), in accordance with adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact Resolution No. 9622 (2004 Series); R-1 zone; Bill and Lisa Matthes,
applicant. (Kyle Bell)
Architectural Review Commission Agenda Page 2
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
b. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Update
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Architectural Review Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday,
March 20, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
APPEALS
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an
appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department,
City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281
and must accompany the appeal documentation.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a modification to a previously approved design of a porte cochere at the
Monterey Hotel, with a determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1845/1865 Monterey Street BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-4242-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy DirectorDD
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
and finds the project consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, based
on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant 1865 Monterey Street Investors,
L.P.
Representative George Garcia, AIA
Garcia Architecture + Design
Submittal Date December 8, 2016
Complete Date February 2, 2017
Zoning C‐T‐S & C/OS‐5 (Tourist
Commercial Special
Considerations &
Conservation/Open Space)
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area 1.93 acres
Environmental
Status
A Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) was adopted by the City
Council on February 17, 2015.
SUMMARY
The hotel project approved by the City Council on February 17, 2015 included a porte cochere, which
was designed with an alternating wood element designed to mimic the natural form of a tree. During
building permit review of the project, the applicant submitted a revised design of the porte cochere in
order to comply with the Building and Fire Code. Due to the substantial change in the design,
Meeting Date: March 6, 2017
Item Number: 1
ARC 1-1
ARCH-4242-2016 (1845/1865 Monterey)
Page 2
additional architectural review of this feature is required. Construction of the hotel, excluding the
porte cochere, is currently underway.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is limited to the review the proposed redesigned porte cochere, in terms of the
project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG).
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site consists of approximately 2 acres of land in the Tourist Commercial – Special
Considerations (C-T-S) zone with Conservation/Open Space zoning at the rear of the property
along the creek corridor. The project site is currently developed with Pappy McGregor’s
Restaurant (1865 Monterey Street). The Monterey Hotel is currently under construction. San Luis
Obispo Creek is located at the rear of the property. The creek is bordered by extensive riparian
vegetation. The project site is surrounded by Tourist Commercial zoned land (north, west, south)
with a Low-Density Residential neighborhood (San Luis Drive) located east of the project site
across the creek.
2.2 Entitlement and Permit History
The project design as a whole, consisting of a new 102-unit multi-story hotel building and
previously-proposed porte cochere, was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) on September 15, 2014 and October 20, 2014. The ARC’s approval of the project design
on October 20, 2014 was appealed to the City Council. On February 17, 2015, the City Council
considered both the appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project design and an appeal of
the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold an appeal of the Use Permit. The City Council
considered these appeals, and upheld the applicant’s appeal of the Use Permit, and denied the
appeal of the ARC’s design approval.
During building permit review of the project, the design of the porte cochere required
modifications to meet Building and Fire Code requirements, including the use of non-combustible
materials and elimination of the terrace. In addition, the project incorporates additional signage
onsite, noting the minimum 11-foot clearance under the entry feature as required by the Fire
Department.
Site Size 1.93 Acres (62,353 sq. ft. C‐T‐S) & (21,920 sq. ft. C/OS‐5)
Present Use & Development Monterey Hotel (currently under construction); one commercial
building and associated parking to remain
Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C‐T) with Special Considerations and
Conservation Open Space (C/OS‐5)
Access Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Hotels (C‐T‐S zoning)
South: Hotels (C‐T‐S zoning)
East: San Luis Creek and Single‐family residences (R‐1)
West: Hotels (C‐T zoning)
ARC 1-2
ARCH-4242-2016 (1845/1865 Monterey)
Page 3
2.3 Project Description
The applicant is proposing a redesigned feature (porte cochere) at the hotel entrance. Descriptions
of the previously-approved feature and proposed modified feature are summarized below.
Previously-approved Porte Cochere. At the time the ARC and City Council reviewed and
approved the design of the hotel, the contemporary entry feature incorporated an alternating wood
element designed to mimic the natural form of a tree, including “tree branch” structural columns
and a deck above. The previously-approved entry feature provided an 11-foot clearance (with
vertical slatted composite wood elements that hung down within the clearance), with architectural
features resulting in a structure up to approximately 15-17 feet in height, 37 feet wide, and
extended 32 feet from the face of the hotel. This feature had included a terrace with tables and
chairs atop the entry feature (see Figure 1, Previously-approved Project and Attachment 5,
Previously-approved Plans). No specific direction regarding the porte cochere was provided by
the ARC during their review in 2014.
Currently Proposed Porte Cochere. The redesigned feature is contemporary (see Figure 2,
Redesigned Entry Feature, and Attachment 4, Architectural Review Drawings), and includes the
following elements:
Steel support columns, painted white
Steel support beams and wing structure frame above, painted dark grey
Laminated, opaque, glass canopy above, mounted to the wing structure with spider fittings
8-foot long LED strip lights mounted to the bottom wing surface
Fire sprinklers and clearance signage
The proposed feature would provide an 11-foot clearance, with architectural features (wings)
resulting in a structure up to approximately 15 feet in height, with wings ranging in length from
approximately 38 to 45 feet, and extended approximately 51 feet from the face of the hotel
(including the support beam feature). Three parking spaces, including one ADA space, would be
located below an uncovered wing-component of the porte cochere. The proposed modification
would not affect the number of proposed parking spaces provided by the project.
The street yard setback would remain at 10 feet, which is consistent with the previously-approved
project and ordinance standard. The proposed modification does not include any terrace seating
or habitable space atop the structure. The maximum height of the hotel, lot coverage, floor area
ratio, and access approved for the project as a whole would not change as a result of this proposed
modification to the hotel entrance.
ARC 1-3
ARCH-4242-2016 (1845/1865 Monterey)
Page 4
Figure 1. Previously-approved Project
Figure 2. Redesigned Entry Feature
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The hotel project as a whole was considered and approved by the City Council, and the proposed
modification to the entry feature would not affect or result in any changes to the plans approved
through issuance of the building permit for the hotel (which do not include an entry feature, as
architectural review of this modification was determined to be required); therefore, the project
analysis below is limited to the proposed modification.
3.1 Design: The proposed hotel is located in the upper Monterey Street tourist-commercial
corridor. The area is typified by hotels and motels, and many include porte cochere elements
visible from Monterey Street. The proposed design of the modified porte cochere, including the
use of steel structures and laminated glass canopy, maintains the contemporary style
demonstrated by the project as a whole.
Staff Response and Recommended Direction. Consistent with the CDG, the porte cochere is
designed as an important and obvious architectural focal point1, which allows for light to pass
through the laminated glass and open spaces between the steel wings, while providing cover at
the hotel entrance.
1 CDG Chapter 3.1.B8: Entries. Building entries should be important and obvious elements in the design of a
façade. 3.1.B8a: Each entry should be protected from the elements and should create an architectural focal
point for the building.
ARC 1-4
ARCH-4242-2016 (1845/1865 Monterey)
Page 5
This feature could be better integrated into the approved design of the hotel by reducing the
sharp and mechanical appearance of the steel wings and incorporating softening materials,
treatments, or colors such as non-combustible faux wood, to tie into the composite wood siding
on the main structure. Therefore, Staff recommends the ARC consider the following, for
inclusion in the Resolution as a condition of approval:
1. Upon application for building permits, submit plans for the porte cochere that incorporate
softening materials, treatments, or colors complimentary to the composite wood siding on
the main structure.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted for the project as a whole on February 17,
2015 (see Attachment 6, IS and MND). Based on the minor changes to the project, and inclusion of
previously adopted mitigation measures into the recommended conditions of approval, Staff
recommends that the ARC find that the environmental effects of the modified project have been
adequately addressed in the previously adopted MND.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
This alternative is not recommended, because the project should provide an important and
obvious building entry, pursuant to the Community Design Guidelines, and further
architectural review could be accommodated in the review process.
6.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain, with specific directional items provided.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Ordinance 1130
4. Architectural Review Drawings
5. Previously-approved Plans
6. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 143-13
ARC 1-5
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
MODIFIED DESIGN OF THE MONTEREY HOTEL PORTE COCHERE
(ENTRY FEATURE), AND FINDING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT
WITH THE PREVIOUSLY-ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (143-13), 1845/1865 MONTEREY STREET (C-T-S AND
C/OS-5 ZONES; ARCH-4242-2016)
WHEREAS, the applicant, 1865 Monterey Street Investors, L.P., submitted a request for
architectural approval of proposed modifications to the Monterey Hotel porte cochere at
1845/1865 Monterey Street; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing to review and discuss plans in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 6, 2017, for the purpose of evaluating the
modifications to the Monterey Hotel porte cochere for final design review; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law, including City Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series); and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of
environmental impact on February 17, 2015 for the Monterey Hotel project that adequately
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project; 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/or that (whatever action is needed):
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Architectural Review
Commission hereby grants final design approval to the project (ARCH-4242-2016) based on the
following findings.
a) The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working
or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s
zoning designation, requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series), and will be
subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes.
b) 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-6
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2
c) 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.
d) The project is consistent with the height/setback and design requirements of
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series).
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared
by the Community Development Department was adopted by the City Council on February 17,
2015, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development.
The project is limited to modifications to the architectural design of the porte cochere, and would
not result in any new significant impacts or result in greater impacts than what was previously
addressed in the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, would not require any new
mitigation measures, and the findings of the adopted MND remain consistent. Based on the minor
changes to the project, and inclusion of the following previously adopted mitigation measures into
the recommended conditions of approval, significant environmental effects have been adequately
addressed in the previously adopted MND:
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES 1: A combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required
to effectively screen headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered
parking area that will be retained and improved.
Monitoring Plan, AES 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall review the preliminary
planting and fencing plan and provide direction to the applicant. Final plans shall be reviewed
Community Development Planning staff and the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of
the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for
consistency with City standards prior to department sign off and issuance of permits.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent
shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt
from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the
site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all
requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, 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 compliance with
APCD requirements. 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. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-7
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines
shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance
with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10
business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified
Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. 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 AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These 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 modify practices, 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 Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during
periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all
construction and dust-control work.
3. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other
dust barriers as needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any
soil disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-8
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4
10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash
off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no
greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of
any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: 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 AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent
shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board
and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-
5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. 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. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement
the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California
Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and
licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
i. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at
any location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and,
ii. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-9
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location
when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of
the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified
in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road
Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers
and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the
State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these
more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the
fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the
APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: 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. The
applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures
for work in and around the riparian corridor:
1. No heavy equipment shall enter flowing water.
2. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from
the riparian corridor.
3. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
4. 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.
5. All spoils shall 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
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-10
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6
reviewed by the City’s Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the
City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measures.
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 BIO 3: That portion of the site which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be
dedicated as a perpetual open space easement.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits an open space easement,
written to the satisfaction of the City’s Natural Resources Manager, shall be recorded on title.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT 1: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any demolition or
ground disturbing activities in the project area.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically
inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CULT 2: In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are
encountered during excavation (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash
deposits, historic features, and human burials), work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist
makes determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures to minimize
impacts, and provides information on how to proceed in light of the discoveries. All specialist
recommendations shall be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department prior to resuming work to ensure the project continues within procedural parameters
accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo and the State of California.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically
inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Geology & Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a
comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-11
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 7
Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and
structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall
address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads,
retaining wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity
(including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the
geotechnical engineer.
Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical
analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or
construction permits.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final design
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division- Community Development Department
1. All applicable conditions of approval and code requirements identified in Resolution No.
10599 (1845/1865 Monterey Street, File No. 143-13) dated February 17, 2015 shall be
incorporated herein, by reference, as conditions of approval. If a previous condition is modified
with this approval, the latter condition shall supersede the former working of the condition.
2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 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 should 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 of Community Development or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed
appropriate.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit for the porte cochere shall call out the colors and
materials of all proposed structure surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings.
4. The locations of all lighting, including ballard 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.
5. 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-12
Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 8
6. Construction activities shall take place only between the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC 1-13
C-T-S
C-T
R-1C-T-S
R-1
R-4
R-4
R-1
R-1
C-TC-TR-4
R-1R-1
R-1C-T C/OS-5
C/OS-5
C-T
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
SAN
L
U
I
S
GARFIELD
G
R
A
N
D
PALM
BU
E
N
A
V
I
S
T
A
AND
R
E
W
S
COR
R
A
L
I
T
O
S
GR
A
V
E
S
AN
D
R
E
W
S
VICINITY MAP ARCH-4242-20161845 and 1865 Monterey ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC 1-14
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC 1-15
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC 1-16
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC 1-17
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC 1-18
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC 1-19
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC 1-20
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
A
R
C
1
-
2
1
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
A
R
C
1
-
2
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
A
R
C
1
-
2
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
2
4
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
2
5
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
2
6
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
2
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
2
8
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
2
9
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
0
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
1
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
4
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
5
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
6
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
8
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
3
9
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
0
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
1
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
4
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
5
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
6
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
5
A
R
C
1
-
4
7
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 143-13
1. Project Title:
the MONTEREY
A 102-room hotel with on-site parking, including Architectural Review, Use Permit for
development of site with Special Considerations, and Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map; City
File A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
805-781-7176
Prepared By:
Jaime Hill, Contract Senior Planner (PMC)
4. Project Location:
1845 Monterey Street (APN 001-152-012) & 1865 Monterey Street (001-152-012)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
1865 Monterey Street Investors
2105 Coast Village Road
Montecito, CA 93108
Project Representative Name and Address:
Garcia Architecture + Design
1308 Monterey Street, Suite 230
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-48
2
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial
7. Zoning:
Tourist-Commercial with Special Considerations Overlay (C-T-S)
Conservation Open Space 5 acre minimum (C/OS-5)
8. Description of the Project:
The project proposes the following:
1. Demolition of an existing single-family home;
2. Construction of a 102 room hotel with managers quarters and amenities, in four-stories
above podium parking;
3. Development of 141 covered and uncovered vehicle parking spaces, motorcycle and
bicycle parking to serve the proposed hotel and existing adjacent restaurant;
4. Shared use parking reduction of 10%;
5. Lot Line adjustment of existing parcel line that transects the site; and
6. Use Permit to allow development of a site with Special Considerations (Ordinance 1130
(1989 Series))
The proposed project is a 102 room hotel and associated amenities including parking, guest
lounge, meeting space, fitness center, roof-top terrace and managers unit. The proposed structure
includes 4-stories plus a basement level, encompassing a total square footage of 115,897 square
feet. The 141 vehicle parking spaces are provided in a basement level and the rear portion of the
ground level. The proposed site improvements are located in the C-T-S zoned portion of the site,
with a portion of the existing uncovered parking within 20-feet of the C/OS-5 zone at the eastern
extent of the site being retained. Both the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and total Lot Coverage are
consistent with the standards of the C-T zone; FAR = 1.85 (115,897 sf gfa/62,535 sf within the
C-T-S portion of the site is less than the 2.5 allowed, and; Coverage of 54% (34,047 sf of the
62,535 sf of C-T-S designated land) less than the 75% allowed.
The main building entrance fronts Monterey Street with a porte cochere drop off area,
landscaping and hotel lobby. Other common hotel amenities, such as the guest lounge and
terraces on the various levels also front Monterey Street. The creek-facing eastern façade is
dominated by guest rooms and balconies.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The redevelopment project will encompass two adjacent parcels that total approximately 84,278
square feet (1.93 acres). The parcels slope substantially from Monterey Street southeast towards
San Luis Creek, which runs along the rear property line. The site at 1845 Monterey is developed
with a Potentially Contributing Tudor Revival house built in 1922. The house was converted to
an office in 1977. The most recent commercial tenant was the Church of Religious Science. It
appears to be used currently as a student rental. The site at 1865 Monterey is developed with a
commercial building constructed in 1974. The building has served as a restaurant for more than
30 years. The majority of the site is designated Commercial in the General Plan, and zoned
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-49
3
Tourist Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-T-S). The eastern portion of the
site is designated Conservation Open Space with a 5-acre minimum (C/OS-5), and is subject to
the design criteria of Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series).
