Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - USE-0580-2017 (2223 Monterey) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a modification to a previously-approved Planning Commission Use Permit (USE-1035-2015) for the Motel Inn project. The modification includes a request to re- configure the site design of the eastern portion of the site to accommodate 26 Airstream trailers for guest accommodations, one Airstream trailer for use as a spa, a restroom building, bocce court, and associated parking, landscaping, and site improvements on a property with Special Considerations, with a determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Phone: 781-7176 e-mail: sscott@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-0580-2017 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.  Representative Studio Design Group Architects  Zoning C‐T‐S  General Plan Tourist Commercial  Site Area Approximately 4.2 acres  Environmental  Status  Consistent with previously‐adopted  Mitigated Negative Declaration  SUMMARY The Motel Inn project was approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2016 (refer to Attachment 3, Planning Commission Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report dated March 23, 2016). At that time, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the project (refer to Attachment 4). The approved project includes a restaurant, 55-room hotel, 13 recreational vehicle (RV) spaces, 10 Airstream trailer spaces, and a 10% parking reduction. The applicant has requested a modification to the site plan to eliminate the RV spaces and accommodate 26 Airstream trailers for guest accommodations, one Airstream trailer for use as a spa, a restroom building, bocce court, and related site improvements. Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 Item Number: 2 PC2-1 USE-0580-2017 (2223 Monterey, Motel Inn) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role includes: review of the project’s consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 (Attachment 5), the Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards; and consideration of the revised project’s consistency with the previously-adopted Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 4). The modified project is subject to Planning Commission review as required by Ordinance No. 1130 and the associated Special Considerations overlay on the project site. 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION The currently entitled project consists of a restaurant, 55-room hotel including main building rooms and bungalow units, 13 RV spaces, 10 Airstreams, and 121 parking spaces (including the approved 10% parking reduction). Additional background information including the Minutes and Planning Commission Agenda Report package dated March 23, 2016 are available for review (Attachment 3). Key issues that were discussed at the March 23, 2016 and August 26, 2015 Planning Commission hearings included the effects of project-generated lighting and noise on adjacent San Luis Creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood south of the site. The proposed project modifications do not include any elements affecting the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission’s review, recommendations, and approval of the entitled project, as the proposed changes are confined to the area previously designated for Airstreams, RVs, and parking and the project remains subject to previously- adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval related to cultural resource protection and architectural design. 2.1 Site Information/Setting The approximately 4.2-acre site is located at the northeast end of Monterey Street, immediately south of Highway 101. San Luis Creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood are located to the south. The Apple Farm Inn and restaurant are located to the southwest, and the La Cuesta Inn is located to the northwest. The project site is nearly level to gently sloping, and is accessed directly from Monterey Street, near the Highway 101 on- and off-ramp. The project site is included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. Additional information regarding the site, surrounding uses, and the history of the Motel Inn is available in Attachment 3. 2.2 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) In 1989, the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria intended to protect the creek habitat and nearby residential uses, and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses (refer to Attachment 5). The Planning Commission’s approval of the use permit in 2016 included adoption of specific findings as required by Ordinance No. 1130 (see Attachment 3, Resolution No. PC-1004-16). 2.2 Project Description The applicant submitted a modification to the site plan to redesign the layout of the eastern portion of the site, including the following changes: PC2-2 USE-0580-2017 (2223 Monterey, Motel Inn) Page 3 1) Eliminate all the RV spaces; 2) Provide 26 Airstream trailers to remain in place for guest accommodations with centralized gathering areas and associated pathways; 3) Provide guest amenities including one Airstream trailer for use as a spa (located near the main building and bungalows) and a bocce court in the northern portion of the site; and, 4) Provide 121 required parking spaces, which incorporates the previously-approved 10% shared parking reduction (previous project required 118 spaces, and the previously-approved plan included 121 spaces). Additional information regarding the project is available in the Applicant’s Project Plans (Attachment 2). 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project analysis summarized below focuses on the modified project’s consistency with the General Plan and Ordinance No. 1130. 3.1 General Plan The proposed uses remain consistent with the Tourist Commercial land use category, which is intended to provide uses serving the traveling public, including lodging and recreational uses. The General Plan encourages visitor-serving uses and notes that such uses are especially appropriate where such uses are already concentrated.1 The upper Monterey Street region is concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants. The project design and incorporation of conditions of approval would protect and preserve the identity and residential atmosphere of the San Luis Drive neighborhood, and include measures to provide noise and light buffers, consistent with Land Use Element Policies 2.12 and 2.3.3.3 San Luis Creek follows the southern project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. The revised plan would maintain the setback required by Ordinance No. 1130 (see Section 3.2, below), and would remain compatible with Conservation and Open Space Element policies that speak to the interface between the natural environment and development. Compliance with previously-adopted conditions of approval and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to San Luis Creek is required, and these measures are incorporated into the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1). 1 LUE Policy 3.6.2 Tourist Commercial Uses, Locations. The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train station…. Visitor serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown. 2 LUE Policy 2.1 Neighborhood Focus. The City shall preserve, protect and enhance the City’s neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their identity and promote a higher quality of life within each neighborhood. 3 LUE Policy 2.3.3 In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority. PC2-3 USE-0580-2017 (2223 Monterey, Motel Inn) Page 4 3.2 Ordinance No. 1130 Evaluation of the proposed modifications included review of the Planning Commission’s past assessment of the previously-approved RV/Airstream area, including previously-adopted conditions of approval and required findings. Staff recommends that the revised project remains consistent with Ordinance No. 1130, as follows: 1) The proposed creek-adjacent Airstreams have been placed such that the entrances face away from the creek and are intended to provide buffers between the other Airstreams and San Luis Creek, as previously required, and the centralized outdoor use areas are located inside the proposed Airstream clusters (see Attachment 2, Sheets A-1.1 and A-1.3); 2) The parking area and bocce court would be located in the northern portion of the site, and the Airstreams would provide a buffer between this northern area and the creek (see Attachment 2, Sheets A-1.1 and A-1.3); 3) The project maintains the construction of a split-rail fence along the southern property boundary (between the site and the creek), as previously required (see Attachment 2, Sheet L- 1.1); 4) Outdoor activities associated with the Airstream area will cease no later than 10:00 p.m., nightly, as previously required (see Attachment 1, Condition 2); 5) No pole-mounted lighting would be installed within the Airstream area adjacent to the creek (see Attachment 1, Condition 6 and Attachment 2, Sheet A-5.0) and all lighting will be subject to verification on building plans and field inspections to ensure compliance with Night Sky Preservation Standards (see Attachment 1, Condition 5), as previously required; and 6) The project remains compliant with the minimum 20-foot setback from the Conservation/Open Space 5 boundary line (see Attachment 2, Sheet A-1.1). 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted for the project on March 23, 2016 (see Attachment 4, Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration). 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 Planning Commission find that the environmental effects of the modified project have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted MND. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project are incorporated into the presented evaluation and conditions of approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 6.2 Deny the item. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130, the Zoning Regulations, and/or other pertinent City standards. PC2-4 USE-0580-2017 (2223 Monterey, Motel Inn) Page 5 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Applicant’s Project Plans 3. Planning Commission Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report Package (March 23, 2016) 4. Previously-adopted Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (March 23, 2016) 5. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) 11 x 17 Plan Set Available to Planning Commissioners for Review. PC2-5 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO USE PERMIT USE-1035-2015 TO ALLOW 26 AIRSTREAM TRAILERS FOR GUEST ACCOMMODATIONS, ONE AIRSTREAM TRAILER FOR A SPA, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WITH A DETERMINATION THAT THE MODIFIED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY-ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 (USE- 0580-2017; 2223 MONTEREY STREET) WHEREAS, on August 26, 2015, 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, for the purpose of conceptual review of the subject project (USE-1035-2015); Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, 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, for the purpose of review of application USE-1035-2015, and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and approved the project and associated ten percent shared parking reduction as documented in Resolution No. PC-1004-16; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on September 27, 2017 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering USE-0580-2017, a modification to Planning Commission Use Permit (USE-1035-2015) for the Motel Inn project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (USE-1035-2015), based on the following findings: 1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2-6 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 2 2. That the proposed 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 and property development standards, the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series), and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 3. That the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent creek and residential uses along San Luis Drive in accordance with the design criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 1130. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission hereby finds that: a) The proposed project, as conditioned herein, is consistent with the requirements of the Motel Inn Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2016, and this action incorporates those mitigation measures as detailed herein. b) All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program: Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Monitoring 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 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. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b. Equipment will be fueled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2-7 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 3 e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system. Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. 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. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any ATTACHMENT 1 PC2-8 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 4 contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure TT-1: Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as approved by the City and Caltrans. Monitoring Plan, TT-l: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November 2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve USE-0580-2017, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Conditions Please note the project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to your project. Planning Division - Community Development Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission, and shall be comply with mitigation measures and conditions of approval documented in Resolution CHC- 1000-16 and ARC-1002-16. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No.2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved plans or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director, Planning Commission or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Outdoor activities in patron use areas (i.e. pool, reflecting pool/cabanas, Airstream activity areas, bocce court) shall cease no later than 10:00 p.m., nightly. 3. Airstream trailers placed adjacent to the creek shall have their entrance doors facing away from the creek or otherwise be buffered from the creek by another trailer. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2-9 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 5 4. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, taller split rail fencing may be required to appropriately screen headlights from vehicles traveling south in the west and central parking lots. 5. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3. b. Exterior wall sconce lighting (facing the creek) should be designed so that the light can be switched on and off to avoid constant illumination of the exterior lights. 6. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, the Airstream area shall include bollard style lighting along the creek (rather than pole mounted lighting). 7. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is necessary upon significant change to the business as represented in the Planning Commission Agenda Report dated September 27, 2017, or in the event of a change in ownership which may result in deviation from the project description or approved plans. 8. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of the Use Permit review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified. 9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. ATTACHMENT 1 PC2-10 Resolution No. _____ (2017 Series) Page 6 Building Department 10. The legality of “existing laundry” building shown to remain at southwest corner of the property shall be determined under active Code Enforcement Case # CODE-000337- 2015. No implied approvals for its existence are granted as part of these use permit findings. Fire Department 11. All park rental trailers (Airstreams) shall be provided with fire sprinklers conforming to NFPA 13D, with the fire sprinklers being fed off the domestic water supply. Utilities Department 12. Airstream trailers requiring sewer services shall provide a utility site plan with a private collection system that can be isolated with a plug valve during emergency flood conditions, or a response plan meeting the same intent. 