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West (across Monterey Street): Developed with hotel uses (Holiday Inn Express, zoned C-T.
North: Developed with hotel uses (Best Western), zoned C-T-S.
East (across San Luis Creek, fronting San Luis Drive): developed with single-family
residences, zoned R-1.
South: Developed with hotel uses (Travelodge), zoned C-T-S.
See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map.
In 2011 a tentative parcel map creating four lots and a creek setback exception were approved
(A/MS/ER 34-11). A final map was not recorded and those approvals have since expired.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Use Permit: Use Permit approval is required to allow development of a site with Special
Considerations with a shared parking reduction. Architectural Review: Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site layout and building design.
Lot Line Adjustment: Tentative Lot Line Adjustment Map has been submitted as part of this
entitlement application. The County assigned lot line adjustment map number is SLOAL 14-
006. The Community Development Director will take action on this request.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD)
Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (CCWQCB)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game)
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-50
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
X
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
X
Geology / Soils
Noise X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-51
5
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.
Signature Date
For: Derek Johnson
Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-52
6
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 6
ARC 1-53
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
25
--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?
5, 11 --X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31,32
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
18, 31
--X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City on a site that has generally flat topography, sloping gradually
toward San Luis Creek along the property’s’ eastern edge, where the site is designated Conservation Open Space, 5 acre
minimum (C/OS-5). The project conforms to the setbacks established for this site by Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series),
including a 20-foot setback for new construction and height limits of 25-feet within 50-feet of the C/OS boundary and 45-feet
beyond the 50-foot demarcation. Scenic vistas include natural features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops,
natural vegetation, and man-made alterations to the landscape. The project site does not contain unique visual features that
would distinguish the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista. The proposed project
would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to existing conditions regarding
scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project does not include any components that would change the overall
character of the project site, block significant views from or in the vicinity of the project site, or change the nature of s cenic
resources.
b) Located approximately 1 mile to the east, Highway 101 is the closest state-designated scenic highway to the project site.
The project site is not visible from the highway or on/off ramps. There are no state scenic highways in the project area from
which the project is visible. There would be no impact.
c) Visual resources in the vicinity of the site include views of City owned or City protected open space and San Luis Creek.
The applicant proposes development of a multi-story hotel and parking structure on the C-T portion of the site. In addition to
standards found in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) and the Community Design Guidelines,
Ordinance 1130 (1989) was adopted to apply the Special Considerations (“S-Overlay”) to the site to address land use
compatibility concerns applicable to the s urrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses
adjacent to San Luis Creek. The proposed project is consistent with the creek setback and height standards established by
Ordinance, and as demonstrated by the Visual Simulation s will not obstruct views of High School Hill. The project will be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, which routinely evaluates projects for consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines.
d) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as
well as light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed project will not create a new source of
substantial light or glare or affect nighttime views in the area since the project will be required to conform to the City’s Night
Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) which sets operational standards and requirements for
lighting installations, including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing.
The proposed project includes a solid composite wood guardrail and headlight wall to screen vehicle headlights in the above-
grade podium level of parking. A mitigation measure (AES 1) has been recommended that the existing surface parking that
will remain within the C/OS setback also be screened with a combination of vegetation and fencing as necessary. The
proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare or affect nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation Measure AES 1: A combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required to effectively screen
headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered parking area that will be retained and improved.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-54
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
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?
1, 20
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
13
--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?
18
--X--
Evaluation
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for
Commercial uses in the General Plan and is zoned C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with Special Considerations Overlay). The
project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existin g on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: 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?
9, 21,
36
--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)?
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. San Luis Obispo is currently designated as
nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state
standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-55
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are
subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from
motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were de signed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air
pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality
Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for th e purpose of assisting lead
agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under
CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the pote ntial to
cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air
quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities. A mitigation measure (AQ 1) has been recommended that all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
ATCM be complied with.
The project will include extensive grading and demolition, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition of this kind of underground
equipment can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and
disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions,
including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M
– asbestos NESHAP). A mitigation measure (AQ 2) has been recommended for compliance with all regulatory
requirements pertaining to the disturbance, removal or relocation of utility pipelines.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors a mitigation
measure (AQ 3) has been recommended to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20%
opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402).
Construction equipment itself can be the source of emissions, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or
APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in
the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Truck trips associated with the 10,800 CY of soils that
will be exported from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific
truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web
sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. A mitigation
measure (AQ 4) has been recommended to ensure proper use of subject equipment. Additionally, because the project is in
close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, an additional mitigation measure (AQ 5) is recommended to ensure that
public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impac ts:
Although Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that a hotel with 102 rooms exceeds the threshold of
significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as 85-rooms),
running the more accurate CalEEMod computer model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-56
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
the APCD’s thresholds in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle
travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 126
rooms). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project.
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic
evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption
request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with
the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited
to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey
conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown o n 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, modify
practices 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 Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased
watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non -potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water swee pers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a perso n or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-57
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by
contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct
the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California
based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel
idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restricti ve requirements to minimize
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and
number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
e) The project includes the development of a hotel and associated amenities, as anticipated in the Tourist-Commercial zone,
and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the
area.
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, t he project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,18,
26, 31
--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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
--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?
--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
--X--
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-58
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
--X--
Evaluation
(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 impact and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City’s Natural
Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or otherwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands
or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. Ho wever, due to the
proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of the site, there is the potential for construction -related
impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BIO 1) has
been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor are utilized
under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP).
San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130
(1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank (on the project site) the creek channel is
vegetated by a mixture of native and non -native trees and groundcovers. All structures and other improvements are above the
established top of bank. Residential properties across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang the cree k
channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a
significant biological corridor. Its condition could be enhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoratio n
and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), 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.
It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and th e
project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
(e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. A tributary of Acacia
Creek runs through the site. Multiple small native and non -native trees would be removed, the largest being a 10-inch Coast
Live Oak along the southern property line. The majority of the trees to be removed are small non -natives, such as California
Peppers, Monterey Cypress. And Sweet Gums. The largest trees in the area of development include a 28 -inch diameter
Norfolk Island Pine, a 28-inch diameter California Pepper, and a multi -trunk California Pepper, which would be protected in-
place. Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed
landscape plan, including both landscape trees and trees within the creek restoration area, provide adequate mitigation.
As required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 series), No. 11, as a condition of approval of any new use on the site, that portion of
the property which lies within the C/OS-5 zone is required to be dedicated as a perpetual open space easement. A mitigation
measure (BIO 3) has been recommended to ensure this dedication occurs with other entitlements.
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 a ppropriate 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.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-59
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to t he
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.
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: That portion of the site which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be dedicated as a perpetual
biological open space easement.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5,
24,25,
27, 28
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
25, 27
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 27 --X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 25,
27
--X--
Evaluation
a) The home located at 1845 Monterey and scheduled for demolition with the proposed project was constructed in the early
1920’s and is considered a Potential Contributing Property by the City of San Luis Obispo. A Historic Architectural Survey
Report was prepared for the site which concluded that the home does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, does not appear to be an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, and does not appear to
warrant City of San Luis Obispo Master List status.
Built in approximately 1922 for Dr. Loveall, a dentist, the home is a single story residence in a simple Tudor style. There i s
no architect of record; the contractor was C.E. Follett. The property, although charming, lacks sufficient architectural
distinction, is not the work of a master, and there is no indication of any association with important events or individuals.
There are other, better, examples of the Tudor style in the City of San Luis Obispo.
b-d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained
resource maps. Because the site is within an archaeologically sensitive area (adjacent to San Luis Creek), an Archeological
Resource Inventory of 1845 and 1865 Monterey Street was prepared to determine the presence or likelihood of
archaeological historical resources. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological
materials. However, the presence of the existing structure dating from the early 1920s, and evidence of potential historic
material underneath an existing structure and parking area signifies a greater probability that buried historic features may be
impacted during any ground disturbing activities. Additionally, there is the limited potential that materials (including but not
limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) could be encountered given the proxim ity to the
creek. Two mitigation measures (CULT 1 and CULT 2) have been recommended to ensure that any materials discovered
during construction activities be appropriately handled.
Mitigation Measure CULT 1: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any demolition or ground disturbing
activities in the project area.
Mitigation Measure CULT 2: In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are encountered during
excavation (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, historic features, and human burials), work
shall cease until a qualified archaeologist makes determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-60
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
to minimize impacts, and provides information on how to proceed in li ght of the discoveries. All specialist recommendations
shall be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to resuming work to
ensure the project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San Lui s Obispo and the State of
California.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
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:
4,10,
29, 30
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.
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--
IV. Landslides? --X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --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?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
--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?
--X--
Evaluation
a, c, d) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo is loca ted within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well -defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Stu dies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon -Hosgri fault zone, located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. 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.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-61
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true f or
most of the City. Develop ment will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
Both a Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study and Structural Feasibility Analysis were prepared, which include
preliminary conclusions and recommendations related to the development of the property, from a geotechnical and str uctural
standpoint. These analyses conclude that the proposed project, while challenging in its scope and size, is structurally feasible,
and that the site seems well-suited for a project of this type. The most notable challenge identified will be the construction of
the basement level parking and the corresponding foundation system(s), and ensuring that existing structures on adjacent
properties are protected from ground movement or damage through proper shoring and/or underpinning. For much of the site
there is a shallow bedrock layer which will constitute excellent bearing material, but where the depth of the bedrock
increases, drilled concrete caissons may be required. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final geotechnical engineering
investigation and comprehensive design-level report will be required. A mitigation measure (GEO 1) has been
recommended that the analysis recommended in the Preliminary Report be developed. The Building Division of the
Community Development Department routinely reviews project plans and special engineering evaluations for compliance
with Building Code and the recommendations of the soils engineering reports.
b) This is a previously developed infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. As required by Ordinance 1130 (1989
Series), No. 3, a creek side vegetation restoration and enhancement plan, which also provides for landscape screening, is
required to be developed for the area between the proposed structure and the creek corridor (BIO MM 3). The planting plan
will be specifically designed to enhance the biology of the riparian channel, provide visual screening, and to prevent further
erosion. The project will not result in loss of topsoil.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewe r system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design -
level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific
areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The
report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall
design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and
any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on geologic and soil
resources.
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?
1,13,
14,21
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
X
Evaluation
a, b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California’s’ 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, services and employment centers. City policies recognize that
compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant
energy savings, which result in emissions reductions.
SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-62
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and
mitigation of GHG emissions:
Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the
amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic ,
energy consumption, water usage and construction activities;
The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not
dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available
information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either
individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and,
The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than
significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic,
technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a
project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.”
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2eq emissions; see Air
Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2eq emissions are primarily from building
heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electric al demands. Utilizing
the LEED 2009 Project Checklist for New Construction and Major Renovations, the project proponent identified qualifying
project features totaling 51 points, which would qualify the project as LEED Silver.
Short term GHG emissions from construction activities consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Mitigation
Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to
below a level of significance. In San Luis Obispo there are several active programs for reducing vehicle trips both for those
traveling to the area and during their stay that are available to hotel guests during the operational phase of the project. A mong
these is SLO Car Free, which is managed by the APCD to encourage car-free transportation to and around San Luis Obispo
County. The City’s Bus system and Downtown Trolley also serves this area of Monterey Street, providing efficient transit to
the downtown core city-services.
Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for
lighting. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enforced with new construction. So although
Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that a hotel with 102 rooms exceeds the threshold of significance for
the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as 85 -rooms), running the more
accurate CalEEMod computer model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than the APCD’s
thresholds in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel
use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The t hreshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 126 rooms).
Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this p roject.
Conclusion: 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?
31
--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--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutel y
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
--X-- --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
35
--X--
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-63
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
12
--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?
12
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 19
--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?
4, 19
--X--
Evaluation
a) Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiven ess,
and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of
substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may
pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use,
such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be dispos ed
of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous
materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria.
Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between
the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard i s
any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety
is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material.
Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials inc lude the dose the
person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical
enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility.
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable
building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and
occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and
diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition
to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, assuming such use complies with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not
limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.
With respect to operation of the project, hotel facilities do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and only a
minimal amount of routine “household” chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a significant
hazard to the public or to the environment.
b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or
emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the
potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters picking up or
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-64
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would
be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed projec t. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California
Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations.
The project also includes demolition of the existing house, which, given the age of the structure, could contain asbestos and
lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction
before being banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prio r to
discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including
sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is
classified into two main categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed
and is considered Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly
hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes
lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or
Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The
California Occupational Safety and Health Administratio n (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials
(ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be
handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead -based paint.
In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per millio n
[ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06
percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are
particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and
organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state -certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are
determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the proje ct
sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct
the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be
disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk
assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement
have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead -based paint. These include
Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead -based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead -based paint abatement must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Co mpliance with
existing regulation would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant.
c) The proposed project is a hotel with parking and associated amenities, and is within a quarter mile of San Luis High,
located at the intersection of San Luis Drive and California Blvd . As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a
hotel use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that
would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing school.
d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 2000 Monterey Street, at the Chevron Service Station,
approximately one-half mile northeast of the project site. That site is listed on the Cortese State Water Resources Control
Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of permitted underground storage tanks. Therefore, the proposed project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site.
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip.
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing o r
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-65
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
working in the project area.
g) The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans.
Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan are considered less than significant.
h) The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The
surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses , and is set back from the creek corridor as required by the
Conservation and Open Space Element and Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series). The proposed project will have no impact on the
placement of people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
g), h) The project site is an infill site and plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who determined that as designed the
project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The site is not directly adjacent to any
wildlands.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
16,17,
31, 34
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of 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)?
--X--
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?
--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?
--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) 4 11,
12, 30
--X--
Evaluation
a, f) 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. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥ 22,000 SF
and in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-66
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Runoff Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO City/WWMP
drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that
there will be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property , 2) Use of Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to
reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and
Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010, “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to
implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality
For the proposed project, the development will construct a detention basin meeting San Luis Creek Water Way Management
Plan (WWMP) Drainage Design Manual standards with a sub-surface Rainstore3 Pond System, vegetated areas, and pervious
paved areas to control the required 95 percentile storm volume. Working with best management practices to deliver relatively
clean storm runoff to the detention pond, the plan proposes to detain the peak developed runoff coming from the new
improvements. This concept will in turn meet the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) Drainage Design Manual
standards to maintain pre-developed flow conditions for the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 & 100 year storm events.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
c, d, e, i) 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 insuring water quality and proper drainage within the
City’s watershed. The Waterways Ma nagement Plan and LID stormwater treatment requires that site development be
designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. As a Tier 3 project
development is required to implement a minimum of two LI D measures for stormwater treatment to filter runoff from the
developed site through structural BMP’s for low flow storm events. The design provides three LID measures, including 1)
Down-spout connection on roof downspouts where appropriate, with roof drai ns discharging into planters or other landscaped
areas, 2) Permeable paving system located within existing paved parking area adjacent to the 20 -foot C/OS-5 setback line,
and 3) Rainwater harvesting with the Rainstore Stormwater System, which includes detention/retention ponding to slow
flows and encourage infiltration into a well-draining soil backfill. The volumetric BMP’s are designed to meet the New
Central Coast Regional Water Board, CCRWB PCR’s affective March 6, 2014, and adopted by the City of San L uis Obispo,
which are for on-site Runoff Retention as specified in R3-2013-0032 Post Construction Storm Water Requirements, B.4.a
and B.4.c.i.1) & 2). The 1.93 Acre site is within Water Management Zone, WMZ 1. The site consists of 0.93 acres of
proposed impervious surface, 0.14 acres of pervious surfacing and landscape. This projects’ runoff retention requirement is to
provide storage for the 95th Percentile 24 -hour Rainfall depth equal to 2.08 inches, as taken from an isopoluvial map
developed by the State Water Board for the site area.
The applicant proposes to store and release the sites’ increased storm water runoff in a subsurface detention/retention system.
The re-vegetated creek corridor will also act as a vegetated bioswale, which will further decre ase runoff and siltation
compared to the current degraded configuration. Bio -swales will be used where possible to direct runoff into the sites
subsurface system, which complies with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Tier 3 standards for stormwater r unoff.
The project will comply with City Engineering Standard 1010.B for water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from
expanded street paving; requiring the treatment for storm events. This project is considered a Tier 3 Low Impact
Development project as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Stormwater Control Plan guidelines and application. As a
Tier 3 LID project the site is required to implement at least two (2) LID measures for reducing on -site stormwater runoff. The
development is incorporating the following structural water quality best management/volumetric practices:1) Pervious paver
driveway and parking spaces, 2) Sub -surface bio-retention pond, 3) Infiltration planters (north side of lobby), 4) Down -spout
disconnection, and 5) Stormwater detention pond.
The Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan and Basis Analysis prepared by Wallace Group, April 2014, concludes the
project’s water flows increase minimally from preconstruction to post-construction, and complies with the City’s Waterways
Management Plan, LID storm water treatment requirements, and Post Construction Stormwater Requirements . Compliance
with the Waterways Management Plan is sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas
of water quality and hydrology. The Public Works Department has determined that the proposed improvements identified in
the Wallace Analysis are sufficient to avoid drainage impacts, such as flooding, on -site or downstream.
g), h) San Luis Creek crosses through the eastern portion of the project site. That portion of the site that is within the
boundaries of the area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100 -year storm per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-67
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
Flood Insurance Rate Map is within the C/OS-5 portion of the site, and is not proposed for new development. The project will
not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Compliance with the standards detailed above will be sufficient to ensure that
the proposed project does not endanger structures on this and other adjoining sites.
j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope project s do not
generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow .
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10 --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?
1, 9,
26, 31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
5, 12 --X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed infill development project is designed to fit among existing visitor-serving development and will not
physically divide an established community or conflict with any applica ble habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plans.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoidin g or
mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City General Plan Designation and zoning
for the project site, regulations and development standards.
Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), which establishes specific development standards for the site, was adopted to ensure
compatibility with adjacent residential uses to the east. Consistency with these standards will be determined through a public
hearing processes required for approval of the Use Permit, as required of sites with Special Considerations overlays.
c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the
proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
Conclusion: Less than significant 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?
5
--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--
Evaluation
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
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-68
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
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?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
--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?
--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 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?
27
--X--
12
--X--
Evaluation
a) The Noise Guidebook includes distances from the center line of roads to noise contours on sites along road ways with
heavier traffic volumes. The table indicates that existing noise levels at the site are below 60 decibels (dB) Ldn. With build -
out of the City noise levels will increase to about 60 at the most westerly portion of the project site. The Guidebook indicates
that these estimates should be taken as worst case estimates and do not take into account shielding by buildings or landforms
which can reduce noise exposure up to 14 dB. Like residences, hotels are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element.
The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas.
Exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into
account. Interior noise levels of less than 45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction
techniques.
b) Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be hotel uses, which would not involve the
use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in
groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short -term construction-
related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts,
concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed
by City ordinance, impac ts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant.
c) As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves hotel use, which is consistent with existing uses in the
project vicinity. Hotel uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Operation of the project
would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial changes to the
existing noise environment. Other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity include other hotels to the south, and residential uses to
the east, across San Luis Creek. These uses will be shielded from any noise generated by hotel uses by distance and by the
structure itself.
d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed hotel. Noise levels during
construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction. Although there would be
intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts would be less than significant
because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels allowed by City ordinance.
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private
airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with
aircraft operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-69
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
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)?
1, 31 --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--
Evaluation:
a) The proposed project includes construction of a visitor-serving hotel, which would not directly add to the population of the
city. The new employment generated by the project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is
currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would
not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be
required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further
growth.
b) There is an existing single family residence on the project site that would be demolished as part of the project. The hous e
has been used as both an office and a rental property in recent years. Removal of one home is not considered a substantial
loss of housing which would necessitate construction of a replacement unit.
c) There is a single existing house on the project site, which as noted above, has been used alternatively as an office or rental
unit. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Conclusion: Less than significant 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? 10, 19 --X--
b) Police protection? --X--
c) Schools? --X--
d) Parks? --X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X--
f) Other public facilities? --X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services
over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land use s on surrounding properties, and the site is already
served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substant ially alter the number of housing units or population in
the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical
impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than
significant.
b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The
redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased patro ls or additional units such that new police facilities
would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and
impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c) Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-70
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capa cities.
Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the
proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
As the proposed hotel is a visitor-serving use, no new students are anticipated to be associated with this development.
d) Because the proposed project is visitor serving, it would result in a very minor increase in the number of people utilizing
park facilities relative to the city’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and
recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected . The proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on parks.
e) As noted above, because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in
users relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation
infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected . The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities.
Conclusion: Less than significant 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?
10, 31
--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--
Evaluation:
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational fac ilities. However, given that the
project is visitor-serving, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with redevelopment of the site. Park Land
In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space, ma intenance or equipment in the
vicinity, per existing City policy. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreatio nal
facilities.
b) The project includes several small areas for guests to congregate within the stru cture, including a bar lounge, dining area,
fitness room, and meeting space. Because of its central location, guests of the hotel will have convenient access to
recreational activities in the city, and to points of interest accessed from Highway 101.
Conclusion: Less than significant 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?
2,12,
18,31
--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?
12
--X--
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-71
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
31
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 31 --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?
2,31
--X--
Evaluation
a), b) Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located northeast of the project site. Local access to the
project site is provided by Monterey Street and Grand Avenue. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does
not significantly add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other
agency’s plans for congestion management. The project will generate approximately 820 new vehicle trips on the adjacent
street system with approximately 53 AM trips and 60 PM trips occurring. No new trips are anticipated from the restaurant use
since it is and existing use.
Units ITE Code ADT Rate ADT AM Rate AM Trips PM Rate PM Trips
Existing
Residence 1 210 9.52 -9.52 0.75 -0.75 1 -1
Hotel 102 310 8.17 833.34 0.53 54.06 0.6 61.2
Restaurant No Change
Net Trips:823.82 53.31 60.2
These vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service the project location and employee mix make it a prime
candidate to take advantage of public transportation services located along Monterey street. Participation in an employee and
patron transit pass program to help further reduce individual vehicle trips to and from the site location will be included as
recommended conditions of approval to the Architectural Review Commission.
The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not conflict
with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will also contribute to overall impact
mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
c) The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan.
d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Monterey Street. The project would improve
the sidewalk along the Monterey Street frontage, but would not significantly alter the existing travel flow of vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveways would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely
and adequately serve both the existing restaurant and new hotel project. Because the project is a similar use to those in the
immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses.
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As
proposed, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase
traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access.
f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to th e site’s location within the City’s
urban center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. Monterey Street is served by RTA, the regional transit agency
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-72
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26
as well as the City’s Trolley which operates Thursday nights from 5 -9 PM and on Friday and Saturday nights during summer.
SLO City bus lines for Route 5 and 6B are located within walking distance (Grand/Monterey) that allows public
transportation services to the Downtown and Cal Poly campus. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage
(six long-term and one short-term bicycle parking spaces). The proposed project includes a short term bicycle rack near the
entrance and long term bicycle lockers in the subterranean parking level that meets code requirements.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,17,
34
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new wate r
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
--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?
--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
the provider’s existing commitments?
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
8, 33 --X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), e) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project
site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing faci lities
which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standard s in the Uniform Plumbing Code and City
standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of the project.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated by the General
Plan. Per the General Plan Water/Wastewater Element and the 2012 Water Resource Status Report, the City has sufficient
water supplies for build-out of the City’s General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. This
project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to
ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis
Garbage has reviewed the location and size of enclosures behind the restaurant building and determined that they are
sufficient in size to handle both the restaura nt and hotel garbage and recycling.
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-73
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to gro undwater, air quality, and
public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in
California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream
generated by this project, consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste
reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at
http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf) recycling facilities have been accommodated on the project
site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded cons truction materials is a submittal requirement with the
building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create
significant impacts to solid waste disposal.
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--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the
potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, and geology and soils will be less than significant with
incorporation of recommended mitigation measures.
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--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts tha t
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics (AES 1-2), air quality (AQ 1-5), biological resources (BIO 1-3),
cultural resources (CULT 1-2), and geology and soils (GEO 1).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
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.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-74
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, June 2010
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, April 2006
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, April 2010
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
10. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
11. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
12. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
13. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations August 2012
14. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
15. 2010 California Building Code
16. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
17. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
18. Site Visit
19. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
20. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
21. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air P ollution Control District, April 2012
22. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
23. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
24. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
25. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
26. Ordinance No.1130 (1989 Series)
27. Archeological Resource Inventory, CRMS, April 2014
28. Historic Architectural Survey Report, Robert C. Pavlik, April 2012
29. Structural Feasibility, Ashley & Vance, April 3, 2014
30. Geotechnical Feasibility Study, Earth Systems Pacific, April 2, 2014
31. Project Plans
32. Visual Simulations, Garcia Architecture + Design, April 24, 2014
33. Applicant project statement/description
34. Stormwater Control Plan and Basis Analysis, Wallace Group, April 9, 2014
35. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm
36. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Referral Comments, July 2014
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Plans
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-75
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure AES 1: A combination of vegetation and fencing shall be utilized as required to
effectively screen headlights facing eastward towards San Luis Creek from the uncovered parking area
that will be retained and improved.
Monitoring Plan, AES 1: The Architectural Review Commission shall review the preliminary
planting and fencing plan and provide direction to the applicant. Final plans shall be reviewed
Community Development Planning staff and the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of the
Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency
with City standards prior to department sign off and issuance of permits.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the
Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not
exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, 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 compliance with APCD
requirements. 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.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall
be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days
of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. 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 AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-76
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30
control program and modify practices, 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 Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25
m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork
or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: 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
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-77
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
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 AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD
permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific
information regarding permitting requirements.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. 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.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the
following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-78
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific
standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: 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. The applicant shall provide documentation of
compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures for
work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment shall 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 shall be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage
of sediment in to the drainage/creek system.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by
the City’s Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City’s Natural
Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measures.
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.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-79
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 143 -13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143 -13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
Mitigation Measure BIO 3: That portion of the site which lies within the C/OS-5 zone shall be
dedicated as a perpetual open space easement.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: Prior to the issuance of Building Permits an open space easement, written
to the satisfaction of the City’s Natural Resources Manager, shall be recorded on title.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT 1: A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any demolition or
ground disturbing activities in the project area.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans
and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site
for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CULT 2: In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are
encountered during excavation (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits,
historic features, and human burials), work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist makes
determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures to minimize impacts, and
provides information on how to proceed in light of the discoveries. All specialist recommendations shall
be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to
resuming work to ensure the project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San
Luis Obispo and the State of California.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans
and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site
for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Geology & Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a
comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project.
Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and
structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site
preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design
parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on
retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer.
Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as
part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits.
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC 1-80
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of an appeal of the Director’s approval of a new single family residence with a
three car garage that includes tandem parking on a sensitive site (Lot 6), in accordance with adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Resolution No. 9622 (2004 Series).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2074 Fixlini Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0142-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) that denies the appeal of the
Community Development Director’s approval of the project based on findings of consistency with
City standards and subject to conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant Bill & Lisa Matthes
Action Date January 24, 2017
Appeal Date February 3, 2017
General Plan R-1, Low-Density Residential
Zoning Low-Density Residential
Site Area ~6,008 square feet
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental
Impact Resolution No. 9622
(2004 Series)
SUMMARY
The applicant has proposed to construct a single-family residence in the R-1 zone (Lot 6). The
proposed project is located on a “sensitive site” and requires architectural review. This status was
reviewed as part of the approval for Tract 2570 and established through City Council Resolution No.
9622 (2004 Series) as Mitigation Measure #1, which ensures that development of the site will respect
existing site constraints (slope, creek, springs, trees), privacy of occupants and neighbors of the
project, and be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The project was approved by the Community Development Director on January 24, 2017 (ARCH-
3163-2016). The approval was appealed to the Architectural Review Commission on February 3,
2017 due to concerns related to tandem parking within the existing residential neighborhood.
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
Item Number:
ARC2 - 1
APPL-0142-2017
2074 Fixlini Street
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Zoning Regulations,
Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size 6,008 Square Feet
Present Use & Development Vacant
Topography Slopes upward from Fixlini Street, 15% average slope
Access Fixlini Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (New Single-family Residence, Lot 13)
South: R-1 (Vacant, Lot 8)
East: R-1 (Vacant, Lot 5)
West: R-1 (Vacant, Lot 7)
Project Description: The proposed project includes the following features (Attachment 3, Project
Plans):
1. Single-Family Residence: 2,713 square-foot home with a three car garage
a. Two stories with a proposed max height of 23 feet above average natural grade.
b. Tandem parking within the three car garage.
2. Design: Mediterranean architectural style with the following details and materials;
a. “Brilliant White” stucco with decorative mid-section trim.
b. Recessed windows and arched openings
c. S-Tile roof with exposed fascia
Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback 20 feet 20 feet
Side Yard Setbacks
East
West
South
11 Feet
9.5 Feet
10 Feet
9 feet
9 Feet
10 Feet
Max. Height of Structure 25 feet 35 feet
Coverage 34% 40%
Parking Spaces 3 3
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans
2. Zoning Regulations
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
This approval of the project by the Community Development Director was made on the determination
that the proposed project meets all the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and
Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant
requirements and has found it to be in substantial compliance, as discussed in this analysis.
ARC2 - 2
APPL-0142-2017
2074 Fixlini Street
Page 3
Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines
The CDG establish the intent of the development standards for infill development projects to be
compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the
immediate neighborhood.
Site Plan: The project has been designed on a legal residential property that complies with building
setbacks, lot coverage, parking, and building height requirements for the Low -Density Residential
(R-1) zone (see Section 2 Project Statistics).
Building Design: The residence has been designed and is located on a site that does not block views
from adjacent properties. The design of the residence includes exterior colors that blend the structure
with the natural appearance of the hillside. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets,
balconies, and the slope of the lot to relieve the form and mass of the building. The structure
demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the
building.
The Mediterranean architectural style is appropriate because the style further accentuates the eclectic
mix and diversity of architecture throughout the neighborhood, while providing design elements,
including roofing style, siding material and finish, and other various materials incorporated int o the
building that are compatible with the architectural characteristics of existing houses in the
neighborhood.
Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(L.1) stipulates that tandem parking1 is intended to allow
for needed flexibility on constrained lots or where tandem parking is consistent with the existing
neighborhood pattern.