13. Airstream trailers requiring water services shall provide a utility site plan with a private water distribution system that is provided with an RP backflow preventer. Indemnification 14. Pursuant to Government Code § 66474.9(b), 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 subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 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 Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 PC2-11 $77$&+0(17PC2-12 $77$&+0(17PC2-13 $77$&+0(17PC2-14 $77$&+0(17PC2-15 $77$&+0(17PC2-16 $77$&+0(17PC2-17 AP P R O V E D P C / A R C S I T E P L A N ( F E B . 1 2 , 2 0 1 6 ) IN C L U D E D F O R R E F E R E N C E O N L Y $77$&+0(17PC2-18 $77$&+0(17PC2-19 $77$&+0(17PC2-20 Qi C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C H D R HD R C H D R H D R H D R Jm Jm Jm Cs Cs Cs Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Jm Qi Qi Qi Qi Jm Oe Qa Cs Jm Jm Cs Jm Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn C Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe Qa Oe Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Cs Jm Jm Qi Qi Oe Cy Cy Cy 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 21 26 27 32 31 30 29 28 35 34 33 38 37 36 39 40 41 42 44 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 53 54 55 56 52 51 57 59 60 61 62 63 58 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 10 1 10 2 10 4 10 5 10 6 C 10 7 10 3 Jm Jm Qi Qi Qi BU I L D I N G C3 PO O L BU I L D I N G A GA Z E B O BU I L D I N G C1 BU I L D I N G C2 J- B O X (E ) M O T E L I N N MO N U M E N T S I G N SH A R E D TR A S H (E ) W A T E R M E T E R (E ) B U I L D I N G LA U N D R Y BU I L D I N G B6 BU I L D I N G B5 BU I L D I N G B3 BU I L D I N G B2 BU I L D I N G B1 BU I L D I N G B4 BU I L D I N G B7 BU I L D I N G B8 BU I L D I N G B9 BU I L D I N G B1 0 TR A N S F O R M E R (E ) W A T E R M E T E R (E ) F I R E H Y D R A N T PA R C E L 1 - R E S T A U R A N T NO T A P A R T SP A PA R C E L 2 - M O T E L I N N SH O R T T E R M B I C Y C L E PA R K I N G MO T O R C Y C L E P A R K I N G EX I S T I N G T R E E 3 6 ' - 0 " 24'-0" EX I S T I N G T R E E PE R V I O U S P A V E R S TR A N S F O R M E R 20'-5" 20'-0" TY P . PR O P O S E D P R O P E R T Y LI N E , T O B E A D J U S T E D (E ) E A S E M E N T T O P O F B A N K 1 0 0 Y R F L O O D C R E E K S E T B A C K PR O P O S E D F I R E RI S E R R O O M WI T H K N O X B O X (E ) P O W E R P O L E PR O P O S E D CH E C K VA L V E A N D F. D . C . LO C A T I O N RE C I R C U L A T I N G WA T E R F E A T U R E LE G E N D Limit of Work Line 4" Concrete Paving: Integral color with 'Top-Cast' finish. Color to be 'Pebble' by Davis Colors.4" Concrete Paving: Integral color with 'Top-Cast' finish. Color to be 'Adobe' by Davis Colors.6" Concrete Paving: Color to be natural with medium broom finish.AC Paving: See Civil Drawings.Bocce Court Surface: Decomposed Granite.Crushed Gravel: 3/8" California Gold.Geoblock Pervious Pavers: Hydro-flo City Estate Pavers, 12"x6" permeable pavers. Color to be Monterey Sands.Stabilized Decomposed Granite: California Gold, 4" thick over compacted subgrade with continuous metal header on both sides.Truncated Dome Paver: 12" x 12". With water blast finish. Color to be 'French Grey' by Stepstone Inc - 310.327.7474. Wet set over 4" concrete sub-slab, with 1 4 " grout joints.Wall: Color and finish to match building.Wood Deck: Redwood - 2 x 6 Concrete Curb: Color and finish to match adjacent concrete flatwork.Pool Fence: 62" high. Per pool code.Split Rail Fence: 42" high wood. Fence line located at top of bank. See Split Rail Fence - Screen: 60" high wood. See Header: Steel Edge.Ornamental Handrail: To meet code. See Architectural Drawings.Existing Tree: To Remain. Preserve and Protect.Accessible Parking Sign and Striping: See Architectural Drawings. EJ EJ HD R /L-1.1 2/L-1.1 1 PR O P O S E D P A R K I N G C O U N T Compact ADA Regular Total No r t h W e s t P a r k i n g 7 0 14 21 We s t P a r k i n g 10 3 29 42 So u t h P a r k i n g 029 1 1 Ai r s t r e a m 6 0 41 47 TO T A L C O U N T 2 3 5 98 121Motel Inn 2525 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA Job Number: 1474 Drawn By: KB/JL Date: 08/25/2017 Sheet Contents:Sheet Number: M : \ P R O D U C T I O N \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 . 0 5 4 \ C A D \ 1 6 0 5 4 _ L - 1 . 0 _ C o n s t - A R C . d w g 8 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 7 BFS No.: 16.054SignatureRenewal Date DateNO.L A N D S C A P E A R C HITE C TDESNEC I L S TAT E O F C A L I F ORNIA11-30-17SIMONPHILLIPS4532 08-25-17 5/30/17 PLAN CHECK 1 1 6/21/17 BID SET 2 7/18/17 PLAN CHECK 2 3 S e e L - 1 . 1 Construction Plan L-1.0 16 32 0 SH E E T I N C L U D E D F O R RE F E R E N C E O N L Y $77$&+0(17PC2-21 4 5 8' 3 | 2 8 ' C 16 | 2 8 ' 18 | 3 1 ' 24 | 2 8 ' 23 | 3 1 ' 25 | 2 8 ' 13 | 2 8 ' 20 | 3 1 ' 14 | 2 8 ' BO C C E C O U R T 19 | 2 8 ' Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe 2 5 ' 9 | 3 1 ' S P A 5 | 2 8 ' 4 | 2 8 ' 7 | 2 8 ' 11 | 2 8 ' 17 | 3 1 ' 6 | 2 8 ' 10 | 2 8 ' YO G A L A W N 8 | 2 8 ' 15 | 3 1 ' 12 | 2 8 ' 22 | 2 8 ' 26 | 3 1 ' Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Oe Jm Jm Oe Oe 83 84 86 85 87 88 90 95 96 97 89 98 91 92 93 94 99 10 0 10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 2 C C C C 11 1 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 C 21 | 2 8 ' 4 4 7 T O P O F B A N K T O P O F B A N K Oe ORDI N A N C E 1 1 3 0 A R E A NON- O R D I N A N C E A R E A Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Oe Oe AL L A I R S T R E A M S AR E T E M P O R A R Y AN D M O B I L E , T Y P . (E ) F I R E H Y D R A N T TO P O F B A N K 10 0 Y R F L O O D CR E E K S E T B A C K 15 ' S E T B A C K RE S T R O O M S LE G E N D Limit of Work Line 4" Concrete Paving: Integral color with 'Top-Cast' finish. Color to be 'Pebble' by Davis Colors.4" Concrete Paving: Integral color with 'Top-Cast' finish. Color to be 'Adobe' by Davis Colors.6" Concrete Paving: Color to be natural with medium broom finish.AC Paving: See Civil Drawings.Bocce Court Surface: Decomposed Granite.Crushed Gravel: 3/8" California Gold.Geoblock Pervious Pavers: Hydro-flo City Estate Pavers, 12"x6" permeable pavers. Color to be Monterey Sands.Stabilized Decomposed Granite: California Gold, 4" thick over compacted subgrade with continuous metal header on both sides.Truncated Dome Paver: 12" x 12". With water blast finish. Color to be 'French Grey' by Stepstone Inc - 310.327.7474. Wet set over 4" concrete sub-slab, with 1 4 " grout joints.Wall: Color and finish to match building.Wood Deck: Redwood - 2 x 6 Concrete Curb: Color and finish to match adjacent concrete flatwork.Pool Fence: 62" high. Per pool code.Split Rail Fence: 42" high wood. Fence line located at top of bank. See Split Rail Fence - Screen: 60" high wood. See Header: Steel Edge.Ornamental Handrail: To meet code. See Architectural Drawings.Existing Tree: To Remain. Preserve and Protect.Accessible Parking Sign and Striping: See Architectural Drawings. EJ EJ HD R /L-1.1 2/L-1.1 1 PR O P O S E D P A R K I N G C O U N T Compact ADA Regular Total No r t h W e s t P a r k i n g 7 0 14 21 We s t P a r k i n g 10 3 29 42 So u t h P a r k i n g 029 1 1 Ai r s t r e a m 6 0 41 47 TO T A L C O U N T 23 5 98 121 SU B G R A D E : C O M P A C T PE R G E O T E C H R E P O R T RA I L : 4 X S P L I T R A I L 10 ' M A X FO O T I N G : B Y O T H E R S 5 ' - 3 " EQ PO S T : 4 x 4 ℄ ℄ EQ 2 1" = 1 ' - 0 " Sp l i t R a i l F e n c e - S c r e e n VI N E : S E E P L A N T I N G PL A N SUBGRADE: COMPACT PER GEOTECH REPORTRAIL: 4X SPLIT RAIL 10 ' M A X FOOTING: BY OTHERS 4 ' - 1 " EQ POST: 4 x 4℄ ℄ EQ 1 1" = 1 ' - 0 " Sp l i t R a i l F e n c e VINE: SEE PLANTING PLANMotel Inn 2525 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA Job Number: 1474 Drawn By: KB/JL Date: 08/25/2017 Sheet Contents:Sheet Number: M : \ P R O D U C T I O N \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 . 0 5 4 \ C A D \ 1 6 0 5 4 _ L - 1 . 0 _ C o n s t - A R C . d w g 8 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 7 BFS No.: 16.054SignatureRenewal Date DateNO.L A N D S C A P E A R C HITE C TDESNEC I L S TAT E O F C A L I F ORNIA11-30-17SIMONPHILLIPS4532 08-25-17 5/30/17 PLAN CHECK 1 1 6/21/17 BID SET 2 7/18/17 PLAN CHECK 2 3 S e e L - 1 . 0 Construction Plan L-1.1 16 32 0$77$&+0(17PC2-22 Qi 7 6 5 4 2 | 2 8 ' 1 | 2 8 ' 3 | 2 8 ' 5 5 | 2 8 ' 4 | 2 8 ' Jm C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C H D R HD R C H D R H D R H D R Jm Jm Jm Cs Cs Cs Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Jm Qi Qi Qi Qi Jm Oe Qa Cs Jm Jm Cs Jm Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn C Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Cy Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe Qa Oe Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Cs Jm Jm Qi Qi Oe Cy Cy Cy RE S T A U R A N T - N I C 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 21 26 27 32 31 30 29 28 35 34 33 38 37 36 39 40 41 42 44 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 53 54 55 56 52 51 57 59 60 61 62 63 58 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 70 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 86 85 87 8 10 1 10 2 10 4 10 5 10 6 C 10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 10 3 C 11 1 4 Jm Jm Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi EX I S T I N G T R E E : PR E S E R V E A N D PR O T E C T EX I S T I N G T R E E : PR E S E R V E A N D PR O T E C T OR N A M E N T A L *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s MB x Bu x u s s e m p e r v i r e n s Boxwood 1 Gal. M Hb He b e b u x i f o l i a Boxleaf Hebe 5 Gal. L Hp H e s p e r a l o e p a r v i f l o r a Red Yucca 1 Gal. M Hc He u c h e r a ' C i n n a b a r S i l v e r ' Coral Bells 4" Pot L Lg La v a n d u l a ' G o o d w i n C r e e k G r a y ' Lavander 5 Gal. L Ls Le u c a d e n d r o n ' S a f a r i G o l d s t r i k e ' Leucadendron 5 Gal. M Ma Mi s c a n t h u s ' A d a g i o ' Dwarf Maiden Grass 5 Gal. L Pa Pe r o v s k i a a t r i p l i c i f o l i a Russian Sage 5 Gal. M Pc Pi t t o s p o r u m c r a s s i f o l i u m ' C o m p a c t u m ' Dwarf Karo 5 Gal. M Pb Pi t t o s p o r u m t e n u i f o l i u m ' G o l f B a l l ' Golf Ball Kohuhu 5 Gal. LP w Pi t t o s p o r u m t o b i r a ' W h e e l e r ' s D w a r f ' D w a r f M o c k O r a n g e 5 Gal. MP i Po d o c a r p u s g r a c i l i o r ' I c e e B l u e ' Icee Blue Fern Pine 15 Gal. M Po Po l y s t i c h u m m u n i t u m Western Sword Fern 5 Gal. L Rc Rh a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' California Coffeeberry 5 Gal. MR i Ro s a ' I c e b e r g ' Iceberg Rose 5 Gal. L Rb Ro s m a r i n u s ' B l u e S p i r e s ' Rosemary 5 Gal. LR h Rh a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a ' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal. M Tu T i b o u c h i n a u r v i l l e a n a Princess Flower 15 Gal. M Tj T r a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s Star Jasmine 1 Gal. L We We s t r i n g i a f r u t i c o s a ' S m o k e y ' C o a s t R o s e m a r y 5 Gal. M Wf Wo o d w a r d i a f i m b r i a t a Giant Chain Fern 5 Gal. Gr o u n d c o v e r s M Ar c t o s t a p h y l o s ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t M a n z a n i t a 1 Gal.@ 3' O.C. L Lo m a n d r a l o n g i f o l i a ' B r e e z e ' Dwarf Mat Rush 1 Gal.@ 24" O.C. Vi n e s LB i Bo u g a i n v i l l e a ' I m p e r i a l T h a i D e l i g h t ' Imperial Thai Delight Bougainvillea 1 Gal. M Fp F i c u s p u m i l i a Creeping Fig 1 Gal. M Jp Ja s m i n u m p o l y a n t h u m Pink Jasmine 1 Gal. RI P A R I A N *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s Gr o u n d c o v e r s M Ar c t o s t a p h y l o s ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t M a n z a n i t a 1 Gal.@ 3' O.C. L C a r e x t u m u l i c o l a Berkeley Sedge Plugs @ 8" O.C. L Ju n c u s p a t e n s C a l i f o r n i a G r e y R u s h 1 Gal.@ 18" O.C. L Mu h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s Deer Grass 1 Gal.@ 4' O.C. Vi n e s L Vc Vi t u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' R o g e r ' s R e d ' R o g e r ' s R e d C a l i f o r n i a G r a p e 1 Gal. HO T E L C O R E *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s MA m Ac a n t h u s m o l l i s B e a r s B r e e c h 5 Gal. MB x Bu x u s s e m p e r v i r e n s Boxwood 1 Gal. L Ec E c h i u m c a n d i c a n s Pride of Maderia 15 Gal. M Hb He b e b u x i f o l i a Boxleaf Hebe 5 Gal. L Hp H e s p e r a l o e p a r v i f l o r a Red Yucca 1 Gal. M Hc He u c h e r a ' C i n n a b a r S i l v e r ' Coral Bells 4" Pot L Lg La v a n d u l a ' G o o d w i n C r e e k G r a y ' Lavander 5 Gal. M Oj O p h i o p o g o n j a p o n i c u s Mondo Grass 1 Gal. L Pa Pe r o v s k i a a t r i p l i c i f o l i a Russian Sage 5 Gal. M Pc Pi t t o s p o r u m c r a s s i f o l i u m ' C o m p a c t u m ' Dwarf Karo 5 Gal. M Pb Pi t t o s p o r u m t e n u i f o l i u m ' G o l f B a l l ' Golf Ball Kohuhu 5 Gal. M Ps Pi t t o s p o r u m t e n u i f o l i u m ' S i l v e r S h e e n ' Silver Sheen Kohuhu 5 Gal. LP w Pi t t o s p o r u m t o b i r a ' W h e e l e r ' s D w a r f ' D w a r f M o c k O r a n g e 5 Gal. M Po Po l y s t i c h u m m u n i t u m Western Sword Fern 5 Gal. L Rc Rh a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' California Coffeeberry 5 Gal. L Ro Ro s m a r i n u s ' H u n t i n g t o n C a r p e t ' Rosemary 5 Gal. L Rb Ro s m a r i n u s ' B l u e S p i r e s ' Rosemary 5 Gal. LR h Rh a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a ' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal. L S l S a l v i a l e u c a n t h a Mexican Sage 5 Gal. LS b St a c h y s b y z a n t i n a Lamb's Ears 1 Gal. M Tu T i b o u c h i n a u r v i l l e a n a Princess Flower 15 Gal. M Tj T r a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s Star Jasmine 1 Gal. L We We s t r i n g i a f r u t i c o s a ' S m o k e y ' C o a s t R o s e m a r y 5 Gal. M Wf Wo o d w a r d i a f i m b r i a t a Giant Chain Fern 5 Gal. Gr o u n d c o v e r s M Ar c t o s t a p h y l o s ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t M a n z a n i t a 1 Gal.@ 3' O.C. Vi n e s MC c Cl y t o s o m a c a l l i s t e g o i d e s L a v e n d e r T r u m p e t V i n e 1 Gal. M Fp F i c u s p u m i l i a C r e e p i n g F i g 1 Gal. M Jp Ja s m i n u m p o l y a n t h u m Pink Jasmine 1 Gal. M Ws W i s t e r i a s i n e n s i s Chinese Wisteria 1 Gal. PA R K I N G L O T / A I R S T R E A M S *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s L Hp H e s p e r a l o e p a r v i f l o r a Red Yucca 1 Gal. L Ls Le u c a d e n d r o n ' S a f a r i G o l d s t r i k e ' Leucadendron 5 Gal. L Rc Rh a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' California Coffeeberry 5 Gal. LR h Rh a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a ' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal. L Wf We s t r i n g i a f r u t i c o s a ' S m o k e y ' C o a s t R o s e m a r y 5 Gal Gr o u n d c o v e r s LF i Fe s t u c a i d a h o e n s i s I d a h o F e s c u e 1 Gal.@ 6" O.C. L Jh Ju n i p e r u s h o r i z o n t a l i s ' W i l t o n i i ' Blue Rug Juniper 1 Gal.@ 6' O.C. LL l Lo m a n d r a l o n g i f o l i a ' B r e e z e ' Dwarf Mat Rush 1 Gal.@ 24" O.C. LM r Mu h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s Deer Grass 1 Gal.@ 4' O.C. LR h Ro s m a r i n u s ' H u n t i n g t o n C a r p e t ' Rosemary 1 Gal.@ 4' O.C. * W A T E R U S E C A T E G O R Y ( W U C ) K E Y PL A N T , T Y P . BA C K O F C U R B OR P A V I N G x x x Y 1. F O R S P A C I N G ' X ' , S E E P L A N T I N G PL A N L E G E N D 2. Y = 1 / 2 X + 1 2 " GR O U N D C O V E R S P A C I N G A N D P L A N T I N G S E T B A C K D I A G R A M WU C O L S R e g i o n A p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s P r o j e c t : RE G I O N 1 H = H i g h ; M = M o d e r a t e ; L = L o w ; V L = V e r y L o w ; N L = S p e c i e s N o t L i s t e d * f r o m : W a t e r U s e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f L a n d s c a p e S p e c i e s , A G u i d e t o t h e W a t e r N e e d s o f L a n d s c a p e P l a n t s ( W U C O L S ) Re v i s e d 2 0 1 4 , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n , L . R . C o s t e l l o , K . S . J o n e s Tu r f : S e e S p e c s . 3, 5 8 0 S F Mu l c h : S e e S p e c s . De c o m p o s e d G r a n i t e ( D . G . ) : S e e S p e c s . 