Tandem Parking: The subject property requires three parking spaces, where adjacent properties have
been able to provide the third parking spaces within the other yard, Lot 6 is unable to provide parking
alongside the garage due to the existing trail easement along the east property line. Granting of tandem
parking will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because the
tandem parking is entirely within the garage that is not visib le from the public right-of-way, and
tandem parking has already been utilized for the development of Lot 9 (ARCMI 73-12, 2085 Fixlini).
4.0 EVALUATION OF APPEAL
On March 15, 2016, Vellum Inc. appealed the Community Development Director’s decision to
approve the project, specifically concerning tandem parking and the proposed game room as it may
be converted into an ADU (Attachment 2, Vellum Appeal Letter).
Appeal Analysis
The appeal letter states that tandem parking is inconsistent with the Tract Map Resolution No. 9622
(2004 Series) Mitigation Measure #20 because the measure states “with convenient access to the
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060(L.1) Tandem Parking: For residential uses, when parking spaces are identified
for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem (that is, one
space behind the other) subject to approval of the Community Development Director.
ARC2 - 3
APPL-0142-2017
2074 Fixlini Street
Page 4
street”. The implication is that tandem parking is not convenient, however, the mitigation measure
also states “a parking equivalent of one space per 25 feet of frontage, for a total of seventeen spaces,
shall be provided for the project to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development
Directors.” Convenient parking is not defined in the Zoning Regulations and is subject to review by
the Public Works and Community Development Directors for consistency with the City’s Parking
Standards. Tandem parking is identified in the Zoning Regulations as an opportunity for residential
development and has already been recognized for Lot 9 to meet the required parking. The proposed
tandem parking is consistent with the Zoning Regulations and the City’s Parking Standards which
has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments,
subject to conditions of approval.
The appeal letter also describes a concern regarding the proposed “game room” converting into a
Secondary Dwelling Unit, now referred to as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). On January 23, 2017
the Director approved the project with Condition No. 4 which states that “Plans submitted for a
building permit shall not include a “wet bar” or any other installation that meets the definition of a
kitchen within the proposed “game room” located adjacent to the garage. Installation resembling an
accessory kitchen shall not be permitted unless in conjunction with Accessory Dwelling Unit
approval.” In the event the “game room” is converted into an ADU, the project would be subject to
the requirements of State Assembly Bill 1069.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On November 16, 2004, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
development of Tract 2570 (TR/ER 95-03). The City Council determined that the project’s Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions
of approval and code requirements, where appropriate.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
7.1. Uphold the appeal and deny the project based on inconsistency with the Zoning Regulations
and applicable City regulations.
7.2. Continue action on the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to
staff and the applicant regarding additional information needed to make a decision.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vellum Appeal Letter
3. Reduced Project Plans
4. Resolution No. 9622 (2004 Series)
Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board
ARC2 - 4
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-XXXX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR’S
DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH
A THREE CAR GARAGE THAT INCLUDES TANDEM PARKING ON A
SENSITIVE SITE (LOT 6), IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT RESOLUTION NO. 9622 (2004 SERIES), AS REPRESENTED IN
THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 6, 2017
(2074 FIXLINI STREET, APPL-0142-2017)
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2017, the Community Development Director approved the
project at 2074 Fixlini Street (ARCH-3163-2016), Bill and Lisa Matthes, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2017, Vellum Inc. filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director’s action (APPL-0142-2017); and
WHEREAS, 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, on March 6, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under the appeal of the
Community Director’s approval of ARCH-3163-2016, Bill and Lisa Matthes, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
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 denies the appeal
and grants final approval to the project (ARCH-3163-2016), based on the following findings:
1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because, the project conforms to all Zoning
Regulation requirements.
2. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity, because the project conforms to all Zoning
Regulation requirements.
3. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to
compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE 2.3.11) and
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 5
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17
2074 Fixlini Street (Lot 6), APPL-0142-2017
Page 2
housing production (HE 6).
4. The project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, because it will be an
aesthetic improvement to the site and surrounding neighborhood because of design
elements, including roofing style, siding material and finish, and other various materials
and architectural features incorporated into the building that are compatible with
architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood.
5. The project is consistent with Infill Development regulations because outdoor living areas
are strongly encouraged in infill developments and the project proposes balconies and
porches that provide a transition from public spaces to indoor private spaces.
6. Parking spaces may be arranged in tandem for residential uses when parking spaces are
identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling. Granting of tandem
parking will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance
because the tandem parking is entirely within the garage that is not visible from the public
right-of-way.
7. The project site is designated as a “sensitive site” by Resolution No. 9622 (2004 Series);
in order to ensure development of the property will respect existing site constraints (slope,
creek, springs, trees), and compatible in scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive
site status because the building design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
and the location of the building pad is outside of the creek setback.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On November 16, 2004, the City Council adopted a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the develop ment of Tract 2570 (TR/ER 95-03). The City
Council determined that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby denies the
appeal and grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. A building plan check submittal that is in full conformance with submitted project plans
and the following conditions of approval shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Community Development Department. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in
working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project
approval. 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. All conditions established by TR/ER 95-03 shall be incorporated herein as conditions of
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 6
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17
2074 Fixlini Street (Lot 6), APPL-0142-2017
Page 3
approval.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings, including retaining walls.
The shared driveway shall be designed with permeable pavers in accordance to Land Use
Element Policy 6.6.6, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works
Directors.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall not include a “wet bar” or any other installation
that meets the definition of a kitchen within the proposed “game room” located adjacent to
the garage. Installation resembling an accessory kitchen shall not be permitted unless in
conjunction with Accessory Dwelling Unit approval.
5. Building plans shall comply with property development standards, including building
heights, setbacks (including creek setback), required yards, and parking requirements.
6. Building plans shall require a final grading plan, erosion control and drainage plan and
appropriate calculations for the entire site. The grading plan shall include existing and
proposed contours to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage for the site. The
grading plan shall comply with the requirements for grading in accordance with the grading
ordinance (Municipal Code J101.6).
7. 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
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other
related window features.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit review shall include lighting fixture details. The
locations of all lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included
as part of working drawings. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic
representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted
for the project file of the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be
shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the
Zoning Regulations.
9. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
10. Where fences are located on retaining walls within other yards, fences shall not exceed six
feet as measured from the uphill side; the combined fence and retaining wall height shall
not exceed nine feet from the lower side. Any deviation from the fence height regulations
shall require a Fence Height Exception.
11. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 7
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17
2074 Fixlini Street (Lot 6), APPL-0142-2017
Page 4
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.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
12. The building plan submittal shall include the dimensions and bearings for all property lines
for reference. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing public or private
easements for reference.
13. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and
Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials.
14. 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. All work in the public right-of-way
shall be shown or noted.
15. The building plan submittal shall show permanent erosion control measures within the
existing access easement to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Alternate
paving materials and/or a permanent passive erosion control method is recommended for
water quality control purposes.
16. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage 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 accepted and
conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or
increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. 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.
17. The proposed development on this site has the potential to intercept subsurface or spring
water. Spring water shall be retained on-site or piped to an approved outlet per City
Engineering Standard 1010.B. The building plan submittal shall show the wall/French
drains along with any intercepted spring water to be directed to the existing storm drain
system available on-site.
18. The building plan submittal shall show the location, extent and nature of all proposed site
retaining walls or wall and fence combinations. Wall and/or fences shall be approved by
the Planning Division for compliance with the fence height requirements of the zoning
regulations.
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 8
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17
2074 Fixlini Street (Lot 6), APPL-0142-2017
Page 5
19. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan
Template as available on the City’s Website. The template will be used to document the
expected exemption or minor project compliance summary for the requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
20. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk
diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies
and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan
shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the
diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for
reference. Tree removals may require approval by the City Arborist and/or Tree
Committee.
21. The building plan submittal shall show the planting of one 48” Coast Live Oak street tree
with a minimum 5” trunk diameter as a compensatory planting for the recently removed
Oak tree. The building plan submittal shall show the entry steps and hardscape to honor
the compensatory tree planting in the general location of the removed tree. Tree plantings
shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards.
22. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist for
the existing Coast Live Oak street tree to remain. The City Arborist shall review and
approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition,
grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any tree relocations, 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.
Indemnification
23. 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 the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Code Requirements
Utilities Department
1. During the declared drought emergency, the project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to
support new landscaping shall not exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 9
Resolution No. ARC-XXXX-17
2074 Fixlini Street (Lot 6), APPL-0142-2017
Page 6
(MAWA). Information shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for
review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit to
support required water demand of the project’s proposed landscaping.
2. 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
3. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
in effect during the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments
and clearances needed for maintenance.
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 6th day of March, 2017.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 1
ARC2 - 10
Attachment 2
ARC2 - 11
Attachment 2
ARC2 - 12
SI
T
E
I
N
F
O
:
LO
T
I
N
F
O
:
A
P
N
:
0
0
3
-
6
0
2
-
0
0
6
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
2
0
7
4
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
D
A
T
A
:
OC
C
U
P
A
N
C
Y
:
R
3
,
U
TY
P
E
O
F
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
:
T
y
p
e
V
-
B
S
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
e
d
ZO
N
I
N
G
:
R
-
1
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
:
NE
W
2
,
7
1
2
.
7
2
s
q
.
f
t
.
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
w
/
3
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
,
2
1 2
b
a
t
h
s
w
/
At
t
a
c
h
e
d
7
1
5
.
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
2
-
C
a
r
G
a
r
a
g
e
/
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
.
G
r
a
d
e
c
u
t
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
S
l
a
b
-
o
n
-
G
r
a
d
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
AR
E
A
S
:
LO
T
A
R
E
A
:
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
S
:
Ne
w
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
:
Lo
w
e
r
F
l
o
o
r
:
To
t
a
l
:
Ga
r
a
g
e
:
Co
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
:
De
c
k
:
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
t
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
A
T
A
DI
R
E
C
T
O
R
Y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
O
W
N
E
R
/
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
:
BI
L
L
&
L
I
S
A
M
A
T
T
H
E
S
24
9
0
H
A
R
V
E
S
T
M
E
A
D
O
W
P
L
.
PA
S
O
R
O
B
L
E
S
,
C
A
9
3
4
4
6
(8
0
5
)
2
3
5
-
1
5
1
4
DE
S
I
G
N
E
R
:
JO
S
H
U
A
B
L
A
I
R
JO
S
H
U
A
S
.
B
L
A
I
R
D
R
A
F
T
I
N
G
&
D
E
S
I
G
N
PO
B
O
X
7
6
6
PI
S
M
O
B
E
A
C
H
,
C
A
9
3
4
4
8
(8
0
5
)
4
7
4
-
4
3
0
1
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
:
RO
B
E
R
T
M
O
N
T
O
Y
A
CI
V
I
L
D
E
S
I
G
N
-
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
S
PO
B
O
X
2
0
7
AR
R
O
Y
O
G
R
A
N
D
E
,
C
A
9
3
4
2
1
(8
0
5
)
6
2
1
-
3
0
5
0
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
:
JI
M
H
O
M
E
R
(
L
I
C
#
C
-
2
7
3
8
9
7
0
8
)
JI
M
H
O
M
E
R
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
PO
B
O
X
1
8
0
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
(8
0
5
)
4
3
1
-
9
4
0
3
T1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
C1
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
&
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
A1
.
1
A
R
C
H
.
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
HE
I
G
H
T
S
T
U
D
Y
A2
.
1
L
O
W
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A2
.
2
U
P
P
E
R
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A3
.
1
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A3
.
2
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
L1
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
SH
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
73
0
.
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
2,
7
1
2
.
7
2
s
q
.
f
t
.
1,
0
1
0
.
6
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
20
8
.
2
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
10
7
.
3
4
s
q
.
f
t
.
2,
0
9
5
.
6
3
s
q
.
f
t
.
34
%
6,
0
0
8
.
0
0
s
q
.
f
t
.
(0
.
1
3
A
c
r
e
s
)
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
6
7
$
5
7
,
1
*
&
2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
7
+
(
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
(
6
3
2
16
,
%
/
(
)
2
5
0
$
.
,
1
*
68
5
(
7
+
$
7
7
+
(
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
0
,
7
6
$
1
'
$
3
3
5
2
9
$
/
6
+
$
9
(
%
(
(
1
2
%
7
$
,
1
(
'
1
2
&
2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
25
)
$
%
5
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
*
,1
8
1
7
,
/
7
+
(
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
+
$
6
5
(
&
(
,
9
(
'
$
1
'
7
+
2
5
2
8
*
+
/
<
5(
9
,
(
:
(
'
$
/
/
3
/
$
1
6
$
1
'
2
7
+
(
5
'
2
&
8
0
(
1
7
6
$
3
3
5
2
9
(
'
%
<
7
+
(
3
(
5
0
,
7
7
,
1*
$
8
7
+
2
5
,
7
<
7
+
,
6
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
6
+
$
/
/
&
2
0
3
/
<
:
,
7
+
7
+
(
&
5
&
7
+
(
*
5
(
(
1
%
8,
/
'
,
1
*
&
2
'
(
7
+
(
&0
&
&
3
&
7
+
(
&
(
&
7
+
(
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
5
(
6
,
'
(
1
7
,
$
/
(1
(
5
*
<
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
'
,
0
(
1
6
,
2
1
6
7
$
.
(
3
5
(
&
(
'
(
1
&
(
2
9
(
5
6
&
$
/
(
,
)
'
,
0
(
1
6
,
2
1
$
/
(
5
5
2
5
6
2&
&
8
5
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6+
$
/
/
1
2
7
,
)
<
7
+
(
$
5
&
+
,
7
(
&
7
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
&
2
0
0
(
1
&
,
1
*
7
+
$
7
3
2
5
7
,
2
1
2
)
7+
(
:
2
5
.
7
+
(
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6
+
$
/
/
(
;
$
0
,
1
(
7
+
(
&
2
1
'
,
7
,
2
1
2
)
7
+
(
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
$
5
(
$
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
&2
0
0
(
1
&
,
1
*
7
+
(
:
2
5
.
$
1
'
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
(
6
3
2
1
6
,
%
/
(
)
2
5
&
2
2
5
'
,
1
$
7
,
2
1
2
)
$
/
/
7
+
(
75
$
'
(
6
6
8
%
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
(
6
3
2
1
6
,
%
/
(
)
2
5
$
1
'
2
%
7
$
,
1
$
/
/
3
(
5
0
,
76
/
,
&
(
1
6
(
6
$
1
'
3
$
<
5(
4
8
,
5
(
'
)
(
(
6
$
3
3
5
2
9
(
'
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$
'
'
5
(
6
6
1
8
0
%
(
5
,
1
*
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
/
$
&
(
'
8
3
2
1
6
7
5
8
&7
8
5
(
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
%<
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
&
(
7
+
(
,
1
'
,
9
,
'
8
$
/
1
8
0
%
(
5
6
6
+
$
/
/
&
2
1
7
5
$
6
7
:
,
7
+
7
+
(
,
5
%$
&
.
*
5
2
8
1
'
$
1
'
%
(
$7
/
(
$
6
7
,
1
+
(
,
*
+
7
$
1
'
,
1
6
7
5
2
.