32 0 S F PL A N T L E G E N D Li m i t o f W o r k L i n e He a d e r b o a r d . S e e S p e c s . S e e *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E CO M M O N N A M E SI Z E C H A R A C T E R Tr e e s MC s Ci t r u s s p . Ci t r u s 24 " B o x M Cj C i t r u s ' N a g a m i ' Na g a m i K u m q u a t 24 " B o x L Cy Cu p r e s s u s s e m p e r v i r e n s It a l i a n C y p r e s s 24 " B o x M Jm Ja c a r a n d a m i n o s i f o l i a Ja c a r a n d a 24 " b o x VL O e Ol e a e u r o p e a ' S w a n H i l l ' Sw a n H i l l O l i v e 24 " B o x M u l t i . 3 C a n e s M i n . VL Qa Qu e r c u s a g r i f o l i a Ca l i f o r n i a C o a s t L i v e O a k 2 4 " B o x L Qi Q u e r c u s i l e x Ho l l y O a k 24 " B o x LS r Sy a g r u s / A r e c a s t r u m r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Qu e e n P a l m 24 " b o x HD R /L- 5 . 2 10 1. L a n d s c a p e a n d i r r i g a t i o n d e s i g n s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o U n i f o r m De s i g n C r i t e r i a 2. A l l p l a n t m a t e r i a l h a s b e e n s e l e c t e d t o h a v e l o w t o m e d i u m w a t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r WU C O L S . L a w n i s r e s t r i c t e d t o a r e a s w h e r e a c t i v e u s e c a n o c c u r ; l a w n a r e a p r o p o s e d i s le s s t h a n 5 % o f o v e r a l l l a n d s c a p e a r e a . 3. A l l p l a n t i n g b e d s s h a l l h a v e a m i n i m u m o f 3 " l a y e r o f m u l c h . 4. W a t e r s o u r c e s h a l l b e c i t y w a t e r w i t h a s e p a r a t e m e t e r . 5. T h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s h a l l c o n s i s t o f i n - l i n e d r i p e m i t t e r s . E a c h v a l v e s h a l l b e a h y d r o z o n e ba s e d o n e x p o s u r e a n d p l a n t w a t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s : - S h a d y a r e a h y d r o z o n e - S u n n y a r e a h y d r o z o n e - S p e c i a l L a n d s c a p e A r e a ( b i o s w a l e ) h y d r o z o n e - S l o p e s o r s p e c i a l s o i l c o n d i t i o n s b y h y d r o z o n e s 6. I r r i g a t i o n c o n t r o l l e r s h a l l b e w e a t h e r b a s e d a n d w i l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y a d j u s t i r r i g a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e to t h e c h a n g e s i n p l a n t ' s n e e d s , a s w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s c h a n g e . GE N E R A L N O T E S SC R E E N *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s L E c E c h i u m c a n d i c a n s Pr i d e o f M a d e r i a 15 G a l . L H a H e t e r o m e l e s a r b u t i f o l i a To y o n 5 G a l . L L s L e u c a d e n d r o n ' S a f a r i G o l d s t r i k e ' L e u c a d e n d r o n 5 G a l . MP i Po d o c a r p u s g r a c i l i o r ' I c e e B l u e ' Ic e e B l u e F e r n P i n e 15 G a l . FI R E H A M M E R H E A D *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R GR A S S E S L E c F e s t u c a r u b r a ' M o l a t e ' Re d F e s c u e Pl u g s @ 9 " O . C . Motel Inn 2525 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA Job Number: 1474 Drawn By: KB/JL Date: 08/25/2017 Sheet Contents:Sheet Number: M : \ P R O D U C T I O N \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 . 0 5 4 \ C A D \ 1 6 0 5 4 _ L - 3 . 0 _ P l a n t i n g - A R C . d w g 8 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 7 BFS No.: 16.054SignatureRenewal Date DateNO.L A N D S C A P E A R C HITE C TDESNEC I L STATEOFCALIFORNIA11-30-17SIMONPHILLIPS4532 08-25-17 5/30/17 PLAN CHECK 1 1 6/21/17 BID SET 2 7/18/17 PLAN CHECK 2 3 S e e L - 4 . 1 20 40PlantingPlanL-2.0 0 SH E E T I N C L U D E D F O R RE F E R E N C E O N L Y $77$&+0(17PC2-23 4 5 C 16 | 2 8 ' 18 | 3 1 ' 24 | 2 8 ' 23 | 3 1 ' 25 | 2 8 ' 13 | 2 8 ' 20 | 3 1 ' 14 | 2 8 ' BO C C E C O U R T 19 | 2 8 ' Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe Oe 2 5 ' 9 | 3 1 ' S P A ' 7 | 2 8 ' 11 | 2 8 ' 17 | 3 1 ' 6 | 2 8 ' 10 | 2 8 ' YO G A L A W N 8 | 2 8 ' 15 | 3 1 ' 12 | 2 8 ' 22 | 2 8 ' 26 | 3 1 ' Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Jm Oe Jm Oe Oe 88 90 95 96 97 89 98 91 92 93 94 99 10 0 11 2 C C C C 1 11 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 C 21 | 2 8 ' 4 4 7 T O P O F B A N K T O P O F B A N K Oe ORDI N A N C E 1 1 3 0 A R E A NON- O R D I N A N C E A R E A Q i Qi Qi Qi Oe Oe OR N A M E N T A L *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s MB x Bu x u s s e m p e r v i r e n s Boxwood 1 Gal. M H b H e b e b u x i f o l i a B o x l e a f H e b e 5 G a l . L Hp H e s p e r a l o e p a r v i f l o r a Red Yucca 1 Gal. M H c H e u c h e r a ' C i n n a b a r S i l v e r ' C o r a l B e l l s 4 " P o t L Lg La v a n d u l a ' G o o d w i n C r e e k G r a y ' Lavander 5 Gal. L L s L e u c a d e n d r o n ' S a f a r i G o l d s t r i k e ' L e u c a d e n d r o n 5 G a l . MM a Mi s c a n t h u s ' A d a g i o ' Dwarf Maiden Grass 5 Gal. LP a Pe r o v s k i a a t r i p l i c i f o l i a Russian Sage 5 Gal. MP c Pi t t o s p o r u m c r a s s i f o l i u m ' C o m p a c t u m ' Dwarf Karo 5 Gal. MP b Pi t t o s p o r u m t e n u i f o l i u m ' G o l f B a l l ' Golf Ball Kohuhu 5 Gal. LP w Pi t t o s p o r u m t o b i r a ' W h e e l e r ' s D w a r f ' D w a r f M o c k O r a n g e 5 Gal. MP i Po d o c a r p u s g r a c i l i o r ' I c e e B l u e ' Icee Blue Fern Pine 15 Gal. MP o Po l y s t i c h u m m u n i t u m Western Sword Fern 5 Gal. L R c R h a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' California Coffeeberry 5 Gal. MR i Ro s a ' I c e b e r g ' Iceberg Rose 5 Gal. LR b Ro s m a r i n u s ' B l u e S p i r e s ' Rosemary 5 Gal. LR h Rh a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a ' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal. M T u T i b o u c h i n a u r v i l l e a n a Princess Flower 15 Gal. M Tj T r a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s Star Jasmine 1 Gal. LW e We s t r i n g i a f r u t i c o s a ' S m o k e y ' C o a s t R o s e m a r y 5 Gal. M Wf Wo o d w a r d i a f i m b r i a t a Giant Chain Fern 5 Gal. Gr o u n d c o v e r s M Ar c t o s t a p h y l o s ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t ' Emerald Carpet Manzanita 1 Gal.@ 3' O.C. L Lo m a n d r a l o n g i f o l i a ' B r e e z e ' Dwarf Mat Rush 1 Gal.@ 24" O.C. Vi n e s LB i Bo u g a i n v i l l e a ' I m p e r i a l T h a i D e l i g h t ' Imperial Thai Delight Bougainvillea 1 Gal. M Fp F i c u s p u m i l i a C r e e p i n g F i g 1 Gal. M Jp Ja s m i n u m p o l y a n t h u m Pink Jasmine 1 Gal. HO T E L C O R E *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s MA m Ac a n t h u s m o l l i s B e a r s B r e e c h 5 Gal. MB x Bu x u s s e m p e r v i r e n s Boxwood 1 Gal. L Ec E c h i u m c a n d i c a n s Pride of Maderia 15 Gal. M Hb He b e b u x i f o l i a B o x l e a f H e b e 5 G a l . L Hp He s p e r a l o e p a r v i f l o r a Red Yucca 1 Gal. M Hc He u c h e r a ' C i n n a b a r S i l v e r ' C o r a l B e l l s 4" Pot L Lg La v a n d u l a ' G o o d w i n C r e e k G r a y ' Lavander 5 Gal. M Oj O p h i o p o g o n j a p o n i c u s Mondo Grass 1 Gal. L Pa Pe r o v s k i a a t r i p l i c i f o l i a R u s s i a n S a g e 5 Gal. M Pc Pi t t o s p o r u m c r a s s i f o l i u m ' C o m p a c t u m ' Dwarf Karo 5 Gal. M Pb Pi t t o s p o r u m t e n u i f o l i u m ' G o l f B a l l ' Golf Ball Kohuhu 5 Gal. M Ps Pi t t o s p o r u m t e n u i f o l i u m ' S i l v e r S h e e n ' Silver Sheen Kohuhu 5 Gal. LP w Pi t t o s p o r u m t o b i r a ' W h e e l e r ' s D w a r f ' D w a r f M o c k O r a n g e 5 Gal. M Po Po l y s t i c h u m m u n i t u m Western Sword Fern 5 Gal. L Rc Rh a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' California Coffeeberry 5 Gal. L Ro Ro s m a r i n u s ' H u n t i n g t o n C a r p e t ' Rosemary 5 Gal. L Rb Ro s m a r i n u s ' B l u e S p i r e s ' Rosemary 5 Gal. LR h Rh a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a ' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal. L S l S a l v i a l e u c a n t h a Mexican Sage 5 Gal. LS b St a c h y s b y z a n t i n a Lamb's Ears 1 Gal. M Tu T i b o u c h i n a u r v i l l e a n a P r i n c e s s F l o w e r 15 Gal. M Tj T r a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s Star Jasmine 1 Gal. L We We s t r i n g i a f r u t i c o s a ' S m o k e y ' C o a s t R o s e m a r y 5 Gal. M Wf Wo o d w a r d i a f i m b r i a t a G i a n t C h a i n F e r n 5 G a l . Gr o u n d c o v e r s M Ar c t o s t a p h y l o s ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t M a n z a n i t a 1 Gal.@ 3' O.C. Vi n e s MC c Cl y t o s o m a c a l l i s t e g o i d e s L a v e n d e r T r u m p e t V i n e 1 Gal. M Fp F i c u s p u m i l i a C r e e p i n g F i g 1 Gal. M Jp Ja s m i n u m p o l y a n t h u m Pink Jasmine 1 Gal. M Ws W i s t e r i a s i n e n s i s Chinese Wisteria 1 Gal. PA R K I N G L O T / A I R S T R E A M S *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s L Hp He s p e r a l o e p a r v i f l o r a Red Yucca 1 Gal. L L s L e u c a d e n d r o n ' S a f a r i G o l d s t r i k e ' L e u c a d e n d r o n 5 G a l . L R c R h a m n u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' E v e C a s e ' California Coffeeberry 5 Gal. LR h Rh a p h i o l e p i s i n d i c a ' C l a r a ' Indian Hawthorn 5 Gal. L Wf We s t r i n g i a f r u t i c o s a ' S m o k e y ' C o a s t R o s e m a r y 5 Gal Gr o u n d c o v e r s L F i F e s t u c a i d a h o e n s i s I d a h o F e s c u e 1 G a l . @ 6" O.C. LJ h Ju n i p e r u s h o r i z o n t a l i s ' W i l t o n i i ' Blue Rug Juniper 1 Gal.@ 6' O.C. LL l Lo m a n d r a l o n g i f o l i a ' B r e e z e ' Dwarf Mat Rush 1 Gal.@ 24" O.C. LM r Mu h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s Deer Grass 1 Gal.@ 4' O.C. LR h Ro s m a r i n u s ' H u n t i n g t o n C a r p e t ' Rosemary 1 Gal.@ 4' O.C. * W A T E R U S E C A T E G O R Y ( W U C ) K E Y PL A N T , T Y P . BA C K O F C U R B OR P A V I N G x x x Y 1. F O R S P A C I N G ' X ' , S E E P L A N T I N G PL A N L E G E N D 2. Y = 1 / 2 X + 1 2 " GR O U N D C O V E R S P A C I N G A N D P L A N T I N G S E T B A C K D I A G R A M WU C O L S R e g i o n A p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s P r o j e c t : RE G I O N 1 H = H i g h ; M = M o d e r a t e ; L = L o w ; V L = V e r y L o w ; N L = S p e c i e s N o t L i s t e d * f r o m : W a t e r U s e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f L a n d s c a p e S p e c i e s , A G u i d e t o t h e W a t e r N e e d s o f L a n d s c a p e P l a n t s ( W U C O L S ) Re v i s e d 2 0 1 4 , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n , L . R . C o s t e l l o , K . S . J o n e s Tu r f : S e e S p e c s . 3, 5 8 0 S F Mu l c h : S e e S p e c s . De c o m p o s e d G r a n i t e ( D . G . ) : S e e S p e c s . 32 0 S F PL A N T L E G E N D Li m i t o f W o r k L i n e He a d e r b o a r d . S e e S p e c s . S e e *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E COMMON NAME SIZE CHARACTER Tr e e s MC s Ci t r u s s p . Citrus 24" Box M Cj C i t r u s ' N a g a m i ' Nagami Kumquat 24" Box L Cy Cu p r e s s u s s e m p e r v i r e n s Italian Cypress 24" Box M Jm Ja c a r a n d a m i n o s i f o l i a Jacaranda 24" box VL O e Ol e a e u r o p e a ' S w a n H i l l ' Swan Hill Olive 24" Box Multi. 3 Canes Min. VL Qa Qu e r c u s a g r i f o l i a California Coast Live Oak 24" Box L Qi Q u e r c u s i l e x Holly Oak 24" Box LS r Sy a g r u s / A r e c a s t r u m r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 24" box HD R /L-5.2 10 SC R E E N *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s L Ec E c h i u m c a n d i c a n s Pr i d e o f M a d e r i a 15 G a l . L Ha He t e r o m e l e s a r b u t i f o l i a To y o n 5 G a l . L Ls Le u c a d e n d r o n ' S a f a r i G o l d s t r i k e ' Le u c a d e n d r o n 5 G a l . MP i Po d o c a r p u s g r a c i l i o r ' I c e e B l u e ' Ic e e B l u e F e r n P i n e 15 G a l . RI P A R I A N *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R Sh r u b s Gr o u n d c o v e r s M Ar c t o s t a p h y l o s ' E m e r a l d C a r p e t ' Em e r a l d C a r p e t M a n z a n i t a 1 G a l . @ 3 ' O . C . L C a r e x t u m u l i c o l a Be r k e l e y S e d g e P l u g s @ 8 " O . C . L Ju n c u s p a t e n s C a l i f o r n i a G r e y R u s h 1 G a l . @ 1 8 " O . C . L Mu h l e n b e r g i a r i g e n s De e r G r a s s 1 G a l . @ 4 ' O . C . Vi n e s L Vc Vi t u s c a l i f o r n i c a ' R o g e r ' s R e d ' R o g e r ' s R e d C a l i f o r n i a G r a p e 1 G a l . FI R E H A M M E R H E A D *W U C C O D E B O T A N I C A L N A M E C O M M O N N A M E S I Z E C H A R A C T E R GR A S S E S L Ec F e s t u c a r u b r a ' M o l a t e ' Re d F e s c u e Pl u g s @ 9 " O . C . 1. L a n d s c a p e a n d i r r i g a t i o n d e s i g n s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o U n i f o r m De s i g n C r i t e r i a 2. A l l p l a n t m a t e r i a l h a s b e e n s e l e c t e d t o h a v e l o w t o m e d i u m w a t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r WU C O L S . L a w n i s r e s t r i c t e d t o a r e a s w h e r e a c t i v e u s e c a n o c c u r ; l a w n a r e a p r o p o s e d i s le s s t h a n 5 % o f o v e r a l l l a n d s c a p e a r e a . 3. A l l p l a n t i n g b e d s s h a l l h a v e a m i n i m u m o f 3 " l a y e r o f m u l c h . 4. W a t e r s o u r c e s h a l l b e c i t y w a t e r w i t h a s e p a r a t e m e t e r . 5. T h e i r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s h a l l c o n s i s t o f i n - l i n e d r i p e m i t t e r s . E a c h v a l v e s h a l l b e a h y d r o z o n e ba s e d o n e x p o s u r e a n d p l a n t w a t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s : - S h a d y a r e a h y d r o z o n e - S u n n y a r e a h y d r o z o n e - S p e c i a l L a n d s c a p e A r e a ( b i o s w a l e ) h y d r o z o n e - S l o p e s o r s p e c i a l s o i l c o n d i t i o n s b y h y d r o z o n e s 6. I r r i g a t i o n c o n t r o l l e r s h a l l b e w e a t h e r b a s e d a n d w i l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y a d j u s t i r r i g a t i o n i n r e s p o n s e to t h e c h a n g e s i n p l a n t ' s n e e d s , a s w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s c h a n g e . GE N E R A L N O T E S Motel Inn 2525 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA Job Number: 1474 Drawn By: KB/JL Date: 08/25/2017 Sheet Contents:Sheet Number: M : \ P R O D U C T I O N \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 . 0 5 4 \ C A D \ 1 6 0 5 4 _ L - 3 . 0 _ P l a n t i n g - A R C . d w g 8 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 7 BFS No.: 16.054SignatureRenewal Date DateNO.L A N D S C A P E A R C HITEC TDESNEC I L STATEOFCALIFORNIA11-30-17SIMONPHILLIPS4532 08-25-17 5/30/17 PLAN CHECK 1 1 6/21/17 BID SET 2 7/18/17 PLAN CHECK 2 3 Planting Plan L-2.1 20 40 S e e L - 4 . 0 0$77$&+0(17PC2-24 LE G E N D Li m i t o f W o r k L i n e Ex i s t i n g T r e e : t o b e r e m o v e d . Ex i s t i n g l o c a t i o n o f t r e e t o b e t r a n s p l a n t e d Pr o p o s e d l o c a t i o n o f t r e e t o b e t r a n s p l a n t e d Ex i s t i n g T r e e : T o R e m a i n . P r e s e r v e a n d p r o t e c t . Tr e e P r o t e c t i o n F e n c i n g TR E E P R O T E C T I O N A N D T R A N S P L A N T I N G L E G E N D # B O T A N I C A L N A M E COMMON NAME CALIPER STATUS 1 P h o e n i x c a n a r i e n s i s Canary Island Date Palm 30"Protect 2 Sy a g r u s r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 30"Transplant 3 Sy a g r u s r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 14"Transplant 4 Sy a g r u s r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 14"Transplant 5 Sy a g r u s r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 12"Transplant 6 Sy a g r u s r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 12"Transplant 7 Sy a g r u s r o m a n z o f f i a n u m Queen Palm 14"Transplant 12 C i t r u s 10"Transplant 15 Ci t r u s Orange 8"Transplant 17 C i t r u s Orange (3) 6" cluster Transplant 20 Ci t r u s Mandarin 6"Transplant 22 Qu e r c u s Oak 24"Protect 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 22 2 3 4 5 7 6 15 17 20 12 20 12 15 17 TR E E P R O T E C T I O N PA R T 1 - G E N E R A L 1. 0 1 R E L A T E D D O C U M E N T S A. D r a w i n g s a n d G e n e r a l P r o v i s i o n s o f C o n t r a c t , i n c l u d i n g G e n e r a l a n d S u p p l e m e n t a r y Co n d i t i o n s a n d D i v i s i o n - 1 S p e c i f i c a t i o n S e c t i o n s , a p p l y t o t h e w o r k o f t h i s S e c t i o n . 1. 