(
,
1
$
/
/
$
5
(
$
6
=
2
1
'
(
'
5
(
6
,
'(
1
7
,
$
/
'
2
1
2
7
&
+
$
1
*
(
6
7
2
5
0
$
1
'
:
$
7
(
5
'
5
$
,
1
$
*
(
$
6
(
3
$
5
$
7
(
3
(
5
0
,
7
,
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
)
2
5
*
5
$
'
,
1
*
&
%
&
6
(
&
$
1
'
6
:
,
0
0
,
1
*
3
2
2
/
&
%
&
6
(
&
$
1
<
2
0
,
6
6
,
2
1
6
2
5
&
2
1
)
/
,
&
7
6
%
(
7:
(
(
1
9
$
5
,
2
8
6
(
/
(
0
(
1
7
6
2
1
7
+
(
'
5
$:
,
1
*
6
$
1
'
63
(
&
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
%
5
2
8
*
+
7
7
2
7
+
(
$
7
7
(
1
7
,
2
1
2
)
7
+
(
$
5
&
+
,
7
(
&7
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
35
2
&
(
(
'
,
1
*
:
,
7
+
$
1
<
:
2
5
.
6
8
%
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6
6
+$
/
/
,
1
7
+
(
:
2
5
.
2
)
7
+
(
,
5
7
5
$
'
(
6
3
(
5
)
2
5
0
$1
<
$
1
'
$
/
/
&
8
7
7
,
1
*
3$
7
&
+
,
1
*
5
(
3
$
,
5
,
1
*
5
(
6
7
2
5
,
1
*
$
1
'
7
+
(
/
,
.
(
$
6
1
(
&
(
6
6
$
5
<
7
2
&
2
0
3
/(
7
(
7
+
(
:
2
5
.
$
1
'
72
5
(
6
7
2
5
(
$
1
<
'
$
0
$
*
(
'
2
5
$
)
)
(
&
7
(
'
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
6
5
(
6
8
/
7
,
1
*
)
5
2
0
7
+
(
:2
5
.
2
)
7
+
,
6
&2
1
7
5
$
&
7
7
2
7
+
(
,
5
2
5
,
*
,
1
$
/
&
2
1
'
,
7
,
2
1
7
2
7
+
(
6
$
7
,
6
)
$
&
7
,
2
1
2
)
7
+
(
$
5
&
+
,
7
(
&
7
7
+
(
5
(
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
1
2
(
;
3
2
6
(
'
3
,
3
(
&
2
1
'
8
,
7
6
'
8
&
7
6
9
(
1
7
6
(
7
&
$
/
/
6
8
&
+
/
,
1
(
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
&2
1
&
(
$
/
(
'
2
5
)
8
5
5
(
'
$
1
'
)
,
1
,
6
+
(
'
7
2
0
$
7
&
+
$
'
-
$
&
(
1
7
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
6
7
<
3
,
&
$
/
'
(
7
$
,
/
6
6
+
$
/
/
$
3
3
/
<
:
+
(
5
(
1
2
6
3
(
&
,
)
,
&
'
(
7
$
,
/
,
6
6
+
2
:
1
$
/
/
0
$
7
(
5
,
$
/
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
1
(
:
$
1
'
4
8
$
/
,
7
<
$
&
&
(
3
7
$
%
/
(
7
2
7
+
(
$
5
&
+
,7
(
&
7
$
/
/
0
$
7
(
5
,
$
/
6
6+
$
/
/
0
(
(
7
$
6
7
0
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
$
1
'
$
/
/
$
3
3
/
,
&
$
%
/
(
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
&
(
6
&
2
1
'
(
0(
'
0
$
7
(
5
,
$
/
6
6+
$
/
/
%
(
3
5
2
0
3
7
/
<
5
(
0
2
9
(
'
$
1
'
$
1
<
'
$
0
$
*
(
&
$
8
6
(
'
%
<
6
8
&
+
5
(
0
2
9
$
/
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
0
$
'
(
*2
2
'
$
7
1
2
&
2
6
7
7
2
7
+
(
2
:
1
(
5
*
/
$
6
6
$
1
'
*
/
$
=
,
1
*
6
+
$
/
/
&
2
1
)
2
5
0
7
2
&
+
$
3
7
(
5
8
%
&
6
7
5
8
&
7
8
5
$
/
2
%
6
(
5
9
$
7
,
2
1
%
<
7
+
(
5
(
6
3
2
1
6
,
%
/
(
(
1
*
,
1
(
(
5
:
,
/
/
%
(
5
(4
8
,
5
(
'
)
2
5
7
+
,
6
35
2
-
(
&
7
$
5
(
3
2
5
7
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
*
,
9
(
1
7
2
7
+
(
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
2
5
$
7
)
5$
0
,
1
*
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
$
/
/
9
(
1
7
,
/
$
7
,
1
*
)
$
1
6
(
;
+
$
8
6
7
,
1
*
$
,
5
)
5
2
0
&
2
1
'
,
7
,
2
1
(
'
6
3
$
&
(
7
2
7
+
(
2
8
7
6
,
'
(
2
)
7
+
(
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
'
:
,
7
+
%
$
&
.
'
5
$
)
7
'
$
0
3
(
5
6
+
2
6
(
%
,
%
6
$
1
'
/
$
:
1
6
3
5
,
1
.
/
(
5
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
+
$
/
/
+
$
9
(
$
3
3
5
2
9
(
'
%
$
&
.
)/
2
:
3
5
(
9
(
1
7
,
2
1
'(
9
,
&
(
6
:
$
7
(
5
&
2
1
6
(
5
9
,
1
*
)
,
;
7
8
5
(
6
1
(
:
$
1
'
5
(
3
/
$
&
(
0
(
1
7
)
,
;
7
8
5
(
6
$
:
$
7
(
5
&
/
2
6
(
7
6
6
+
$
/
/
+
$
9
(
$
0
$
;
,
0
8
0
2
)
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
3
(
5
)
/
8
6
+
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
%
<
7+
(
6
7
$
7
(
2
)
&
$
/
,
)
2
5
1
,
$
%
6
+
2
:
(
5
+
(
$
'
)
/
2
:
6
+
$
/
/
1
2
7
(
;
&
(
(
'
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
3
(
5
0
,
1
8
7
(
$
7
3
6
,
&
/
$
9
$
7
2
5
<
$
1
'
2
7
+
(
5
6
,
1
.
6
)
$
8
&
(
7
6
6
+
$
/
/
1
2
7
(
;
&
(
(
'
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
3
(
5
0
,
1
8
7
(
$
7
3
6
,
:
$
7
(
5
3
5
(
6
6
8
5
(
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
/
,
0
,
7
(
'
7
2
3
6
,
2
5
/
(
6
6
$
3
5
(
6
6
8
5(
5
(
*
8
/
$
7
2
5
,
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
(
$
&
+
5
2
2
0
:
,
7
+
$
6
+
2
:
(
5
2
5
%
$
7
+
7
8
%
0
8
6
7
+
$
9
(
$
+
,
*
+
(
)
)
,
&
$
&
<
/
$
0
3
/
8
0
(
1
6
3
(
5
:$
7
7
2
5
/
(
6
6
*
/
$
=
,
1
*
,
1
$
/
/
$
5
(
$
6
6
8
%
-
(
&
7
7
2
+
8
0
$
1
,
0
3
$
&
7
2
5
+
$
=
$
5
'
2
8
6
/
2
&$
7
,
2
1
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
2
)
6$
)
(
7
<
7
(
0
3
(
5
(
'
*
/
$
6
6
6
0
2
.
(
'
(
7
(
&
7
2
5
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
,
1
6
7
$/
/
(
'
,
1
7
+
(
)
2
/
/
2
:
,
1
*
/
2
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
$
,
1
(
$
&
+
6
/
(
(
3
,
1
*
5
2
2
0
%
$
7
$
3
2
,
1
7
&
(
1
7
5
$
/
/
<
/
2
&
$
7
(
'
,
1
&
2
5
5
,
'
2
5
6
2
5
$
5
(
$
6
*
,
9
,
1
*
$
&
&
(6
6
7
2
%(
'
5
2
2
0
6
&
:
+
(
5
(
7
+
(
&
(
,
/
,
1
*
+
(
,
*
+
7
2
)
$
5
2
2
0
2
3
(
1
7
2
$
+
$
/
/
:
$
<
6
(
5
9
,
1
*
$
%(
'
5
2
2
0
(;
&
(
(
'
6
7
+
$
7
2
)
7
+
(
+
$
/
/
:
$
<
%
<
$
6
0
2
.
(
'
(
7
(
&
7
2
5
,
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
,
1
7
+
(
+$
/
/
:
$
<
$
1
'
7
+
(
$
'
-
$
&
(
1
7
5
2
2
0
$
/
/
1
$
,
/
,
1
*
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
,
1
&
2
0
3
/
,$
1
&
(
:
,
7
+
8
%
&
7
$
%
/
(
,
,
%
6
+
2
:
(
5
6
$
1
'
6
+
2
:
(
5
7
8
%
&
2
0
%
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
'
:
,
1
'
,
9
&
21
7
5
2
/
9
$
/
9
(
6
2
)
7
+
(
35
(
6
6
8
5
(
%
$
/
$
1
&
(
2
5
7
+
(
5
0
2
6
7
$
7
,
&
0
,
;
,
1
*
9
$
/
9
(
7
<
3
(
$
6
(
3
$
5
$
7
(
(
1
&
5
2
$
&
+
0
(
1
7
3
(
5
0
,
7
,
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
)
2
5
$
1
<
:
2
5
.
,
1
7
+(
3
8
%
/
,
&
5,
*
+
7
2
)
:
$
<
:
2
5
.
5
(
4
8
,
5
,
1
*
$
1
(
1
&
5
2
$
&
+
0
(
1
7
3
(
5
0
,
7
,
1
&
/
8
'
(
6
%
87
,
6
1
2
7
/
,
0
,
7
(
'
7
2
87
,
/
,
7
,
(
6
&
8
5
%
*
8
7
7
(
5
$
1
'
6
,
'
(
:
$
/
.
'
5
,
9
(
:
$
<
$
3
3
5
2
$
&
+
(
6
6
,
'
(:
$
/
.
8
1
'
(
5
'
5
$
,
1
6
67
5
(
(
7
7
5
(
(
3
/
$
1
7
,
1
*
&
8
5
%
5
$
0
3
6
6
7
5
(
(
7
3
$
9
,
1
*
$
1
'
3
(
'
(
6
7
5
,
$
1
3
5
2
7
(
&
7
,
2
1
2
5
&2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
6
7
$
*
,
1
*
,
1
7
+
(
5
,
*
+
7
2
)
:
$
<
'
5
$
:
,
1
*
6
$
1
'
&
$
/
&
8
/
$
7
,
2
1
6
)
2
5
5
2
2
)
7
5
8
6
6
(
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
6
8
%
0
,
7
7
(
'
7
2
$
1
'
$
3
3
5
2
9
(
'
%
<
%/
'
*
'
(
3
7
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
,
1
6
7
$
/
/
$
7
,
2
1
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
$
3
3
5
2
9
(
'
$
'
'
5
(
6
6
1
8
0
%
(
5
6
3
(
5
0
$
1
(
1
7
/
<
$
)
)
,
;
(
'
7
2
7
+
(
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
9
,
6
,
%
/
(
)
5
2
0
67
5
(
(
7
)
5
2
1
7
,
1
*
3
5
2
3
(
5
7
<
1
8
0
%
(
5
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
0
,
1
+
,
*
+
Z
0
,
1
,
08
0
6
7
5
2
.
(
:
,
'
7
+
&2
1
7
5
$
6
7
,
1
*
&
2
/
2
5
7
2
%
$
&
.
*
5
2
8
1
'
3
(
5
&
5
&
5
&
)
&
2
:
1
(
5
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6
+
$
/
/
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
9
(
5
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
2
)
7
+
(
3
5
2
3
(
5
7
<
&
2
5
1
(
5
6
7
2
7
+
(
6$
7
,
6
)
$
&
7
,
2
1
2
)
7
+
(
%
8
,/
'
,
1
*
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
2
5
$
7
7
+
(
7
,
0
(
2
)
)
2
8
1
'
$
7
,
2
1
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
GE
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
20
1
3
C
A
G
R
E
E
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
C
O
D
E
R
E
Q
'
S
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
T1
.
0
3
5
2
-
(
&
7
,
1
)
2
6
,
7
(
3
/
$
1
$
3
/
$
1
,
6
'
(
9
(
/
2
3
(
'
,
0
3
/
(
0
(
1
7
(
'
7
2
0
$
1
$
*
(
6
7
2
5
0
:
$
7
(
5
'
5
$
,
1
$*
(
'
8
5
,
1
*
&
2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
7+
(
6
,
7
(
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
/
$
1
1
(
'
$
1
'
'
(9
(
/
2
3
(
'
7
2
.
(
(
3
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
:
$
7
(
5
$
:$
<
)
5
2
0
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
6
&2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
3
/
$
1
6
6
+
$
/
/
,
1
'
,
&
$
7
(
+
2
:
6
,
7
(
*
5
$
'
,
1
*
2
5
$
'
5
$
,
1
$
*
(
6
<
6
7
(
0
:
,
/
/
0
$
1
$
*
(
$
/
/
68
5
)
$
&
(
:
$
7
(
5
)
/
2
:
6
,
1
'
2
2
5
:
$
7
(
5
8
6
$
*
(
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
(
'
8
&
(
'
%
<
$
7
/
(
$
6
7
3
(
5
7
+
(
)
2/
/
2
:
,
1
*
%
$
6
(
'
2
1
7
$
%
/
(
R
I
W
K
H
&
$
/
*
5
(
(
1
&
2
'
(
D
6
+
2
:
(
5
+
(
$
'
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
$
7
(
'
$
7
$
0
$
;
*
$
/
3
(
5
0
,
1
8
7
(
#
3
6
,
E
/
$
9
$
7
2
5
<
)
$
8
&
(
7
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
$
7
(
'
$
7
$
0
$
;
*
3
0
#
3
6
,
F
.
,
7
&
+
(
1
)
$
8
&
(
7
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
$
7
(
'
$
7
$
0
$
;
*
3
0
#
3
6
,
G
7
2
,
/
(
7
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
$
7
(
'
$
7
$
0
$
;
*
$
/
3
(
5
)
/
8
6
+
$
8
7
2
0
$
7
,
&
,
5
5
,
*
$
7
,
2
1
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
&
2
1
7
5
2
/
/
(
5
6
,
1
6
7
$
/
/
(
'
$
7
7
+
(
7
,
0
(
2
)
)
,
1
$
/
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
6
+
$
/
/
%(
:
(
$
7
+
(
5
%
$
6
(
'
$
1
1
8
/
$
5
6
3
$
&
(
6
$
5
2
8
1
'
3
,
3
(
6
(
/
(
&
7
5
,
&
$
/
&
$
%
/
(
6
&
2
1
'
8
,
7
6
2
5
27
+
(
5
2
3
(
1
,
1
*
6
,
1
3
/
$
7
(
6
#
(;
7
(
5
,
2
5
:
$
/
/
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
5
2
7
(
&
7
(
'
$
*
$
,
1
6
7
7
+
(
3
$
6
6
$
*
(
2
)
5
2
'
(
1
7
6
%
<
&
/
2
6
,
1
*
6
8
&
+
23
(
1
,
1
*
6
:
,
7
+
&
(
0
(
1
7
0
2
5
7
$
5
&
2
1
&
5
(
7
(
0
$
6
2
1
5
<
2
5
6
,
0
,
/
$
5
0
(
7
+
2
'6
$
&
&
(
3
7
$
%
/
(
7
2
7
+
(
(1
)
2
5
&
,
1
*
$
*
(
1
&
<
$
0
,
1
,
0
8
0
2
)
2
)
7
+
(
&
2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
:
$
6
7
(
*
(
1
(
5
$
7
(
'
$
7
7
+
(
6
,7
(
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
'
,
9
(
5
7
(
'
7
2
5(
&
<
&
/
(
2
5
6
$
/
9
$
*
(
:
+
(
5
(
7
+
(
/
2
&
$
/
-
8
5
,
6
'
,
&
7
,
2
1
'
2
(
6
1
2
7
+
$
9
(
$
&
2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
$
1
'
'(
0
2
/
,
7
,
2
1
:
$
6
7
(
0
$
1
$
*
(
0
(
1
7
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
&
(
$
&
2
1
6
7
5
8
&
7
,
2
1
$
1
'
'
(
0
2
/
,7
,
2
1
:
$
6
7
(
0$
1
$
*
(
0
(
1
7
3
/
$
1
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
6
8
%
0
,
7
7
(
'
)
2
5
$
3
3
5
2
9
$
/
7
2
7
+
(
(
1
)
2
5
&
,
1
*
$
*
(
1
&
<
$
1
2
3
(
5
$
7
,
2
1
$
1
'
0
$
,
1
7
(
1
$
1
&
(
0
$
1
8
$
/
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
'
%
<
7
+
(
&2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
7
2
7
+
(
2&
&
8
3
$
1
7
2
:
1
(
5
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
)
,
1
$
/
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
9
2
&
6
D
$
7
7
,
0
(
2
)
5
2
8
*
+
0
(
&
+
$
1
,
&
$
/
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
$
/
/
'
8
&
7
$
1
'
2
7
+
(
5
5
(
/$
7
(
'
$
,
5
'
,
6
7
5
,
%
8
7
,
2
1
&2
0
3
2
1
(
1
7
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
&
2
9
(
5
(
'
:
,
7
+
7
$
3
(
3
/
$
6
7
,
&
6
+
(
(
7
0
(
7
$
/
2
5
2
7
+
(
5
$
&
&
(
3
7
$
%
/
(
0(
7
+
2
'
7
2
5
(
'
8
&
(
7
+
(
$
0
2
8
1
7
2
)
'
8
6
7
2
5
'
(
%
5
,
6
7
+
$
7
0
$
<
&
2
/
/
(
&
7
,1
7
+
(
6
<
6
7
(
0
$
6
5(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
E
$
'
+
(
6
,
9
(
6
6
(
$
/
$
1
7
6
$
1
'
&
$
8
/
.
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
:
,
7
+
9
2
&
$
1'
2
7
+
(
5
7
2
;
,
&
&2
0
3
2
8
1
'
/
,
0
,
7
6
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
F
3
$
,
1
7
6
6
7
$
,
1
6
$
1
'
2
7
+
(
5
&
2
$
7
,
1
*
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
:
,
7
+
3
5
2'
8
&
7
:
(
,
*
+
7
(
'
0
,
5
/
,
0
,
7
6
)2
5
5
2
&
$
1
'
2
7
+
(
5
7
2
;
,
&
&
2
0
3
2
8
1
'
6
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
G
$
(
5
2
6
2
/
3
$
,
1
7
6
$
1
'
&
2
$
7
,
1
*
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
:
,
7
+
3
5
2
'
8
&
7
:
(,
*
+
7
(
'
0
,
5
/
,
0
,
7
6
)
2
5
52
&
$
1
'
2
7
+
(
5
7
2
;
,
&
&
2
0
3
2
8
1
'
6
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
H
'
2
&
8
0
(
1
7
$
7
,
2
1
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
'
7
2
9
(
5
,
)
<
7
+
$
7
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
9
2
&
/,
0
,
7
)
,
1
,
6
+
0
$
7
(
5
,
$
/
6
+$
9
(
%
(
(
1
8
6
(
'
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
I
&
$
5
3
(
7
&
$
5
3
(
7
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
:
,
7
+
9
2
&
/
,
0
,
7
6
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
J
2
)
)
/
2
2
5
$
5
(
$
5
(
&
(
,
9
,
1
*
5
(
6
,
/
,
(
1
7
)
/
2
2
5
,
1
*
6
+
$
/
/
&
2
0
3
/
<
:
,7
+
7
+
(
9
2
&
(
0
,
6
6
,
2
1
/,
0
,
7
6
'
(
)
,
1
(
'
,
1
7
+
(
&
2
/
/
$
%
2
5
$
7
,
9
(
)
2
5
+
,
*
+
3
(
5
)
2
5
0
$
1
&
(
6
&
+
2
2
/
6
&
+
3
6
/
2
:
(
0
,
7
7
,
1
*
0$
7
(
5
,
$
/
6
/
,
6
7
2
5
%
(
&
(
5
7
,
)
,
(
'
8
1
'
(
5
5
(
6
,
/
,
(
1
7
)
/
2
2
5
&
2
9
(
5
,
1
*
,
16
7
,
7
8
7
(
5
)
&
,
)
/
2
2
5
6&
2
5
(
3
5
2
*
5
$
0
$
6
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
K
3
$
5
7
,
&
/
(
%
2
$
5
'
0
(
'
,
8
0
'
(
1
6
,
7
<
)
,
%
(
5
%
2
$
5
'
0
'
)
$
1
'
+
$
5
'
:
2
2
'
3/
<
:
2
2
'
8
6
(
'
,
1
,1
7
(
5
,
2
5
)
,
1
,
6
+
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
6
+
$
/
/
&
2
0
3
/
<
:
,
7
+
/
2
:
)
2
5
0
$
/
'
(
+
<
'
(
(
0
,
6
6,
2
1
6
7
$
1
'
$
5
'
6
$
6
5(
4
8
,
5
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
%
&
9(
5
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
2
)
7
+
(6
(
6
3
(
&
6
6
+
$
/
/
0
(
(
7
7
+
(
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
0
(
1
7
6
&*
%
&
,
1
7
(
5
,
2
5
0
2
,
6
7
8
5
(
&
2
1
7
5
2
/
D
9
$
3
2
5
5
(
7
$
5
'
(
5
$
1
'
&
$
3
,
/
/
$
5
<
%
5
(
$
.
,
6
,
1
6
7
$
/
/
(
'
$
7
6
/
$
%
2
1
*
5
$'
(
)
2
8
1
'
$
7
,
2
1
6
E
&
2
1
7
5
$
&
7
2
5
6
+
$
/
/
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
$
7
/
(
$
6
7
5
$
1
'
2
0
0
2
,
6
7
8
5
(
5
(
$
'
,
1
*
6
3(
5
)
2
5
0
(
'
$
7
:
$
/
/
$1
'
)
/
2
2
5
)
5
$
0
,
1
*
,
1
7
+
(
3
5
(
6
(
1
&
(
2
)
7
+
(
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
2
5
3
5
,
25
7
2
(
1
&
/
2
6
,
1
*
2
)
:$
/
/
)
/
2
2
5
)
5
$
0
,
1
*
7
2
9
(
5
,
)
<
$
0
$
;
2
)
0
2
,
6
7
8
5
(
&
2
1
7
(
1
7
F
(
;
+
$
8
6
7
)
$
1
6
:
+
,
&
+
7
(
5
0
,
1
$
7
(
2
8
7
6
,
'
(
7
+
(
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$
5
(
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
'
,
1
(
9
(
5
<
%
$
7
+
5
2
2
0
G
:
+
2
/
(
+
2
8
6
(
)
$
1
6
6
+
$
/
/
+
$
9
(
,
1
6
8
/
$
7
(
'
/
2
8
9
(
5
6
2
5
&
2
9
(
5
6
:
+
,
&
+
&
/
2
6
(
:
+
(
1
7
+
(
)
$
1
,6
2
)
)
&
2
9
(
5
6
2
5
/
2
8
9
(
5
6
6
+
$
/
/
+
$
9
(
$
0
,
1
,
0
8
0
,
1
6
8
/
$
7
,
2
1
9
$
/
8
(
2
)
5
H
'
8
&
7
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
$
5
(
6
,
=
(
'
'
(
6
,
*
1
(
'
$
1
'
(
4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
,
6
6
(
/
(
&
7
(
'
8
6,
1
*
7
+
(
)
2
/
/
2
:
,
1
*
0(
7
+
2
'
6
L
(
6
7
$
%
/
,
6
+
+
(
$
'
/
2
6
6
$
1
'
+
(
$
7
*
$
,1
9
$
/
8
(
6
$
&
&
2
5
'
,
1
*
7
2
$
&
&
$
0
$
18
$
/
-
2
5
(
4
8
,
9
$
/
(
1
7
LL
6
,
=
(
'
8
&
7
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
$
&
&
2
5
'
,
1
*
7
2
$
&
&
$
'
0
$
1
8
$
/
'
2
5
(
4
8
,
9
$/
(
1
7
LL
L
6 (/
(
&
7
+
(
$
7
,
1
*
&
2
2
/
,
1
*
(
4
8
,
3
$
&
&
2
5
'
,
1
*
7
2
$
&
&
$
6
0
$
1
8$
/
6
2
5
(
4
8
,
9
$
/
(
1
7
+
9
$
&
,
1
6
7
$
/
/
(
5
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
7
5
$
,
1
(
'
$
1
'
&
(
5
7
,
)
,
(
'
,
1
7
+
(
3
5
2
3
(
5
,
16
7
$
/
/
$
7
,
2
1
2
)
+
9
$
&
6
<
6
7
(
0
6
63
(
&
,
$
/
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
2
5
6
(
0
3
/
2
<
(
'
%
<
7
+
(
(
1
)
2
5
&
,
1
*
$
*
(
1
&
<
0
8
6
7
%
(
4
8
$
/,
)
,
(
'
$
1
'
$
%
/
(
7
2
'(
0
2
1
6
7
5
$
7
(
&
2
0
3
(
7
(
1
&
(
,
1
7
+
(
'
,
6
&
,
3
/
,
1
(
7
+
(
<
$
5
(
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
1
*
6(
&
$
1
<
,
1
6
7
$
/
/
(
'
*
$
6
)
,
5
(
3
/
$
&
(
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
$
'
,
5
(
&
7
9
(
1
7
6
(
$
/
(
'
&
20
%
8
6
7
,
2
1
7
<
3
(
$
1
<
,1
6
7
$
/
/
(
'
:
2
2
'
6
7
2
9
(
2
5
3
(
/
/
(
7
6
7
2
9
(
6
+
$
/
/
&
2
0
3
/
<
:
,
7
+
8
6
(
3
$
3
+
$6
(
,
,
(
0
,
6
6
,
2
1
/
,
0
,
7
6
:+
(
5
(
$
3
3
/
,
&
$
%
/
(
:
2
2
'
6
7
2
9
(
6
3
(
/
/
(
7
6
7
2
9
(
6
$
1
'
)
,
5
(
3
/
$
&
(
6
6
+
$
//
$
/
6
2
&
2
0
3
/
<
:
,
7
+
$3
3
/
,
&
$
%
/
(
/
2
&
$
/
2
5
'
,
1
$
1
&
(
6
9
(
5
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
2
)
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
&
(
:
,7
+
7
+
,
6
&
2
'
(
0
$
<
,
1
&
/
8
'
(
&
2
1
6
7
58
&
7
,
2
1
'
2
&
8
0
(
1
7
6
3
/
$
1
6
63
(
&
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
6
%
8
,
/
'
(
5
2
5
,
1
6
7
$
/
/
(
5
&
(
5
7
,
)
,
&
$
7
,
2
1
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
5
(3
2
5
7
6
2
5
2
7
+
(
5
0
(
7
+
2
'
6
$&
&
(
3
7
$
%
/
(
7
2
7
+
(
(
1
)
2
5
&
,
1
*
$
*
(
1
&
<
:
+
,
&
+
6
+
2
:
6
8
%
6
7
$
1
7
,
$
/
&
2
1
)
2
50
$
1
&
(
+
9
$
&
(
4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
6
,
=
(
'
3
(
5
&
*
&
3
5
2
9
,
'
(
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
2
3
(
5
$
7
,
2
1
0$
,
1
7
(
1
$
1
&
(
0
$
1
8
$
/
3
5
,
2
5
7
2
)
,
1
$/
,
1
6
3
(
&
7
,
2
1
3
(
5
&
$
/
*
5
(
(
1
3
(
5
&
,
9
,
/
&
2
'
(
6
(
&
$
/
/
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
1
2
1
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
3
/
8
0
%
,1
*
)
,
;
7
8
5
(
6
6
+
$
/
/
%
(
5
(
3
/
$
&
(
'
:,
7
+
3
/
8
0
%
,
1
*
)
,
;
7
8
5
(
6
7
+
$
7
0
(
(
7
7
+
(
5
(
4
8
,
5
(
0
(
1
7
6
2
)
1
2
7
(
7
+
,
6
6
(
&
7
,
2
1
1
2
1
&
2
0
3
/
,
$
1
7
),
;
7
8
5
(
6
0
(
$
1
$
1
<
)
,
;
7
8
5
(
6
7
+
$
7
0
(
(
7
7
+
(
)
2
/
/
2
:
,
1
*
'
(
)
,
1
,
7
,
2
1
6
$
1
<
7
2
,
/
(
7
0
$
1
8
)
$
&
7
8
5
(
'
7
2
8
6
(
0
2
5
(
7
+
$
1
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
2
)
:
$
7(
5
3
(
5
)
/
8
6
+
$
1
<
8
5
,
1
$
/
0
$
1
8
)
$
&
7
8
5
(
'
7
2
8
6
(
0
2
5
(
7
+
$
1
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
2
)
:
$
7(
5
3
(
5
)
/
8
6
+
$
1
<
6
+
2
:
(
5
+
(
$
'
0
$
1
8
)
$
&
7
8
5
(
'
7
2
+
$
9
(
$
)
/
2
:
&
$
3
$
&
,
7
<
2
)
0
2
5
(
7
+
$
1
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
2
)
:$
7
(
5
3
(
5
0
,
1
8
7
(
$
1
<
,
1
7
(
5
,
2
5
)
$
8
&
(
7
7
+
$
7
(
0
,
7
6
0
2
5
(
7
+
$
1
*
$
/
/
2
1
6
3
(
5
0
,1
8
7
(
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
1
(
:
6
)
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
I
S
S
U
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
-
6
%
C
l
i
e
n
t
:
B
I
L
L
&
L
I
S
A
M
A
T
T
H
E
S
2
0
7
4
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
3
1
2
.
1
3
'
'
'
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
4
9'
-
7
1 2 "
1
0
'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
6 '-0 "
1 1 '-0 "
5'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
P
.
L
.
=
9
5
.
9
1
'
N
3
4
°
2
2
'
3
5
"
W
P
.
L
.
=
7
5
.
6
5
'
N
3
4
°
0
9
'
0
8
"
W
P.
L
.
=
1
6
.
0
6
'
N5
6
°
0
1
'
5
6
"
E
P
.
L
.
=
1
3
.
2
5
'
N
2
5
°
5
8
'
5
7
"
E
2
0
'
-
0
"
EX
I
S
T
.
C
O
N
C
.
C
U
R
B
,
&
GU
T
T
E
R
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
EX
I
S
T
.
C
O
N
C
.
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
AP
R
O
N
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
LI
N
E
O
F
C
A
N
T
I
L
E
V
E
R
E
D
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
A
B
V
.
SE
E
S
H
T
.
L
1
F
O
R
HA
R
D
S
C
A
P
E
&
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
SE
T
B
A
C
K
PU
B
.
A
C
C
E
S
S
ES
M
'
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
1
0
'
-
0
"
P
.
U
.
E
.