0 2 D E S C R I P T I O N O F W O R K A. E x t e n t : F u r n i s h a l l l a b o r , m a t e r i a l , e q u i p m e n t , t o o l s , a n d i n c i d e n t a l s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e in s t a l l a t i o n o f T r e e P r o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s a s s h o w n o n t h e D r a w i n g s a n d a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h i s Se c t i o n . 1. T h e w o r k i n c l u d e s p r u n i n g a n d r e p l a c e m e n t s o f t r e e s a n d v e g e t a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t o b e pr o t e c t e d o n t h e D r a w i n g s t h a t a r e a f f e c t e d b y t e m p o r a r y o r p e r m a n e n t c o n s t r u c t i o n . B. R e l a t e d w o r k i n c l u d e s b u t i s n o t l i m i t e d t o : 1. S i t e C l e a r i n g 2. D e m o l i t i o n 1. 0 3 D E F I N I T I O N S A. V e g e t a t i o n : S h r u b s , g r o u n d c o v e r s , g r a s s , a n d o t h e r p l a n t s . B. R o o t Z o n e : T h e r o o t z o n e d i a m e t e r o f a t r e e i s d e t e r m i n e d t o b e t h a t a r e a l o c a t e d o u t a di s t a n c e 1 5 t i m e s t h e t r u n k d i a m e t e r i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s o r t h e d r i p l i n e , w h i c h e v e r i s g r e a t e r , un l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d o n t h e D r a w i n g s . C. P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e : A r e a s u r r o u n d i n g i n d i v i d u a l t r e e s , v e g e t a t i o n a r e a s , a n d g r o u p s o f t r e e s an d v e g e t a t i o n t o b e t e m p o r a r i l y p r o t e c t e d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h f e n c i n g , a s s h o w n o n t h e Dr a w i n g s . M a y b e r e f e r r e d t o a s T r e e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e , T P Z o r P l a n t P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e o n t h e Dr a w i n g s . 1. T e m p o r a r y p r o t e c t i o n s h a l l e x t e n d t i l l t h e e d g e o f t h e R o o t Z o n e , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d an d s h a l l b e f e n c e d . 2. A t n o t i m e s h a l l t h e f e n c i n g b e l o c a t e d c l o s e r t h a n 3 - f e e t a w a y f r o m t h e a p p r o v e d fo u n d a t i o n , r e t a i n i n g w a l l , o r g r a d e c u t , w h i c h e v e r p r o v i d e s t h e g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e tr e e t r u n k . D. T o p s o i l : T h e t o p l a y e r o f e x i s t i n g s o i l i n p l a n t i n g a r e a s , c o n t a i n i n g m i n e r a l s a n d o r g a n i c ma t e r i a l s i n c l u d i n g h u m u s , a n d c o m p l e t e l y f r e e o f w e e d s , r o o t s , r o c k s / c l o d s o v e r o n e c u b i c in c h a n d o t h e r o b j e c t i o n a b l e m a t e r i a l . D e p t h o f t o p s o i l s h a l l b e t a k e n t o b e 2 - 4 i n c h e s d e e p or a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e a t t h e t i m e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a f t e r c l e a r i n g an d g r u b b i n g . 1. A t t u r f a r e a s t o p s o i l s t a r t s b e l o w t h e g r a s s r o o t z o n e . 2. A t p l a n t i n g a r e a s o t h e r t h a n t u r f , t o p s o i l s t a r t s b e l o w t h e m u l c h l a y e r . 1. 0 4 Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E A. A r b o r i s t Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : E n g a g e a n I S A c e r t i f i e d a r b o r i s t ( P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t ) t o d i r e c t pl a n t - p r o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t r e e s a n d v e g e t a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t o r e m a i n a n d t o pr e p a r e i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s . S u b m i t q u a l i f i c a t i o n d a t a i n d i c a t i n g p r o o f o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n / l i c e n s e of t h e P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t . 1C f h P j A b i ' i h l l b b b h C B. T r e e S e r v i c e F i r m Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : S u b m i t q u a l i f i c a t i o n d a t a o f a n e x p e r i e n c e d t r e e s e r v i c e fi r m t h a t h a s s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e d t e m p o r a r y p l a n t p r o t e c t i o n w o r k s i m i l a r t o t h a t r e q u i r e d fo r t h i s P r o j e c t a n d t h a t w i l l a s s i g n a n e x p e r i e n c e d , I S A c e r t i f i e d a r b o r i s t t o P r o j e c t s i t e du r i n g e x e c u t i o n o f t h e W o r k . 1. P r e - a p p r o v e d f i r m - A r b o r w e l l , S a n J o s e C A , 8 8 8 - 9 6 9 - 8 7 3 3 2. A p p r o v e d E q u a l . 3. C o s t o f t h e t r e e s e r v i c e f i r m ' s s e r v i c e s s h a l l b e b o r n e b y t h e C o n t r a c t o r . C. T r e e P r u n i n g S c h e d u l e : S u b m i t w r i t t e n s c h e d u l e d e t a i l i n g s c o p e a n d e x t e n t o f p r u n i n g o f tr e e s t o r e m a i n t h a t i n t e r f e r e w i t h o r a r e a f f e c t e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n . 1. S p e c i e s a n d s i z e o f t r e e . 2. L o c a t i o n o n s i t e p l a n . I n c l u d e u n i q u e i d e n t i f i e r f o r e a c h . 3. R e a s o n f o r p r u n i n g . 4. D e s c r i p t i o n o f p r u n i n g t o b e p e r f o r m e d . 5. D e s c r i p t i o n o f m a i n t e n a n c e f o l l o w i n g p r u n i n g . D. R e v i e w s : P r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h a n y t r e e r e m o v a l o r p r u n i n g , n o t i f y t h e O w n e r s Re p r e s e n t a t i v e 2 4 h o u r s i n a d v a n c e f o r a r e v i e w b y t h e C i t y A r b o r i s t . C i t y A r b o r i s t : 80 5 . 7 8 1 . 7 0 2 3 s h a l l r e v i e w e x i s t i n g t r e e s , p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d e s t a b l i s h p r e s e r v a t i o n re q u i r e m e n t s . E. P o s t - c o n s t r u c t i o n C e r t i f i c a t i o n : S u b m i t f r o m P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t , c e r t i f y i n g t h a t t r e e s i n d i c a t e d to r e m a i n h a v e b e e n p r o t e c t e d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o r e c o g n i z e d s t a n d a r d s a n d th a t t r e e s w e r e p r o m p t l y a n d p r o p e r l y t r e a t e d a n d r e p a i r e d w h e n d a m a g e d . 1. S u b m i t f r o m P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t , r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r c a r e a n d p r o t e c t i o n o f t r e e s a f f e c t e d by c o n s t r u c t i o n d u r i n g a n d a f t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h e W o r k . F. C o d e s : T h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o h a s a n o r d i n a n c e w h i c h c a l l s f o r p r o t e c t i o n o f t r e e s . Wi l l f u l v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s o r d i n a n c e b y n o t e x e r c i s i n g p r o p e r p r e c a u t i o n a r y m e a s u r e s a s or d a i n e d a n d a s d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n c a n r e s u l t i n f i n e s . C o p i e s o f t h e o r d i n a n c e a r e a v a i l a b l e at t h e C i t y C l e r k ' s o f f i c e . PA R T 2 - P R O D U C T S 2. 0 1 M A T E R I A L S A. St e e l f e n c i n g : N e w o r r e - u s e d 2 ” x 2 ” c h a i n - l i n k f e n c e a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e O w n e r s Re p r e s e n t a t i v e , m i n i m u m 6 - f t h i g h . F e n c e m a t e r i a l s h a l l b e m o u n t e d o n 2 ” d i a m e t e r ga l v a n i z e d s t e e l p o l e s w i t h c a p s , m a x i m u m s p a c i n g 1 0 - f t b e t w e e n p o l e s . P o s t s s h a l l b e em b e d d e d m i n i m u m 2 4 - i n i n t o t h e g r o u n d . C. W a r n i n g S i g n : L a m i n a t e d c a r d , r i g i d p l a s t i c o r m e t a l s h e e t , m i n i m u m 8 . 5 ” x 1 1 ” , w i t h at t a c h m e n t h o l e s , l e g i b l y p r i n t e d w i t h n o n - f a d i n g l e t t e r s . 1. S i g n s h a l l c l e a r l y s t a t e “ W A R N I N G - T R E E & P L A N T P R O T E C T I O N Z O N E ” PA R T 3 - E X E C U T I O N 3. 0 1 P R E - C O N S T R U C T I O N A. E r o s i o n a n d S e d i m e n t a t i o n C o n t r o l : V e r i f y t h a t t e m p o r a r y e r o s i o n - a n d se d i m e n t a t i o n - c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s a r e i n p l a c e . V e r i f y t h a t f l o w s o f w a t e r r e d i r e c t e d f r o m co n s t r u c t i o n a r e a s o r g e n e r a t e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y d o n o t e n t e r o r c r o s s P r o t e c t i o n Zo n e s . B. E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s : R e v i e w t r e e s a n d v e g e t a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t o r e m a i n o n s i t e , a n d d o c u m e n t pr e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s t h a t m i g h t b e m i s c o n s t r u e d a s d a m a g e c a u s e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n ac t i v i t i e s . C. D o c u m e n t a t i o n : P r e p a r e w r i t t e n r e p o r t i f n e c e s s a r y , e n d o r s e d b y P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t , l i s t i n g co n d i t i o n s d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t r e e s a n d v e g e t a t i o n . D. P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n M e e t i n g : R e v i e w m e t h o d s a n d p r o c e d u r e s r e l a t e d t o t e m p o r a r y p l a n t pr o t e c t i o n i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o : 1. C o n s t r u c t i o n s c h e d u l e . V e r i f y a v a i l a b i l i t y o f m a t e r i a l s , p e r s o n n e l , a n d e q u i p m e n t n e e d e d to m a k e p r o g r e s s a n d a v o i d d e l a y s . 2. E n f o r c i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r p r o t e c t i o n z o n e s . 3. P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 4. F i e l d q u a l i t y c o n t r o l . E. I n s t a l l a l l p r o t e c t i o n f e n c i n g f o r t r e e a n d P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s p r i o r t o a n y s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n , de m o l i t i o n , o r g r a d i n g w o r k . F. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : T r e e s t o b e p r e s e r v e d s h a l l b e m a r k e d w i t h a s p o t o f p a i n t . T h e m a r k i n g i s re q u i r e d t o n o t i f y C i t y I n s p e c t o r s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t t r e e o r t r e e ( s ) a r e t o b e f e n c e d a t a l l t i m e s du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . G. V e r i f i c a t i o n : V e r i f y i n w r i t i n g t h a t a l l p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s n o t e d h e r e i n h a v e b e e n m e t an d a r e i n p l a c e . S u b m i t v e r i f i c a t i o n t o t h e O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d C i t y A r b o r i s t f o r ap p r o v a l p r i o r t o a n y s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n , d e m o l i t i o n , g r a d i n g , o r c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k . 3. 0 2 P R O T E C T I O N Z O N E S A. P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s s h a l l b e m a i n t a i n e d i n a n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n a n d n o t c o m p a c t e d . T h e fo l l o w i n g p r a c t i c e s a r e p r o h i b i t e d w i t h i n t r e e a n d P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s : 1. S t o r a g e o f c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s , d e b r i s , o r e x c a v a t e d m a t e r i a l s . 2. D u m p i n g o f c h e m i c a l s o r g a r b a g e . 3. P a r k i n g v e h i c l e s o r e q u i p m e n t . 4. F o o t t r a f f i c . 5. E r e c t i o n o f s h e d s o r s t r u c t u r e s . 6. I m p o u n d m e n t o f w a t e r . 7. E x c a v a t i o n o r o t h e r d i g g i n g u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d . 8. A t t a c h m e n t o f s i g n s t o o r w r a p p i n g m a t e r i a l s a r o u n d t r e e s o r p l a n t s u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e in d i c a t e d . B. P r o h i b i t h e a t s o u r c e s , f l a m e s , i g n i t i o n s o u r c e s , a n d s m o k i n g w i t h i n o r n e a r P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s an d m u l c h . C. S i g n a g e : I n s t a l l w a r n i n g s i g n s i n v i s i b l y p r o m i n e n t l o c a t i o n s i n a m a n n e r a p p r o v e d b y t h e Ow n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t - i n e n o u g h q u a n t i t y s o a s t o b e v i s i b l e f r o m a l l vi s i b l e s i d e s . D. F e n c i n g : 1. F e n c i n g s h a l l b e l o c a t e d a t t h e e d g e o f t h e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d o n th e D r a w i n g s o r a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t . 2. F e n c i n g s h a l l b e r i g i d l y s u p p o r t e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d d u r i n g a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d s u n t i l Fi n a l I n s p e c t i o n . 3. D o n o t r e m o v e p r o t e c t i o n - z o n e f e n c i n g , e v e n t e m p o r a r i l y , t o a l l o w d e l i v e r i e s o r eq u i p m e n t a c c e s s t h r o u g h t h e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e . 4. T e m p o r a r y a c c e s s i s p e r m i t t e d s u b j e c t t o p r e a p p r o v a l i n w r i t i n g b y P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t i f a ro o t b u f f e r e f f e c t i v e a g a i n s t s o i l c o m p a c t i o n i s c o n s t r u c t e d a s d i r e c t e d b y P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t . Ma i n t a i n r o o t b u f f e r s o l o n g a s a c c e s s i s p e r m i t t e d . 5. R e m o v a l o f f e n c i n g s h a l l b e a p p r o v e d b y P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t , O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , In s p e c t o r . 3. 0 3 E X C A V A T I O N A. A l l c u t , f i l l a n d / o r f o u n d a t i o n s s h a l l b e l o c a t e d a m i n i m u m o f t h r e e ( 3 ) t i m e s t h e d i a m e t e r o f th e t r e e a w a y f r o m t h e o u t s i d e e d g e o f t h e t r u n k o f a l l t r e e s s c h e d u l e d f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n . Ho w e v e r , t h e m i n i m u m d i s t a n c e p e r m i t t e d s h a l l b e 6 - f e e t a w a y f r o m t h e o u t s i d e e d g e o f t h e tr u n k f o r a l l t r e e s o f a t r u n k d i a m e t e r l e s s t h a n 2 - f e e t . T h e d i a m e t e r o f a t r e e s h a l l b e me a s u r e d a t 4 - f e e t a n d 6 - i n c h e s a b o v e t h e s u r r o u n d i n g g r a d e ( d i a m e t e r a t b r e a s t h e i g h t , (D B H ) . W h e r e D r a w i n g s c o n f l i c t w i t h t h i s , i m m e d i a t e l y c o n t a c t t h e O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e fo r d i r e c t i o n . G r a d i n g w i t h i n t h e d r i p l i n e o f t h e t r e e s h a l l b e a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y A b o r i s t . B. U t i l i t y a n d D r a i n l i n e s : S h a l l b e l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e r o o t z o n e o f a l l t r e e s s c h e d u l e d f o r pr e s e r v a t i o n . I n c a s e s w h e r e a l t e r n a t i v e r o u t e s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e , u t i l i t y c o n d u i t , p i p e , w i r e an d d r a i n l i n e s s h a l l b e t u n n e l e d u n d e r m a j o r r o o t s . M a j o r r o o t s a r e d e t e r m i n e d t o b e t h o s e th a t e x c e e d t w o ( 2 ) i n c h e s i n d i a m e t e r . I n n o c a s e s h a l l u t i l i t y l i n e s b e p e r m i t t e d w i t h i n s i x (6 ) f e e t o f t h e t r u n k . I m m e d i a t e l y c o n t a c t t h e O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e i f t h e D r a w i n g s co n f l i c t w i t h t h i s . C. A l l a p p r o v e d c o n s t r u c t i o n w o r k w i t h i n t h e r o o t z o n e o f t r e e s s c h e d u l e d f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n s h a l l ob s e r v e t h e f o l l o w i n g m i n i m u m t r e e p r o t e c t i o n : 1. H a n d t r e n c h a t p o i n t o r l i n e o f g r a d e c u t s c l o s e s t t o t h e t r u n k t o e x p o s e m a j o r r o o t s 2- i n c h e s i n d i a m e t e r o r l a r g e r . I n c a s e s w h e r e r o c k o r u n u s u a l l y d e n s e s o i l p r e v e n t s h a n d tr e n c h i n g , m e c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t m a y b e a p p r o v e d b y t h e O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , p r o v i d e d th a t w o r k i n s i d e t h e d r i p - l i n e i s c l o s e l y s u p e r v i s e d b y t h e P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t t o p r e v e n t t e a r i n g or o t h e r d a m a g e t o m a j o r r o o t s . D. R e d i r e c t r o o t s i n b a c k f i l l a r e a s w h e r e p o s s i b l e . I f e n c o u n t e r i n g l a r g e , m a i n l a t e r a l r o o t s , ex p o s e r o o t s b e y o n d e x c a v a t i o n l i m i t s a s r e q u i r e d t o b e n d a n d r e d i r e c t t h e m w i t h o u t br e a k i n g . I f e n c o u n t e r e d i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o l o c a t i o n o f n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d re d i r e c t i o n i s n o t p r a c t i c a l , c u t r o o t s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 - i n c h e s b a c k f r o m n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d E. D o n o t a l l o w e x p o s e d r o o t s t o d r y o u t b e f o r e p l a c i n g p e r m a n e n t b a c k f i l l . P r o v i d e t e m p o r a r y ea r t h c o v e r o r p a c k w i t h p e a t m o s s a n d w r a p w i t h b u r l a p . W a t e r a n d m a i n t a i n i n a m o i s t co n d i t i o n . T e m p o r a r i l y s u p p o r t a n d p r o t e c t r o o t s f r o m d a m a g e u n t i l t h e y a r e p e r m a n e n t l y re l o c a t e d a n d c o v e r e d w i t h s o i l . F. C u t t i n g o f s u b s t a n t i a l r o o t s s h a l l b e a p p r o v e d b y C i t y A r b o r i s t . 