2
'
-
7
1
4
"
4
'
-
0
"
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
I
N
T
R
U
S
I
O
N
O
F
D
E
C
K
S
,
P
O
R
C
H
E
S
,
3
0
"
A
B
V
.
G
R
A
D
E
O
R
M
O
R
E
3'
-
1
0
3 4 "
36
"
W
x
1
0
'
-
6
"
L
x
3
0
"
H
Ra
i
s
e
d
P
l
a
n
t
e
r
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
3
4
"
U
V
(
(
.1
9
'
5
6
#
&
,
)4
#
&
'
*+
)
*
'
5
6
#
&
,
)4
#
&
'
2
1
'
-
0
1
2
"
#XI0CV
U
V
(
(
1
0
'
-
1
"
1
2
5
8
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
2
5
'
-
9
1
2
"
A1
.
1
6
,
7
(
3
/
$
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
1
(
:
6
)
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
I
S
S
U
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
-
6
%
C
l
i
e
n
t
:
B
i
l
l
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
&
L
i
s
a
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
-
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
L
O
T
6
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
2
0
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
5
51
'
-
1
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
18
'
-
8
"
17
'
-
2
"
8
'
-
6
1
2
"
1
3
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
51
'
-
1
0
"
23
'
-
2
"
28
'
-
8
"
15
'
-
4
1 2 "
13
'
-
3
1 2 "
5
1
'
-
5
"
8
'
-
1
"
2
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
5
'
-
1
1
2
"
2
7
'
-
8
3
4
"
4
1
'
-
8
1
4
"
13
'
-
1
1
"
2'
-
9
1 2 "
FI
N
.
5
6
1 8 "W
x
6
1
"
L
(R
o
u
g
h
=
57
3 8 "W
x
6
2
1 4 "L
)
LI
N
1
8
'
-
3
1
4
"
4
'
-
8
"
6
'
-
1
1
4
"
2
'
-
1
0
3
4
"
1
3
'
-
8
"
1
1
'
-
4
3
4
"
2
5
'
-
0
3
4
"
12
'
-
5
1 2 "
5"
5'
-
8
1 2 "
6'-
4
"
5 1 2 "
10
'
-
2
"
5'-
2
1 2 "
4'
-
8
"
10
'
-
8
1 2 "
4
'
-
0
"
3
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
5
'
-
6
1
2
"
1
3
'
-
6
"
2'-
1
0
"
2'
-
1
0
"
5'
-
8
"
3
'
-
4
1
2
"
1
3
'
-
2
"
2
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
4
"
5'
-
0
"
36
"
W
x
1
0
'
-
6
"
L
x
3
0
"
H
Ra
i
s
e
d
P
l
a
n
t
e
r
4
3
'
-
4
"
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
A2
.
1
/
2
:
(
5
)
/
2
2
5
3
/
$
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
1
(
:
6
)
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
I
S
S
U
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
-
6
%
C
l
i
e
n
t
:
B
i
l
l
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
&
L
i
s
a
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
-
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
L
O
T
6
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
2
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
6
51
'
-
1
0
"
16
'
-
0
"
9'-
9
"
6'
-
3
"
5
2
'
-
1
1
"
4
1
'
-
8
1
4
"
1
1
'
-
2
3
4
"
9
'
-
8
3
4
"
1
'
-
6
"
1
1
'
-
4
1
2
"
3
0
'
-
3
3
4
"
1
5
'
-
3
1
4
"
9
'
-
6
1
4
"
5
'
-
9
"
1
5
'
-
0
1
2
"
17
'
-
2
"
18
'
-
8
"
5
2
'
-
1
1
"
4
4
'
-
1
0
"
8
'
-
1
"
4
'
-
0
"
4
'
-
1
"
3
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
2
5
'
-
4
"
1
9
'
-
6
"
1
5
'
-
4
1
2
"
4
'
-
1
1
2
"
2
'
-
7
1
2
"
51
'
-
1
0
"
13
'
-
3
1 2 "
38
'
-
6
1 2 "
23
'
-
2
"
15
'
-
4
1 2 "
4'-
8
1 2 "
14
'
-
0
"
4'-
5
1 2 "
4'
-
8
"
5'
-
2
1 2 "
5'-
6
"
4
'
-
3
"
5
'
-
3
1
4
"
3'
-
9
"
3'
-
2
"
10
'
-
3
"
2
'
-
1
1
1
2
"
2
'
-
1
"
2
'
-
0
"
FI
N
.
5
6
1 8 "W
x
6
1
"
L
(R
o
u
g
h
=
57
3 8 "W
x
6
2
1 4 "L
)
1
8
'
-
5
3
4
"
8
'
-
9
1
2
"
DW
4
'
-
5
1
2
"
5
'
-
7
3
4
"
7
'
-
8
3
4
"
3
'
-
7
1
2
"
4
'
-
1
1
4
"
1
7
'
-
1
0
"
1
3
'
-
4
1
2
"
5'-
5
"
1'-
6
"
5'-
8
1 2 "
6'
-
9
"
8'-
1
1 4 "
5'
-
1
0
1 4 "
3
'
-
7
1
2
"
7
'
-
0
1
4
"
8'-
1
1 4 "
4
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
1
0
"
4'
-
1
"
7'-
8
"
3'
-
7
1 2 "
5 1 2 "
2
'
-
4
1
2
"
1
1
'
-
2
"
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
A2
.
2
8
3
3
(
5
)
/
2
2
5
3
/
$
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
1
(
:
6
)
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
I
S
S
U
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
-
6
%
C
l
i
e
n
t
:
B
i
l
l
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
&
L
i
s
a
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
-
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
L
O
T
6
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
2
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
7
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
F
.
F
.
@
3
7
3
.
0
0
Bt
m
.
D
o
o
r
&
W
i
n
d
o
w
H
e
a
d
e
r
s
@
+
8
'
-
0
"
A
b
v
.
1
s
t
F
.
F
.
1s
t
.
F
l
o
o
r
T
.
O
.
P
.
@
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
A
b
v
.
F
.
F
.
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
F
.
F
.
@
3
8
4
.
1
3
Bt
m
.
D
o
o
r
&
W
i
n
d
o
w
H
e
a
d
e
r
s
@
+
8
'
-
0
"
A
b
v
.
2
n
d
F
.
F
.
2n
d
.
F
l
o
o
r
T
.
O
.
P
.
@
"
1
0
'
-
1
"
A
b
v
.
F
.
F
.
St
u
c
c
o
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
:
B
A
S
F
"
F
i
n
e
s
t
o
n
e
St
u
c
c
o
"
c
o
l
o
r
8
9
(
B
r
i
l
l
i
a
n
t
W
h
i
t
e
)
w
/
Li
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
F
i
n
i
s
h
St
o
n
e
V
e
n
e
e
r
:
E
l
d
o
r
a
d
o
S
t
o
n
e
"B
l
u
f
f
s
t
o
n
e
"
-
B
o
d
e
g
a
C
o
l
o
r
o
r
E
q
.
Ti
l
e
R
o
o
f
:
U
S
B
o
r
a
l
S
-
T
i
l
e
"
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
Bl
e
n
d
"
-
1
U
S
D
U
6
0
7
3
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
:
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Se
r
i
e
s
"
E
S
e
r
i
e
s
"
-
F
r
a
m
e
C
o
l
o
r
=
Co
f
f
e
e
B
e
a
n
Sa
u
t
i
l
l
o
T
i
l
e
-
T
y
p
.
@
E
n
t
r
y
S
t
e
p
s
Ga
r
a
g
e
D
o
o
r
:
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
D
o
o
r
s
Si
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
C
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
"
P
a
r
s
o
n
s
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
"
D
r
a
k
e
-
W
i
d
e
(
5
7
0
D
W
)
Wo
o
d
C
a
r
r
i
a
g
e
D
o
o
r
o
r
E
q
u
a
l
11
'
-
0
"
2
2
'
-
5
"
9'-
7
1 4 "
2
2
'
-
0
3
4
"
3
'
-
2
"
2
'
-
6
"
1
2
'
-
1
3
4
"
7
'
-
0
1
4
"
2'
-
1
0
1 2 "
AV
G
.
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
@
3
7
7
.
5
0
2
2
'
-
9
"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
St
u
c
c
o
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
:
B
A
S
F
"
F
i
n
e
s
t
o
n
e
St
u
c
c
o
"
c
o
l
o
r
8
9
(
B
r
i
l
l
i
a
n
t
W
h
i
t
e
)
w
/
Li
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
F
i
n
i
s
h
St
o
n
e
V
e
n
e
e
r
:
E
l
d
o
r
a
d
o
S
t
o
n
e
"B
l
u
f
f
s
t
o
n
e
"
-
B
o
d
e
g
a
C
o
l
o
r
o
r
E
q
.
Ti
l
e
R
o
o
f
:
U
S
B
o
r
a
l
S
-
T
i
l
e
"
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
Bl
e
n
d
"
-
1
U
S
D
U
6
0
7
3
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
:
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Se
r
i
e
s
"
E
S
e
r
i
e
s
"
-
F
r
a
m
e
C
o
l
o
r
=
Co
f
f
e
e
B
e
a
n
21
'
-
1
1
"
2
0
'
-
7
1
2
"
1
9
'
-
9
3
4
"
AL
L
O
W
E
D
EN
C
R
O
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
O
F
SE
T
B
A
C
K
AV
G
.
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
@
3
7
7
.
5
0
2
2
'
-
4
3
4
"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
10
'
-
0
"
RI
P
A
R
I
A
N
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
Z
5
'
#
6
(
1
4
9+
0
&
1
9
/
1
7
0
6
':
6
'
4
+
1
4
Z
(4
#
/
'
&
9
#
.
.
&$
.
Z
5
+
.
.
(4
#
/
+
0
)
4+
2
5
+
.
.
'
&
)
'
(1
4
&
4
#
+
0
#
)
'
Z
5
'
#
6
(
1
4
9+
0
&
1
9
/
1
7
0
6
Z
*
G
C
F
G
T
A3
.
1
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
6
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
1
(
:
6
)
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
I
S
S
U
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
-
6
%
C
l
i
e
n
t
:
B
i
l
l
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
&
L
i
s
a
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
-
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
L
O
T
6
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
2
0
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
1"
=
1
'
-
0
"
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
8
St
u
c
c
o
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
:
B
A
S
F
"
F
i
n
e
s
t
o
n
e
St
u
c
c
o
"
c
o
l
o
r
8
9
(
B
r
i
l
l
i
a
n
t
W
h
i
t
e
)
w
/
Li
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
F
i
n
i
s
h
Ti
l
e
R
o
o
f
:
U
S
B
o
r
a
l
S
-
T
i
l
e
"
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
Bl
e
n
d
"
-
1
U
S
D
U
6
0
7
3
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
:
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Se
r
i
e
s
"
E
S
e
r
i
e
s
"
-
F
r
a
m
e
C
o
l
o
r
=
Co
f
f
e
e
B
e
a
n
9'
-
8
1 4 "
1
7
'
-
7
1
4
"
11
'
-
0
"
1
2
'
-
1
0
1
4
"
AV
G
.
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
@
3
7
7
.
5
0
2
2
'
-
4
3
4
"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
5
'
-
0
"
@
R
I
P
A
R
I
A
N
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
St
u
c
c
o
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
:
B
A
S
F
"F
i
n
e
s
t
o
n
e
S
t
u
c
c
o
"
c
o
l
o
r
8
9
(B
r
i
l
l
i
a
n
t
W
h
i
t
e
)
w
/
L
i
m
e
s
t
o
n
e
Fi
n
i
s
h
St
o
n
e
V
e
n
e
e
r
:
E
l
d
o
r
a
d
o
S
t
o
n
e
"B
l
u
f
f
s
t
o
n
e
"
-
B
o
d
e
g
a
C
o
l
o
r
o
r
E
q
.
Ti
l
e
R
o
o
f
:
U
S
B
o
r
a
l
S
-
T
i
l
e
"
E
l
Ca
m
i
n
o
B
l
e
n
d
"
-
1
U
S
D
U
6
0
7
3
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
:
A
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
Se
r
i
e
s
"
E
S
e
r
i
e
s
"
-
F
r
a
m
e
C
o
l
o
r
=
Co
f
f
e
e
B
e
a
n
20
'
-
2
1 2 "
2
2
'
-
5
"
P.
L
.
@
3
7
'
-
0
"
F
r
o
m
T
h
i
s
W
a
l
l
1
1
'
-
0
1
4
"
AV
G
.
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
@
3
7
7
.
5
0
2
2
'
-
4
3
4
"
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
A3
.
2
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
6
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
1
(
:
6
)
5
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
I
S
S
U
E
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
-
6
%
C
l
i
e
n
t
:
B
i
l
l
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
&
L
i
s
a
C
a
m
p
b
e
l
l
-
M
a
t
t
h
e
s
L
O
T
6
F
I
X
L
I
N
I
S
T
.
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
9
3
4
2
0
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SC
A
L
E
:
1/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
1
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
A
R
C
2
-
2
0
RESOLUTION NO . 9622 (2004 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TH E
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTIN G
TENATIVE TRACT MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS, AN D
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERT Y
LOCATED AT 2070 FIXLINI STREET
(TR/ER 95-03 ;TRACT 2570 )
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo ,
California, on September 22, 2004, and recommended approval of Application TR/ER 95-03,a
request to subdivide a 4.55 acre site into 13 single-family residential lots ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearin g
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, o n
November 16, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 95-03 ; an d
WHEREAS,notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manne r
required by law ; an d
WHEREAS,the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negativ e
Declaration of environmental impact for the project ; an d
WHEREAS,the Council has duly considered all evidence, including th e
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluatio n
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing .
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
SECTION 1 .Findings .Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes th e
following findings :
1.The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan becaus e
the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands ,
significant trees), will incrementally add to the City's Low Density Residential housin g
inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with th e
density and lot sizes established in the neighborhood .
2.The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is a vacan t
site adjacent to existing street right-of-ways with complete City services .
3.The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or us e
of property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accesse d
R 9622
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 21
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 2
independently and the resulting parcels will have separate street frontage and access fro m
the Fixlini Street extension .
4.The design of the tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious health problems ,
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidable injure fish or wildlif e
or their habitat because the perennial creek, two springs, wetlands and woodlands alon g
the property's southeast and northeast boundaries will be protected and enhanced to
provide significantly improved habitat over the current condition .
5.The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographi c
conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, t o
conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in the Subdivision Ordinanc e
because the site contains sensitive resource areas (creeks, wetlands, woodlands, trees )
that must be protected and a moderate slope where a narrower street section wil l
minimize grading, thereby reducing drainage impacts, erosion and sedimentation an d
visual resources .
6.The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not th e
sole reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support
approval and the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site .
7.The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or b e
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the exceptions will result in a reduce d
street width that can provide adequate emergency vehicle access and an alternate parkin g
equivalent consistent with the Subdivision Regulations to standard curbside parking .
8.Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations ,
and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or othe r
plans of the City, because the exceptions allow the project to respect existing sit e
constraints and does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within th e
existing R-1 zoning district .
9.A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Developmen t
Department on September 13, 2004 . The City Council finds and determines that th e
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significan t
environmental impacts of the proposed project .
SECTION 2 .Environmental Review .The City Council finds and determines that th e
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significan t
environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Cit y
Council . The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates th e
following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project :
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 22
Resolution No .9622 (2004 Series)
Page 3
Mitigation Measures :
Aesthetic s
1.All 13 lots are designated as "sensitive sites". This status ensures that future sit e
development will respect existing site constraints (slope, creek, springs, trees), privacy o f
occupants and neighbors of the project, and be compatible with the scale and character o f
the surrounding neighborhood . The development of the lots, either cumulatively o r
individually, will require Architectural Review in accordance with Municipal Cod e
Section 2 .48 .
â Monitoring Program : Compliance with this requirement will be monitored through th e
review of detailed plans submitted for Architectural Review and Building Permit by th e
Community Development Department staff .
Air Qualit y
2.Development of the site could result in increased levels of fugitive dust associated wit h
construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated wit h
heavy-duty construction equipment . The following mitigation measures have bee n
provided by the APCD to control dust and minimize potential violations for the project :
(A)Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible .
(B)Use water truck or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dus t
from leaving the site . Increased watering frequency whenever wind speeds exceed 1 5
mph . Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible .
(C)All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.
(D)Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation an d
landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion o f
any soil disturbing activities .
(E)All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approve d
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by th e
APCD .
(F) Vehicle speed for all vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at th e
site .
(G)In the event that the excavation of materials will take place in close proximity o f
asphalt, street sweepers shall be used at the end of each day if soil material is carrie d
onto adjacent paved roads .
(H) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shoul d
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top o f
load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC section 23114 .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 23
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 4
(I)Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one mont h
after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed an d
watered until vegetation is established .
(J)Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer coolin g
needs as well as planting trees on both sides of the roads to reduce the reflectiv e
radiating heat of asphalt roads .
(K)Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, o r
wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site .
(L) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacen t
paved roads . Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible .
All PM mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans . In addition ,
the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust contro l
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust of f
site . Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be i n
progress . The name and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prio r
to land use clearance for map recordation and grading .
3 . The project site is located in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos candidate area . Naturall y
Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic ai r
contaminant . Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the state and ma y
contain naturally occurring asbestos . Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxic s
Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Minin g
Operations, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbesto s
ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations . These
requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Pla n
which must be approved by the District before construction begins, and 2) an Asbesto s
Health and Safety Program will also be required for some projects, to the approval of th e
APCD . The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans tha t
are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standard s
and requirements . APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint
basis .
â Monitoring Program : Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitore d
by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcemen t
system . The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the Cit y
Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contac t
APCD in the event of a probably violation . Members of the public can also call APCD i f
they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site . Buildin g
permits for the project will not be issued until the APCD has "signed-off' on th e
applicant's Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 24
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series)
Page 5
Biological Resource s
4.The disruption of the wetland and creek areas will be properly mitigated by complyin g
with the California Department of Fish and Game streambed alteration permits and th e
U .S . Army Corps of Engineers wetland permits . The applicants (or their successors) for
the proposed project will prepare the necessary documentation/mitigation plans to obtai n
the permitting from these agencies .
5.Prior to final map approval and recordation, a Biological Open Space Easemen t
Agreement shall be recorded to ensure that the riparian woodland, wetland and oa k
woodland resources are properly protected and managed after site development and n o
ornamental planting or other related disturbances occur following development, subjec t
to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager .
6.Once a more detailed grading plan is available, a plant ecologist/restoration specialis t
shall prepare a landscape restoration plan for the open space easement . The plan shal l
survey the site for sensitive plant species as identified in the Biological Resource s
Assessment and Constraints Analysis prepared by Rincon Consultants Inc .; identify
suitable sites for replanting the species affected, establish replanting ratios, and contain a
monitoring plan to ensure the success of the replanting . Planting shall be completed a s
part of subdivision improvements .
7.A control fence delineating the open space easement boundary shall be installed prior t o
construction . A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all construction o r
landscaping activities scheduled to take place within the barrier, to the approval of th e
Natural Resources Manager .
8.Erosion control measures shall be used to ensure that no sedimentation of the cree k
channel occurs as a result of construction activities .
9.The Architectural Review Commission shall review the design and location of all fencin g
proposed adjacent to the open space easement to ensure consistency with the Cree k
Setback Ordinance and the Community Design Guidelines .
10.Tree #111, a 7" DBH Coast Live Oak, shall be preserved and protected through mean s
established by the International Society of Arboriculture to the satisfaction of the Cit y
Arborist .
11.All approved tree removals shall comply with all requirements contained in the Migrator y
Bird Treaty Act, which prohibits the removal of trees with active nests until such time a s
the young have fledged and the nest is abandoned .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 25
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 6
â Monitoring Program : Compliance with these requirements will be monitored by th e
Community Development and Public Works Departments through review of the project's
Biological Easement Agreement, final map requirements, daily on-site inspections by th e
Building and Public Works Inspectors, architectural review of the new home designs an d
release of building occupancy .
Geology and Soil s
12 . Building plans and specifications for site development shall incorporate al l
recommendations included in the Engineering Geology Investigation and Soi l
Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc . for the project dated July 13, 2003 ,
subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official .
â Monitoring Program : Building permits are required for all proposed grading activitie s
and construction of common improvements on-site . These building permits will b e
evaluated for compliance with the recommendations of the soils report .
Hazards and Hazardous Material s
13 . Prior to issuance of a building permit for any site improvements, the half buried 55 -
gallon drum shall be removed by a qualified professional and disposed of at a facilit y
able to adequately handle the container and its contents, and any contamination identifie d
by the qualified professional shall be removed from the site and cleaned-up to mee t
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards .
â Monitoring Program : The Planning Division of the Community Developmen t
Department will review plans submitted for any building permit application and require
that the applicant provide documentation that the half buried 55-gallon drum has bee n
property removed from the site, and any residual contamination cleaned-up to mee t
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards .
Hydrology and Water Qualit y
14 . Stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shal l
be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) published in the
California Stormwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook ,
January 2003 . For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be
designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event .
â Monitoring Program : Building permit applications submitted for subdivisio n
improvements and applications for Architectural Review of house designs will b e
reviewed by the Public Works and Community Development Departments fo r
compliance with this requirement .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 26
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 7
Nois e
15 . The following construction methods shall be incorporated in to the design of the
buildings on lots 8, 9 & 10 to achieve a Noise Level Reduction of 25 dB fo r
transportation related noise sources :
(A)Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and door s
may remain closed .
(B)Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0 .5 cfm o r
less, per ANSI specifications).
(C)Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshol d
seals .
(D)Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding with CIA" minimum
thickness fiberboard ("soundboard").
(E)Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area in a room .
(F)Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source .
16 . A sound barrier shall be installed for lots 9 & 10 as necessary to achieve the require d
10dB of outdoor noise reduction for lot 9 and 5 dB outdoor noise reduction for lot 10.
The design of the noise barriers shall be reviewed and approved through the Architectura l
Review process as part of the design review of the homes, prior to installation, to ensure
design consistency with the Community Design Guidelines . Depending on the desig n
and location of the home and sound barrier for lot 9, a 5dB outdoor noise reduction ma y
be achieved for lot 10, and a separate sound barrier may not be required for this lot .A
continuous sound wall is the least desirable solution to address this impact . Partial walls ,
building placement, or other solution shall be given preference consistent with Genera l
Plan policy direction .
â Monitoring Program : Compliance with these requirements will be monitored through th e
review of detailed plans submitted for Architectural Review and Building Permit by th e
Community Development Department staff .
Transportation/Traffi c
17 . Turning movements at the Johnson/Fixlini intersection are limited to right turn in and ou t
until such time as a dedicated center turn lane is installed on the project's Johnso n
Avenue frontage .
18 . The existing power poles on the project's Johnson Avenue frontage shall be removed .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 27
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 8
19.The vegetation along the project's Johnson Avenue frontage shall be trimmed an d
maintained to provide adequate visibility for motorists, subject to the approval of th e
Public Works Director and Natural Resources Manager .
20.Since an alternate, lesser width, street section is being utilized for the project an d
curbside parking is not provided, a parking equivalent of one space per 25 feet o f
frontage, for a total of seventeen spaces, shall be provided for the project to the approva l
of the Public Works and Community Development Directors . Such alternate parkin g
shall be provided within a public right-of-way, or on lots adjacent to the street, wit h
convenient access to the street .
21.Prior to final map approval and recordation, a 10-foot wide pedestrian access easemen t
shall be recorded for the purpose of providing an alternative bicycle and pedestria n
transportation route through the project site, subject to the approval of the Public Work s
Director and Natural Resources Manager .
22.Sidewalk improvements shall be installed on the easterly side of the Fixlini Stree t
extension for lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 to properly connect the project to existing sidewal k
improvements along Fixlini Street and the 10-foot wide pedestrian access easement ,
subject to the approval of the Public Works Director .
â Monitoring Program : Building permit applications submitted for subdivisio n
improvements will be reviewed by the Public Works and Community Development
Departments for compliance with these requirements .
SECTION 3 .Action .The City Council does hereby approve Application TR/ER 95-0 3
with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project :
Conditions :
1.Prior to final map approval, the building envelope for lot 9 shall be revised to sho w
compliance with the R-1 zoning district street yard setback standard of 20-feet alon g
Johnson Avenue .
2.The final map shall include a note stating that development of the lots, eithe r
cumulatively or individually, requires Architectural Review in accordance wit h
Municipal Code Section 2 .48 .
3.The final map shall indicate driveway locations for lots 8 & 9 . Driveway access ont o
Johnson Avenue shall not be permitted and driveways shall not be located within the firs t
20-feet of the beginning of the curb return .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 28
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series)
Page 9
4 . Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 .9(b), the subdivider 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, se t
aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relatin g
thereto, including but not limited to environmental review .
Code Requirements :
1 . All streets shall be constructed as shown on the vesting tentative map in accordance wit h
the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards an d
Standard Specifications except as follows :
a.The street "dogleg" adjacent to Lot 4 shall be eliminated and replaced with a
knuckle or an alternative design that accommodates two way traffic, withou t
traffic encroaching in the opposite travel lane, to the satisfaction of the Publi c
Works Director .
b.The inside and outside curves for the parking insets hall have a minimum radiu s
of 6 .1 m .
c.City standard curb and gutter shall be installed, in lieu of the rolled curb shown o n
the tentative map .
2 . Since curbside parking is not provided, alternate parking equivalent of one space for eac h
twenty-five feet of frontage shall be provided . Such alternate parking shall be provide d
within a public right-of-way, or on lots adjacent to the street, with convenient access t o
the street .
3 . A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted t o
the Public Works Director for review and approval . All grades, layout, staking and cut -
sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall b e
the responsibility of the subdivider .
4 . The subdivider shall secure offsite dedication and improve, to City Standards, th e
extension of Fixlini Street to the Northwesterly subdivision boundary . If this right-of -
way dedication has not been acquired by the time of final map approval, the City shal l
lend its power of eminent domain, in accordance with Section 66462 .5 of the Californi a
Government Code .
5 . The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tre e
easement across all public street frontages . Said easement shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with the public right-of-way .
6 . The subdivider shall dedicate a minimum 2m wide public pedestrian easement along th e
Northeasterly side of the Fixlini Street extension along proposed lots one through four .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 29
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 10
Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with the public right-of-way .
Water, Sewer &Utilities
7. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including servic e
laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Work s
Director and Utilities Engineer .
8.The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the publi c
street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director .
9.The subdivider shall provide each lot individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas ,
water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies an d
the Public Works Director .
10.The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk
vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc .) per City standards and P, G and E's requirements .
Grading &Drainag e
11.Improvement plans shall include a complete grading, erosion control and drainage pla n
and appropriate calculations for the entire site .The grading plan shall include existin g
and proposed contours to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage for thi s
development .
12.The rate of runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopmen t
for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm . Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shal l
be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual .
13.All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a publi c
street, shall be privately owned, in an easement or separate lot and maintained by a
homeowners' association .
14.The CCRs for the project shall require that the homeowners association or acceptabl e
maintenance organization submit, to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Work s
Department, a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the
condition of all private stormwater facilities and any necessary maintenance activities o n
a semi-annual basis (April 30 and October 1 of each year). The CCRs for the project
shall also include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of any storm wate r
facilities .
15 . All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 30
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 11
compliance with city standards and policies, the City's Flood Management Policy Book
(specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc .) and be approved by the Publi c
Works Director, Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish & Game .
16.Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning o r
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Publi c
Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the California Department o f
Fish & Game .
17.All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements an d
drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director .
18.General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm wate r
discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavatio n
results in land disturbance of one or more acres . Permits are required until th e
construction is complete . To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, th e
owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of
Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board .
The WDID # from the State Water Resources Control Board shall be included on al l
plans submitted to the City involving ground disturbing activities .
19.A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the State Water Qualit y
Control Board shall be included with the Public Improvement Plan set .
Mapping and Misc . Requirements
20.The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation .
The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a licensed land surveyor o r
registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying . The final map shall be
prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations .
21.The final map shall include any required public or private easements as required for the
proposed development of the tract . Easements may include, but are not limited to ,
grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle turn-around, and utilities .
Any CC&Rs, maintenance or common driveway agreements shall be completed an d
recorded concurrent with final map approval .
22.The Final Map shall show the area of the Johnson Avenue widening that was granted to
the City, according to a Grant Deed recorded in Volume 1344 Page 669 of Officia l
Records in the office of the County Recorder, San Luis Obispo County, California .
23.The two exterior corners of the subdivision shall be tied to at least two points of the City's
horizontal control network (these tie lines shall be shown on the final map), California State
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 31
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 12
Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991 .35 epoch adjustment of the North America n
Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into th e
Geographic Information System (GIS) database . Submit this data either via email, CD or a
3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 o r
earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any question s
regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data .
24.The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the Internationa l
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the fina l
map where necessary (e .g . - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record
units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Public Work s
Director .
25.Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all publi c
improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements ,
whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the electronic drawing file s
(.dwg) and any associated plot files .
26.Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the subdivider's engineer shal l
submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatibl e
with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information Syste m
(GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director .
27.All public facilities shall be located within proposed easements or property deeded to th e
City.
28.Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand o n
the City's water supplies . The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a
"first-come, first-served" basis . Water is allocated at the time building permits are issue d
and the Water Impact Fee is paid . Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees ar e
charged on a per residential unit basis .
29.Some off-site public sewer must be constructed in order to serve this project . At th e
City's discretion, the applicant may be required to construct the sewer main extensio n
across the entire frontage along Johnson Avenue . Additional comments will likel y
follow the submittal of complete improvement plans for the tract and off sit e
improvements .
30.By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the
City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 o r
demolition of structures over 1000 square feet . The recycling plan shall be submitted t o
the Building Department with the building plans . The City's Solid Waste Coordinato r
can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 32
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 13
31.One street tree is required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof . Trees
shall be planted to City specifications .
32.The final map shall include curb ramps complying with City standards at all stree t
intersections .
33.Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fir e
Code (CFC). An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow fo r
fire protection is required . The fire flow shall be determined using Appendix III-A of th e
CFC .
34.Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903 .4 of the CFC . The
location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determine d
using Appendix III-B of the CFC and the approved City Engineering Standards .
35.Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the Californi a
Building Code . An approved NFPA 13 (D,R) system will be required for this project .
36.Access roads shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the CFC . Access roads shall hav e
an unobstructed width of not less than 20-feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance o f
13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a
60,000 fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weathe r
driving capabilities .
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 33
Resolution No . 9622 (2004 Series )
Page 1 4
On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Council Member Mulholand and on th e
following roll call vote :
AYES :
Council Members Ewan, Mulholland and Settle, and Vice Mayo r
Schwart z
NOES :
Non e
ABSENT : Mayor Romer o
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16 th day of November 2004 .
Mayor David F . Romer o
ATTEST :
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
Jonathtt .Lowel l
City Attorne y
(2iiiAM 5t F/',( / ~/1
Audrey H o
City Clerk
Attachment 4
ARC2 - 34