3. 0 4 P R U N I N G Al l t r e e p r u n i n g a n d t r e e d a m a g e r e p a i r s h a l l o n l y b e p e r f o r m e d b y a q u a l i f i e d t r e e c a r e sp e c i a l i s t , o r c e r t i f i e d t r e e w o r k e r . V e r i f y a l l p r u n i n g w i t h P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t o r O w n e r s Re p r e s e n t a t i v e p r i o r t o s t a r t o f p r u n i n g w o r k . 1. A n y s a f e t y p r u n i n g s h a l l b e c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h C i t y A r b o r i s t a n d p r u n i n g s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e d by a c i t y - a p p r o v e d A r b o r i s t . B. T r e e s s h a l l b e p r u n e d t o r e d u c e h a z a r d s a n d d e v e l o p a s t r o n g , s a f e f r a m e w o r k o f b r a n c h e s . Tr e e s m a y a l s o b e p r u n e d f o r ' c r o w n c l e a n i n g ' a s d e f i n e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i e t y o f Ar b o r i c u l t u r e P r u n i n g G u i d e l i n e s . A n y p r u n i n g b e y o n d t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s m u s t b e a u t h o r i z e d b y th e P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t i n w r i t i n g . 3. 0 5 R E P A I R & R E P L A C E M E N T A. G e n e r a l : R e p a i r o r r e p l a c e t r e e s a n d v e g e t a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t o r e m a i n o r b e r e l o c a t e d t h a t a r e da m a g e d b y c o n s t r u c t i o n o p e r a t i o n s , i n a m a n n e r a p p r o v e d b y O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e . 1. P e r f o r m r e p a i r s w i t h i n 2 4 h o u r s . 2. R e p l a c e t r e e s a n d v e g e t a t i o n t h a t c a n n o t b e r e p a i r e d a n d r e s t o r e d t o f u l l - g r o w t h p a t t e r n , as d e t e r m i n e d b y P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t . 3. R e p l a c e m e n t p l a n t i n g s h a l l c o n f o r m t o S p e c i f i c a t i o n S e c t i o n L a n d s c a p e P l a n t i n g , a n d so i l a m e n d m e n t s s h a l l c o n f o r m t o S p e c i f i c a t i o n S e c t i o n S o i l P r e p a r a t i o n . B S o i l A e r a t i o n : W h e r e d i r e c t e d b y P r o j e c t A r b o r i s t o r O w n e r s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a e r a t e s u r f a c e so i l c o m p a c t e d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . A e r a t e 1 0 f e e t b e y o n d d r i p l i n e a n d n o c l o s e r t h a n 3 6 in c h e s t o t r e e t r u n k . D r i l l 2 - i n c h d i a m e t e r h o l e s a m i n i m u m o f 1 2 i n c h e s d e e p a t 2 4 i n c h e s o. c . B a c k f i l l h o l e s w i t h a n e q u a l m i x o f a u g e r e d s o i l a n d s a n d . 3. 0 6 R E G R A D I N G A. L o w e r i n g a n d r a i s i n g g r a d e s : W h e r e n e w f i n i s h g r a d e i s i n d i c a t e d b e l o w o r a b o v e e x i s t i n g gr a d e a r o u n d t r e e s , m a i n t a i n e x i s t i n g g r a d e s w i t h i n t h e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e , a n d s l o p e g r a d e be y o n d t h e P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d o n t h e D r a w i n g s . B. L o w e r i n g g r a d e w i t h i n P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e : s l o p e g r a d e a w a y f r o m t r e e s a s r e c o m m e n d e d b y Pr o j e c t A r b o r i s t u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d o n t h e D r a w i n g s . C. M i n o r F i l l w i t h i n P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e : W h e r e e x i s t i n g g r a d e i s 2 i n c h e s o r l e s s b e l o w e l e v a t i o n o f fi n i s h g r a d e , f i l l w i t h t o p s o i l . P l a c e t o p s o i l i n a s i n g l e u n - c o m p a c t e d l a y e r a n d h a n d g r a d e t o re q u i r e d f i n i s h e l e v a t i o n s . 3. 0 8 C L E A N - U P A. R e m o v e w a s t e m a t e r i a l s a n d u n s u i t a b l e a n d e x c e s s m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e O w n e r ' s p r o p e r t y a n d di s p o s e o f l e g a l l y . Motel Inn 2525 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA Job Number: 1474 Drawn By: KB/JL Date: 08/25/2017 Sheet Contents:Sheet Number: M : \ P R O D U C T I O N \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 . 0 5 4 \ C A D \ 1 6 0 5 4 _ L - 4 . 8 _ T r e e P r e s e r v e - A R C . d w g 8 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 7 BFS No.: 16.054SignatureRenewal Date DateNO.L A N D S C A P E A R C HITE C TDESNEC I L S TAT E O F C A L I F ORNIA11-30-17SIMONPHILLIPS4532 08-25-17 5/30/17 PLAN CHECK 1 1 6/21/17 BID SET 2 7/18/17 PLAN CHECK 2 3 Tree Preservation Plan L-3.0 30 60 0$77$&+0(17PC2-25 SH E E T I N C L U D E D F O R RE F E R E N C E O N L Y $77$&+0(17PC2-26 $77$&+0(17PC2-27 SH E E T I N C L U D E D F O R RE F E R E N C E O N L Y $77$&+0(17PC2-28 $77$&+0(17PC2-29 $77$&+0(17PC2-30 REVISIONS PROJECT NUMBER27', FLYING CLOUD 2017 AIRSTREAM DATE SHEETHOFMANN INC. [HOFARC]519 NORTH QUARANTINA STREET SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 (805) 618 - 2461 INFO@HOFARC.COM SCALE10278NTSVIN# SS9YLH-FBF-SHEL EXTERIOR 3D DOCUMENTATION 04/12/17MOTEL INN© 2016 HOFMANN INC.THE DESIGN IDEAS AND PLANS REPRESENTED BY THESE DOCUMENTS ARETHE PROPERTY OF HOFMANN INC. USE OR COPY IS PERMITTED BY CONTRACT ONLY. THE USE OR REVISIONS OF THESE IDEAS OR PLANS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HOFMANN INC.27', FLYING CLOUD 2017 AIRSTREAMRNO:RDATE:RNOTE:COVELOP ST R E E T S I D E I S O M E T R I C EX T E R I O R 1 CU R B S I D E I S O M E T R I C EX T E R I O R 2 3D D O C U M E N T A T I O N Sh e e t s f o r R e f e r e n c e O n l y . Ai r s t r e a m R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d Pe r m i t t i n g g o v e r n e d b y H C D . ATTACHMENT 2 PC2-31 REVISIONS PROJECT NUMBER27', FLYING CLOUD 2017 AIRSTREAM DATE SHEETHOFMANN INC. [HOFARC]519 NORTH QUARANTINA STREET SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 (805) 618 - 2461 INFO@HOFARC.COM SCALE10278NTSVIN# SS9YLH-FBF-SHEL INTERIOR 3D DOCUMENTATION 04/12/17MOTEL INN© 2016 HOFMANN INC.THE DESIGN IDEAS AND PLANS REPRESENTED BY THESE DOCUMENTS ARETHE PROPERTY OF HOFMANN INC. USE OR COPY IS PERMITTED BY CONTRACT ONLY. THE USE OR REVISIONS OF THESE IDEAS OR PLANS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HOFMANN INC.27', FLYING CLOUD 2017 AIRSTREAMRNO:RDATE:RNOTE:COVELOP 3D D O C U M E N T A T I O N FA C I N G R E A R IN T E R I O R 1 FA C I N G F R O N T IN T E R I O R 2 FA C I N G F R O N T IN T E R I O R 3 BA T H R O O M IN T E R I O R 4 Sh e e t s f o r R e f e r e n c e O n l y . Ai r s t r e a m R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d Pe r m i t t i n g g o v e r n e d b y H C D . ATTACHMENT 2 PC2-32 KE Y N O T E S & C O N S T R U C T I O N N O T E S REVISIONS PROJECT NUMBER27', FLYING CLOUD 2017 AIRSTREAM DATE SHEETHOFMANN INC. [HOFARC]519 NORTH QUARANTINA STREET SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 (805) 618 - 2461 INFO@HOFARC.COM SCALE102781/2" = 1'0"VIN# SS9YLH-FBF-SHEL FLOORPLAN 04/12/17MOTEL INN© 2016 HOFMANN INC.THE DESIGN IDEAS AND PLANS REPRESENTED BY THESE DOCUMENTS ARETHE PROPERTY OF HOFMANN INC. USE OR COPY IS PERMITTED BY CONTRACT ONLY. THE USE OR REVISIONS OF THESE IDEAS OR PLANS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF HOFMANN INC.27', FLYING CLOUD 2017 AIRSTREAMRNO:RDATE:RNOTE:COVELOP 2 A3 0 2 1 A302 1 3 4 A B C 2 1 A3 0 3 3 A3 0 4 5 A3 0 5 2 A3 0 3 4 A3 0 4 6 A3 0 5 7 ' - 4 1 / 4 " S U B F L O O R @ I N T . S H E L L 7 ' - 8 1 / 2 " W I D T H O V E R A L L 28 ' - 7 1 / 8 " L E N G T H O V E R A L L 24 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " C U T L I N E @ F L O O R S E C T I O N 23 ' - 8 1 / 2 " S U B F L O O R @ I N T E R I O R S H E L L 1' - 9 3 / 4 " 1 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 7' - 0 3 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 1 1 1 / 8 " 2 ' - 0 " 4' - 8 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 0 " 6' - 8 5 / 8 " 9' - 2 1 / 2 " 17 ' - 2 3 / 8 " 10 " 1' - 8 " 10 " 8' - 0 1 / 2 " 6' - 4 5 / 8 " 3 ' - 0 1 / 8 " 6' - 8 " FI R S T F L O O R P L A N Sc a l e : 1 / 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 1 11 A 23 76 98 10 12 Sh e e t s f o r R e f e r e n c e O n l y . Ai r s t r e a m R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d Pe r m i t t i n g g o v e r n e d b y H C D . ATTACHMENT 2 PC2-33 RESOLUTION NO. PC -1004-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A 55 -ROOM MOTEL/HOTEL AND 23 SPACE RV/AIRSTREAM PARK INCLUDING A 10% SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 23, 2016 (2223 MONTEREY STREET — USE -1035-2015) WHEREAS, on August 26, 2015, 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, for the purpose of conceptual review of the subject project (USE -1035- 2015); Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, 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, for the purpose of Use Permit review of the subject application; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (USE -1035-2015), based on the following findings: 1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. That the proposed 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 and property development standards, the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series), and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 3. That the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent creek and residential uses along San Luis Drive in accordance with the design criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 1130. 4. That the proposed 10% parking reduction will consolidate parking and minimize area devoted exclusively to parking, consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-34 Resolution No. PC -1004-16 USE -1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 2 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program AQ -1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Biol€ pjcal Resources Mitigation Measure BI0-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system. Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure B10-2: 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 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-35 Resolution No. PC -1004-16 USE -1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 3 of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the creek corridor. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR -1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre -historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZA : The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. Monitoring; Plan, HAA -1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action. Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measure: TT -1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as approved by the City and Caltrans. Monitoring Plan, TT -1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November 2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-36 Resolution No. PC -1004-16 USE -1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 4 design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Conditions Planning Division - Community Development Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning 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 shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved plans or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director, Planning Commission or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The bungalow entrances facing the creek shall be removed, to every degree possible, and oriented east/west and/or interior to the site, subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Outdoor activities in patron use areas (i.e. pool, reflecting pool/cabanas, RV/Airstream activity areas) shall cease no later than 10:00 p.m., nightly. 4. Airstream trailers placed adjacent to the creek shall have their entrance doors facing away from the creek or otherwise be buffered from the creek by another trailer. 5. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, taller split rail fencing may be required to appropriately screen headlights from vehicles traveling south in the west and central parking lots. 6. The proposed hot tub(s) associated with suites 41/42 shall not be allowed. 7. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall - mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut - sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3 b. Exterior wall sconce lighting (facing the creek) should be designed so that the light can be switched on and off to avoid constant illumination of the exterior lights. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-37 Resolution No. PG 1004-16 USE -1035-2015 ( 2223 Monterey Street) Page 5 c. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, the RV/Airstream area shall include bollard style lighting along the creek (rather than pole mounted lighting). 8. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is necessary upon significant change to the business as represented in the Planning Commission Agenda Report dated March 23, 2016, or in the event of a change in ownership which may result in deviation from the project description or approved plans. 9. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of the Use Permit review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified. 10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Commissioner Draze, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Draze, Riggs, Fowler, and Chair Larson NOES: Commissioners Dandekar and Malak REFRAIN: None. ABSENT: Vice -Chair Multari The M=s ed and adopted this 23rd day of March, 2016. Dou Davidsoecretary Planning Com fission ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-38 Planning Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 23, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chairperson Larson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Larson led Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: John Fowler, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Hemalata Dandekar, and Chair John Larson. Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Michael Multari City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Contract Planner John Rickenbach, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Transportation Operations Supervisor Jake Hudson, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted with change by Chair Larson to shift Agenda Forecast forward. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minor amendments (surname spelling correction on page 3; casting of votes correction on page 8) made to Minutes of January 27, 2016; motion to adopt as corrected made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Draze; motion passed by consensus. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No member of the Public wished to speak on non-agenda items. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-39 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 2 STAFF DISCUSSION Agenda Forecast: Deputy Director Davidson provided the Agenda Forecast for the month of April: April 13: New Commissioner Oath of Office and election of Chair & Vice-Chair; large tract map of West Creek in Orcutt area; draft EIR for Water Resource Reclamation Facility April 27: Urban Water Management Plan with Water Shortage Contingency Plan; General Plan Annual Report PUBLICHEARING 1. 2223 Monterey Street. USE-1035-2015: Review of a Planning Commission Use Permit request on a property with Special Considerations. Project includes a request to allow a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; C-T-S zone; Motel Inn, L.P., applicant. Associate Planner Carloni highlighted notable changes which include additional entrances associated with creek-facing bungalow units, shortening of RV spaces to get them outside utility easement, and a vegetative split rail fence for blocking headlight glare. Associate Planner Carloni indicated the Architectural Review Commission had suggested that Planning Commission consider whether the two suites (41 &42), whose balconies and outdoor patios are angled toward the creek, are consistent with Ordinance 1130; recommended adopting draft resolution approving project which allows issuance of use permit, 10% parking reduction, and approval of mitigated negative declaration. COMMISSION QUESTIONS In response to Commissioner Fowler’s inquiries, Associate Planner Carloni informed that the gym and laundry areas had been moved around in the main lobby such that additional units replaced them and an RV space was lost when spaces moved forward out of the easement; affirmed that there are ten (10) Airstreams clustered on site with condition of approval aimed at doorways oriented away from creek; indicated that bike parking requirement is for seven (7) spaces, six (6) of which would be interior and the other a short-term space adjacent to main building. APPLICANT COMMENT Architect Damian Davis, representing the Applicant, spoke on how Ordinance 1130 relates to project property; detailed project’s history to its current iteration of reduced and appropriate scale and massing; discussed separation of entrances at bungalows for increased guest privacy and flow; discussed the balconies in Suites 41 & 42 being at 45-degree angle to nearest ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-40 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 3 neighbor approximately 150 feet away through dense brush; indicated that additional planned landscaping was most likely extraneous insofar as planned refinements should mitigate any major neighborhood compatibility issue; stated that only one property on San Luis Drive is directly across the creek from RV site and that the RV spaces are designed to be back-in so as to avoid headlights shining into the riparian area. PUBLIC COMMENT Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced appreciation of the historical nature of project and its property; stated that approval of project should be delayed until availability of water. Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, lives on San Luis Drive; voiced concern that uniqueness of project will gain itself an approval in a fashion that may compromise the integrity and applicability of Ordinance 1130; questioned why sought-after demographic for RV area would need or want picnic tables. COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner Draze questioned whether creekside walkway might be inconvenient for accessing bungalow entrances; endorsed shifting of entryways to other faces of each bungalow and away from facing creek; supports screening upper balconies of suites 41 & 42 from view of residents of creek area. Commissioner Fowler voiced adulation for project and commended changes made; shared his belief that the number of separate bungalow entrances pushes too far on his comfort level with Ordinance 1130 and that reverting to shared entrances would seem better solution. Commissioner Malak endorsed shifting bungalow entrances to non-creekside faces; discussed potentially adding the “decks facing creek area should be screened with walls” recommendation item to the Resolution. In response to Commissioner Malak’s inquiry, Transportation Operations Supervisor Jake Hudson detailed the evaluations made by two separate traffic studies pertaining to the Motel Inn driveway access from the Caltrans Highway 101 ramp; indicated how the more recent traffic conflict analysis led to the median refuge island facilitating vehicles turning left from out of the site and realignment of the curbline along site’s frontage for slowing down traffic accelerating onto freeway. Commissioner Malak added consideration of a Resolution Condition for installation of electric vehicle charging stations onsite; recommended the Applicant to discuss active and passive solar opportunities with City s taff. Commissioner Dandekar indicated she favors two relatively small plan changes: altering bungalow entrances away from creekside and move unit 41 & 42’s balconies to face internal courtyard. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-41 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Riggs found project reasonable; stressed that 1130 is not a separate noise ordinance that diverts from existing noise policy; voiced viewpoint on seeing consensus for, specifically, creek-facing entrances and suggested formal motion for continuance should Chair deem Commission approval-ready. Chair Larson indicated that, his recommendation is toward any provision which would move creekside entrances in some fashion which would reflect collective spirit in implementing 1130 and minimize the number of openings facing the creek; commented that his viewpoint on the balconies of units 41 & 42 obliquely face the creek; agreed with Commissioner Malak’s suggestion of project benefitting from electric charging stations; agreed with Commissioner Riggs on the appropriateness of the continuance given the concerns and that Commission’s approval is final approval on Conditional Use Permit. Deputy Director Davidson suggested three (3) relatively minor changes in which to collaborate with Applicant toward offering conditions for Commission deliberation: 1.) Main unit entrances shall be accessed from central courtyard as opposed to creek location; 2.) Entrances shall be eliminated from the creek, either by going with side-by-side openings or reverting to original proposal which had minimum number of doors facing creek; and 3.) Balconies on units 41 & 42 shall be oriented away from facing creek and oriented more towards central courtyard. Commissioner Dandekar supported Staff’s conditional given their relatively small design changes and favored moving forward past continuance; Commissioner Draze voiced preference for avoiding continuance if resolution within Hearing is possible and indicated entrances from central courtyard should be a singular option for guests as opposed to a condition; Commissioner Fowler stated preference for moving forward past continuance and through conditions while further stressing the minimization of openings and noise levels. Commissioner Malak favored moving forward directly and shifting unit 41’s balcony to face the pool; Commissioner Riggs conditioned previous statement to reflect that, in his estimation, the balconies should not be part of the conditions; Commissioner Dandekar voiced support of picnic tables being in line with design principles. APPLICANT RESPONSE Chair Larson requested Applicant commentary on Commission being uniform regarding bungalow entrances and on energy conservation measures onsite including potential for vehicle charging stations. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere commented on solar panels and electric charging stations by stating that the City does not impose standards on projects and it has no environmental evaluations that would otherwise suggest them as mitigation measures. Architect Davis concurred with Commission on side entrances being physically doable and stated preference for doing so as a Condition as opposed to extending Meeting; informed that Studio Design Group Architects is already working with Tesla on Tesla’s project of placing up to 20 charging stations in the area and, uncertain if Motel Inn project can progress quickly ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-42 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 5 enough to take advantage of this station-for-power exchange scenario, Applicant believes it to work on sufficient demographic levels to warrant pursuing it. In response to Commissioner Malak’s inquiry, Architect Davis indicated he doesn’t envision opportunity for roof-mounted solar panels on this project without incurring a negative aesthetic impact; shared his uneasiness to commit to solar canopies as a Condition but indicated Applicant would consider them. COMMISSION RESPONSE In response to Chair Larson’s request for precise recommendation language, Associate Planner Carloni drafted more formal conditions for consideration which could include 1.) Bungalow entrances facing the creek shall be removed and oriented east-west and/or interior to the site; and 2.) Westernmost balcony associated with suites 41 & 42 shall be oriented interior to the site; both conditions inserted into Conditions in numerical order as appropriate and both subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt the draft resolution as approved with the addition of Condition 1 but adding the clause “to every degree possible” to follow the word “removed”; Chair Larson concurred in spirit of consistency with Ordinance 1130; Commissioner Draze seconded. Chair Larson stated the motion: To approve Staff recommendation approving Condition Use Permit with Findings and Conditions as presented with Amendments discussed and with two additional conditions, the first one related to moving the entrances on the units adjacent to the creek. Commissioner Fowler made point of clarification that the Motion-maker had solely indicated Condition 1; Commissioner Riggs agreed and stipulated that he was not including Condition 2 as part of the Motion. Commissioner Dandekar opined that stated clause in Motion should be applied to both Conditions; Commissioner Draze, as Second to Motion, indicated he understood Motion was inclusive of balconies but while he’d prefer to see Applicant move westernmost balcony on units 41 & 42, his larger preference is for not voting against the project, hence allowing his Second to stand. Commissioner Riggs re-stated the Motion as adopting Resolution with the inclusion of Condition 1; Larson qualified that Motion excluded Condition related to shifting balconies on units 41 & 42. Commissioner Fowler voiced concurrence with re-stated Motion; Commissioner Dandekar stated that she takes issue with removal of Condition 2 from Motion; Commissioner Malak voiced opinion that including Condition 2 in Motion moves toward possibility of Applicant considering implementation of screen or walls on balconies toward minimizing noise in creek area; Commissioner Riggs stated his reasoning behind excluding Condition 2 from Motion. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-43 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 6 Action: UPON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RIGGS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAZE, the Commission adopted a Resolution to approve Staff recommendation approving Condition Use Permit with Findings and Conditions as presented with Amendments discussed (Condition 1, bungalow entrances facing the creek shall be removed and oriented east-west and/or interior to the site). Motion passed 4:2:0:1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: Riggs, Draze, Fowler, Larson NOES: Malak, Dandekar RECUSED: None ABSENT: Multari Chair Larson informed that he recuses himself from Item #2 per employer involvement with project; handed Chairmanship to Commissioner Draze and called for recess. 2. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX-1502-2015: Preliminary review of the Development Plan for the San Luis Ranch project; review of Development Plan chapters regarding Circulation and Infrastructure Framework. Acting Chair Draze resumed Hearing; Commissioner Riggs noted as being absent from dais for Item #2; Deputy Director Davidson introduced Contract Planner Rickenbach for Staff presentation of Development Plan. Contract Planner Rickenbach provided PowerPoint slides of the development’s conceptual framework which included a summary of LUCE direction and a suite of relevant General Plan policies dealing with circulation and infrastructure. APPLICANT COMMENT Project Representative Marshal Ochylski mentioned that the Applicant team is currently integrating feedback from initial Commission hearing into project refinements; invited same level of opportunistic feedback toward infrastructure & utilities issues; introduced Wallace Group CEO Brad R. Brechwald to discuss engineering aspects & RRM Design Group Architect Scott Martin to discuss circulation and infrastructure design of the project. Architect Scott Martin briefly detailed project’s former life history as Measure “J” to demonstrate contrasting its current land use plan’s traffic reductions; discussed the intended maintaining of agricultural space, lessening of commercial space than previously proposed, and a project defined by a variety of multimodal transportation options. Wallace Group Principal Brad Brechwald presented collaborative work with CannonCorp Engineering, who had prepared water assessment study, pertaining to utilities, aspects of grading and drainage. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-44 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 7 PUBLIC COMMENT Wendy Brown, San Luis Obispo, representing Central Coast Grown (CCG), adjacent neighbors to south of project, read letter she sent to Commission which commented upon aspects of Plan affecting CCG’s City-leased agricultural preserve; requested the monitoring of project’s wells each September and measures provided if water table drops; requested alteration in project’s cut & fill procedures and that their agricultural land be deemed onsite. Scott Head, San Luis Obispo, spoke from perspective of resident on Oceanaire concerned with minimizing noise level impacts, suggesting both the proposed transit stop and bicycle staging areas be shifted away from where his residential street meets Froom Ranch Way and more proximal to site; spoke in favor of proposed Prefumo Creek bike path, but stressed concerns regarding where it has been designed in relation to existing resident’s privacy. Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, representing Bike SLO County, reiterated that if all San Luis Ranch residents drive to their destinations, traffic will certainly gridlock; requests that City partner with developer on connectivity that would be improvement on currently inaccessible Madonna Road bike path and dangerous Marsh Street route at 101 onramps; questioned why Dalidio is 4-lane expressway if intent is to maximize alternative modes of transportation. Cynde Spence, San Luis Obispo, spoke from perspective of holder of Bachelor’s degree in Architecture and Master’s in Planning; expressed support of project as fitting within parameters of most recent LUCE and adequate in its bicycling aspects. Myron Amerine, San Luis Obispo, Vice-Chair of SLO County Bicycle Advisory Committee, displayed image of project’s roadway cross section in which pertinent width dimensions deviate negatively from City standards; commended Applicant on Class 1, 2, 3 & 4 bicycle facilities, shared concerns about Dalidio being a multi-lane expressway without a protected bike lane and about insufficient phasing of circulation infrastructure on Froom Ranch Way. Kevin Houber, San Luis Obispo, resident since 1979, commented positively on reports indicating City has adequate water supply, pointing out disparity of various computer models data; stated that project addresses decent affordable housing supply issue in a manner that impacts environment in much more favorable way than a building moratorium to conserve water would. Theodora Jones, San Luis Obispo, requested that Phase 1 drainoff issue be addressed more carefully; advocated, in regards to proposed project egress, for cyclists using Oceanaire as throughway but feared for their safety crossing Madonna Road; requested developer maintain Phase 3 as scheduled to prevent over-saturation of construction trucks in neighborhood from occurring any earlier; questioned how projection for 500 homes of work force housing would compute to the 87 children penciled in there. Enrique Ivers, San Luis Obispo, shared City population statistics to demonstrate the City’s slow growth in new housing and the small percentage of population aged 25-44 as a demographic that doesn’t bode well for family development and sustainability; voiced being in ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-45 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 8 favor of the quoted affordable prices for project’s homes. Dan Balicki, San Luis Obispo, shared concerns in tandem with commenting favorably on project; commented unfavorably on potential expansion of Oceanaire to become a major thoroughfare, the expense of City water, the influx of students to CL Smith and Laguna Middle School. Geoffrey Chiapella, San Luis Obispo, transportation planner representing SLOCOG, endorsed project as being consistent with Land Use Development Pattern of 2014 Regional Transportation Plan in multiple capacities; recognized importance of Prado Road interchange or overpass as access to employment arenas and aid to crosstown traffic. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, stated that project’s 131 acres of Class 1 agriculture land is one of 100 parcels in the County with this quality of soil and she would consider it a tragedy if this development builds on it; shared that she had previously voiced an alternative acreage swap arrangement with Cal Poly to place such a project on University land and allow for academia-related work farm environment; stated that 3.5 years of water remaining for current residents is drastically insufficient and calls for a temporary building moratorium. Paul Rys , San Luis Obispo, shared concern about entitlements being provided to development investors in advance in a time when local government entities are suing one another over too much water being used by the latter; shared a second concern regarding mentally ill homeless at Prado Day Center gaining easy walking distance to development if Prado overpass is constructed. COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner Fowler commented on the sheer amount of information that still remains to be analyzed and studied even after most current commentary about water, traffic, sewer, etc. have been absorbed; posed questions for future consideration pertaining to multiple arenas such as freeway access, determination of phasing features and timing with regards to eventual infrastructure pushback, the number of units which are actually going to be affordable and at what level, etc.; shared concerns about topsoil and drainage issues; requested more specificity in key areas such as range of price point affordability and degrees of community benefit. Commissioner Malak shared concerns about 18-inches of topsoil and considered the idea of garnering fill from elsewhere. Commissioner Dandekar echoed her comment from Avila Ranch discussion in regards to Buckley Road bypass by stating that the issue of Dalidio-Prado connection is more than just a developer’s issue but rather one concerning what stance City wishes to take on the phasing; suggested collective influence on prioritization and strategic planning on how proposed elements hook up with the circulation grid of the City as opposed to attaching sole funding responsibility to Applicants of major developments. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-46 Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 2016 Page 9 Acting Chair Draze encouraged avoidance of any onsite cul-de sacs; discouraged moving Class 1 soils and recommending consulting heavily with City Resource Manager; shared concern with phasing and, in particular, the late phasing of Froom Ranch bridge; advocated for Public Works expertise in wastewater questions; responded to Public Commenter Paul Rys by indicating City is a long way from entitlements and no one wants to engage in moratoriums. Project Representative Ochylski expressed gratitude to Commission and Public for its thoughtful commentary. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Brad T. Opstad Recording Secretary APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: May 11, 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-47 RESOLUTION NO. ARC -1002-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A 55 -ROOM MOTEL/HOTEL AND 23 SPACE RV/AIRSTREAM PARK WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ON THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC MOTEL INN PROPERTY, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 21, 2016 (2223 MONTEREY STREET — ARCH -2363- 2015) WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conceptual architectural review of the subject project (ARCH -2363-2015); Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of historic preservation review of the subject project and recommended approval to the Architectural Review Commission; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of design review of the subject application; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and - the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final design approval to the project (ARCH -2363-2015), based on the following findings: 1. That, consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines, the project is compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with buildings in the Monterey Street neighborhood. 2. That, consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the neighborhood. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-48 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 2 3. That, consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates sufficient articulation/wall plane movement throughout all elevations that avoids the appearance of "boxy" structures. 4. That the project is consistent with the height/setback and design requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series). That, consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (Resolution No. 1000-16), the proposed new structures are compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the Master List Historic Motel Inn and project site. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission finds that the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly characterizes the project's potentially significant impacts, and that the incorporated mitigation measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. Final review and decision on the MND will be performed by the Planning Commission. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following note to the Planning Commission and conditions of approval: Note to Planning Commission The Planning Commission should review the consistency of the upper floor balconies facing the creek (Suites 41/42 on Plan Sheet A1.2) with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3. Conditions Planning Division - Community Development Department Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed -on product and have a smooth hand -troweled or sand finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide final design details for the trash enclosure(s). Final designs shall be consistent with the overall theme of the project and shall incorporate screening plantings, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-49 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 3 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly demonstrate compliance with height requirements of the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.040). The height of the proposed bell tower/spire shall be adjusted for compliance. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall -mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall - mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut - sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3 b. Exterior wall sconce lighting (facing the creek) should be designed so that the light can be switched on and off to avoid constant illumination of the exterior lights. c. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, the RV/Airstream area shall include bollard style lighting along the creek (rather than pole mounted lighting). 7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line -of -sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. a. Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the object of interest. b. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, additional landscape plantings shall be provided and maintained along the Highway 101 frontage for additional screening of the parking and RV/Airstream area. Caltrans approval may be required dependent on location of landscape plantings relative to property lines. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-50 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 ( 2223 Monterey Street) Page 4 9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. Engineering Division — Public Works/Community Development Department Condition(s) 11. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance. 12. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building permit issuance if required by the Building Division and/or Planning Division. Contact the Planning Division to initiate the Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or subdivision process. 13. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with State HCD requirements for all proposed RV and Airstream spaces. 14. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12. 16.050 15. The required off-site public improvements from the traffic study shall be completed with a separate public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department and Cal Trans. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. A separate improvement plan review base fee payable to the Public Works Department shall be required for the Public Works Department review of the improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said review fee shall be in accordance with the improvement plan review fee resolution in effect at the time of the building permit application submittal. 16. The miscellaneous public improvement plan submittal shall show modifications to the driveway approach in accordance with the traffic study and the revised geometry of the 101 off ramp. All driveway work shall be in accordance with city engineering standards and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-51 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 5 17. A separate encroachment permit and/or plan approvals may be required from Cal Trans for any work or construction staging within or affecting the Cal Trans right-of-way. 18. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 19. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 20. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc. shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle. 21. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks. The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and clearances to obstructions per city standard. The project summary shall include the required and proposed bicycle parking accordingly. a. Short-term bicycle racks of the inverted "U" design or "Peak Racks" shall be installed in close proximity to, and visible from the main entry into the building. Dimension the minimum clearances between racks shall be per city standards/adopted guidelines. b. Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers installed either within or outside the building. As an alternative, a lockable room within the building(s) labeled and reserved for bicycle storage may substitute for bicycle lockers. Provide details and specs for bicycle lockers to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 22. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the Property Owner's Association or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. 23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-52 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 6 Services to the new structures shall be underground. Undergrounding to the new structures and facilities shall be completed without a net increase of utility poles within the public right- of-way unless specifically approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 24. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the city's Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 25. This property is located in an AE flood zone. Any structure located within the flood zone must be constructed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation BFE). Additional freeboard to 2' above the BFE may result in additional savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 26. The developer shall process a Letter of Map Change (LOMC) to show that the new structures and building/site service equipment are located outside the Special Flood Hazard Area. The LOMC shall be processed and finalized prior to building permit issuance. If the structures will be removed based on fill, then a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be processed prior to building/grading permit issuance with a LOMR to be processed within 6 months of the completion of grading and prior to final inspection approvals/occupancy. 27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 28. The building plan submittal shall include complete topographic information along the creek bank. Any proposed creek bank stabilization measures shall be to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. The building plan submittal shall include the review and recommendations from a soils engineer/engineering geologist on the stability of the existing creek banks and any recommendations regarding building setbacks, site grading and drainage recommendations, etc. 29. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan, Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report to show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan and the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. The analysis shall be expanded or amended as necessary to include any proposal for fill within the special flood hazard area. 30. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-53 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 7 sites. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City's Website. 31. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. 32. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi -Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 33. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city's Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 34. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer's, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance if applicable. 35. Erosion control measures are required in accordance with the grading ordinance and Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Provide an erosion control plan and/or erosion control notes on the plans to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained during all construction and ground disturbing activities. Add notes to the grading plan as necessary. A detailed erosion control plan is required in accordance with Waterway Management Plan Section 3.7 and Section 10.0. 36. A soils report will be required for development of all new structures, site improvements, retaining walls, new parking lot areas, and for public improvements. The soils report shall be included with the building permit submittal package and with the submittal of public improvement plans if applicable. 37. The building plan submittal shall include a complete landscape plan including the planting along the Highway 101 corridor adjacent to the site to accommodate screening of trees and shrubs. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-54 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 8 38. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed trees. The plan shall show the trees to be removed, transplanted, and/or saved. A tree protection plan and/or strategy shall be provided for all trees to be retained or transplanted to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance. 39. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. A separate report from a Certified Arborist may be required at the discretion of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city -approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 40. A tree protection/transplanting surety shall be provided as part of the tree protection plan/strategy. The surety shall be provided prior to building permit issuance and shall remain on file with a sunset date as established by the project arborist to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Building Division — Community Development Department Code Requirement(s) 41. Verify plans provide a "Code Analysis" to show compliance with CBC requirements Chapters 5, 6, 7, & 10. Utilities Department Condition(s) 42. Any private water or sewer services that cross one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall provide evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been recorded prior to final Building Permit. 43. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer. 44. The project's Utility Plan shall clearly show the extent of the City's existing sewer easement through the property. Private storm drainage structures and trees will not be permitted in the City's easement. 45. The Utility Plan shall clearly show landscape water meters for each parcel. One landscape meter may be used for all three parcels if the parcels are under the same ownership and a Lot -Tie Agreement is provided. Code Requirement(s) ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-55 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 9 46. The project's estimated total water use (ETWU) shall not exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) which is required during the declared drought emergency. 47. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.0 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 Fire Department Condition(s) 48. Access and water supply shall comply with the Fire Code as required by the California Health Safety Code for Recreational Vehicle/Special Occupancy Parks. Access road shall be at least 20 feet in width with no parking. Fire hydrants, on minimum 6" mains, shall be spaced so as not to exceed 150 feet from any RV space. Show location of all on-site fire hydrants. Show minimum 6 inch under ound fire line or lines to feed all buildings and hydrants. Show how underaround fire line will serve all building that are within the scope of this project . 49. All permanent buildings in this project shall have fire sprinklers designed and install to NFPA 13 standards, fire sprinkler risers shall be in a sprinkler riser room with exterior door access. Show locations of all riser rooms. Show location of backflow device and Fire Department Connection. 50. All buildings shall be constructed to CBC Chapter 7A standards for exposure to wildfire, with the exception of glazing. Add note to plans submitted for a building peranit. 51. Clarify that the fire sprinkler system backflow device and Fire Department Connection will be a maximum of 20 feet from the public water main tie-in. 52. Add note: The proposed fire apparatus access turnaround hammerhead will be achieved using the "acceptable alternative to hammerhead" in the 2013 California Fire Code Appendix D page 544. Natural Resources Division Condition(s) 53. The riparian open space area shall be encumbered by a permanent open space easement, per Ordinance 1130, to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and City's Attorney's Office. On motion by Commissioner Andreen, seconded by Commissioner Soll, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Andreen, Nemcik, Root, Soll and Vice -Chair Ehdaie NOES: None. REFRAIN: None. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-56 Resolution No. ARC -1002-16 ARCH -2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 10 ABSENT: None. The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21St day of March, 2016. Doug Davidsan, Secretary Architectural Review Commission ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-57 Architectural Review Commission Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 2016 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Allen Root, Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, and Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie Absent: Commissioner Ken Curtis and Chair Greg Wynn Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Ehdaie called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Commissioner Nemcik proposed the following amendment to the Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2015: 1) Insertion on Page 6, fifth paragraph: “are a good idea but does not believe they would…” Commissioner Andreen proposed the following amendment to the Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2015: 1) Page 4, fifth paragraph, first sentence revised to read: “Commissioner Andreen shared her belief that 20% approximately 30% reduction in parking gets ahead of habits and realities of community-living;” ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROOT to approve both sets of the Minutes, as amended, passed unanimously 5:0. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-58 Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 21, 2016 Page 2 1. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-2363-2015; Review of hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements on the Master List Historic Motel Inn property. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission; C-T-S zone; Motel Inn, L.P., applicant. Deputy Director Davidson introduced Associate Planner Carloni to provide the Staff Report presentation of the Motel Inn project. Applicant Representative, Damian Davis of Studio Design Group Architects, commended Staff for their explanation of project’s evolution; explained design feature decision to shift seven hotel doors towards, and six doors away from, creekside. COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiries, Associate Planner Carloni indicated he was unaware of any plans for screens on entrance doors for ventilation; indicated that doors were strictly planned to be oriented differently and would not substantially impact traffic flow from the walkway; recognized that entrances per Ordinance 1130 considerations were a functional issue for Planning Commission (PC) than design issue in ARC purview but reminded that Staff was looking for feedback to inform PC’s decision. In response to Commissioner Root’s inquiry, Associate Planner Carloni stated that the discrepancy between Planning Division’s Condition 4 of Resolution and the Project Statistics Table per Maximum Height of Structure will be updated to match the “as conditioned with project.” In response to Commissioner Root’s second inquiry, Applicant Representative Davis indicated that Public Art question had not been addressed, that Applicant would pay the in-lieu fees and would also remain open to further consideration. PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice Chair Ehdaie mentioned that one piece of correspondence had been received by Staff from David and Sandy Garth, residents on San Luis Drive, in support of the project. Cliff Branch, San Luis Obispo, shared views that the site has been vacant for an inordinate amount of time, voicing support of the proposed project. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-59 Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 21, 2016 Page 3 COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commissioner Root and Commissioner Nemcik’s inquiries, Associate Planner Carloni displayed PowerPoint site plan comparisons which incorporate new creek views and indicate different side-loaded entrances for guests; pointed out that side entrances still exist in the new plan and half of them have been shifted toward creek. Commissioner Andreen initially opined that because additional openings had been newly created, the project was no longer in technical compliance with the ordinance that protects adjacent creek neighbors from noise, none of the properly noticed neighbors were on hand to voice concerns, voiced that she could support design change. Commissioner Root suggested that any potential noise concerns are driven less by the orientation of the doorways than by the number of occupied rooms; indicated he was pleased with the new iteration. In response to Commissioner Nemcik’s inquiry, Applicant Representative Davis established that the placement of entrances on different building faces was important as guest and unit privacy was compromised in the plans calling for side-by-side doors ten 10) feet apart. Commissioner Andreen motioned to approve the Cultural Heritage Committee’s finding of consistency with the historic preservation of the project, the recommendation to the Planning Commission that they adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the ordinance that the project is consistent with Community Design Guidelines and Ordinance 1130. Commissioner Soll recommended the addition of highlighted consideration, per ARC concern, of both the balcony attached to Suites 41 & 42 and the RV site’s picnic tables; Commissioner Andreen accepted recommendation as part of the Motion. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, the Commission approved the Cultural Heritage Committee’s finding of consistency with historic preservation; approved making the recommendation to the Planning Commission that they adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Ordinance 1130 and the ordinance indicating project is consistent with Community Design Guidelines; approved the additional recommendation to Planning Commission to place emphasis on consideration of both the balcony attached to suites 41 & 42 and recreational vehicle site’s picnic tables. Motion passed 5:0:0:2 on the following roll call vote: AYES: Andreen, Soll, Root, Nemcik, Ehdaie NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Curtis, Wynn ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-60 Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 21, 2016 Page 4 2. 408 Prado Road. ARCH-2663-2016; Conceptual architectural review of 36 affordable housing units on Lot 108 within Serra Meadows; R-3-SP zone; San Luis Obispo Non-Profit, applicant. Assistant Planner Bell provided an overview of staff’s recommendation and indicated ARC’s purview was to review project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines in the Margarita Area Specific Plan; provided PowerPoint slides displaying a contextual map of the project, documentation of the project description, and an outline of five (5) directional items of potential concern as they pertain to guideline compliance, reduced setbacks, maximum height of structures and design details for parking facilities. Scott Smith, Executive Director of Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) provided updates on other HASLO projects that had previously appeared in front of Commission and introduced Architect Scott Martin to make presentation. Project Architect Scott Martin, RRM Design Group, provided documentation guiding the workforce housing project; showed graphics of the site plan and discussed request for slight height increase for lowest building on hill; disclosed project is requesting more density than what is allowed in Airport Land Use Plan. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Andreen shared concern that the R-3 development may not effectively function as part of Serra Meadows if impenetrable to neighbors; Architect Martin indicated Applicant would seek as many pedestrian penetrations into the site as possible. In response to Commissioner Nemcik’s inquiry, Architect Martin explained that side yard exceptions are being requested due to a need for deepened footing where dramatic grading has occurred; Planner Bell responded that the request, within affordable incentive allowances, is for a five (5) foot reduction providing for a ten (10) foot yard all around property along street front. In response to Commissioner Root’s inquiries, Architect Martin suggested a bus stop internal to and on western edge of site and mentioned that a major pedestrian connection would be walking distance down Violet; endorsed the interior street concept as a better alternative to placing a parking lot next to residential homes; confirmed that the 12% grade of driveway is steep, but that 15% is maximum for emergency services, so maintained that project envisions same corner to be primary access. In response to Acting Chair Ehdaie’s inquiries, Architect Martin responded that project’s idea of prominently framing primary entry with buildings that provide community space and public functions would serve as a de facto neighborhood meeting spot identifier; detailed goal of creating senses of ownership through delicate balance in and resident progression through public, semi-public and private spaces. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-61 Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 21, 2016 Page 5 In response to Commissioner Soll’s inquiries, Architect Martin pointed out that residential access points are through front doors; indicated project is heavily considering solar possibilities, stated that parking area allows for two-way traffic and both plazas are intended for community gathering spaces. In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiry, Architect Martin shared that Applicant has planned for open parking; fielded Commissioner Andreen’s encouragement to research storage space outside units as valid feedback while pointing out area on site plan that shows potential for bicycle parking. In response to Commissioner Nemcik’s inquiry, Architect Martin noted that Applicant has considered pavers and colored concrete for parking paving differentiation material, but remains open to suggestion. In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiry, Architect Martin responded that the anticipation is for residential children to feed regional park system and linear parks along Margarita, envisioning site as a natural setting and as part of a developing neighborhood as opposed to a stand-alone project implementing a controlled, over- articulated recreational area. Commissioner Andreen opined that kids require hard surface in safe environment beyond the parking area. In response to Acting Chair Ehdaie’s inquiry regarding the breaking down of parking into smaller lots embedded with the buildings, Architect Martin reported that the alternative was the park-along-street concept; indicated that breaking up parking means more circulation, more asphalt, less landscape, and less building. PUBLIC COMMENTS Robert DeVries, San Luis Obispo, commented as a pilot that site is directly under departure area for northern air traffic and, being at highest elevation, will be in receipt of most noise, so suggested increased building insulation; reported that there is no designated place for children to play in area and the park pictured in presentation is a clearance area high in grass and under PG&E high-tension wires. Cliff Branch, San Luis Obispo, spoke as longtime developer in the County and disclosed he has family with non-refundable deposit invested in property proximal to project site; informed that 12% slope is in straight line with Aster that will need to be carved out of area; voiced concern that with a 10-foot setback and three-story building, attention is needed to view angles on homes yet to be built; commented that the most prominent site in area is scheduled for highest-density housing which generates multiple issues. Annie Shanks, San Luis Obispo, spoke as resident of Serra Meadows; voiced struggle with concept of affordable housing and its relationship to structure planned for top of hill, three stories seeming inordinately high for the site; questioned whether “ affordable housing” indicated homes for sale or for rent and wondered if residents within would be part of Serra Meadows HOA. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-62 Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 21, 2016 Page 6 COMMISSION DISCUSSION HASLO Executive Director Smith stated that the units are planned as rentals, citing that it is much more difficult to market housing for sale to the $35K-$45K annual income range. Acting Chair Ehdaie and Commissioner Andreen requested qualification on Public Comment’s HOA question; HASLO Executive Director Smith stated that HASLO would retain ownership and management of HOA membership via the functioning of an employee who will live onsite and report on it to HASLO directly. Deputy Director Davidson informed that the affordable housing parking requirement and the zoning ordinance for affordable housing are written as basically one space per two- bedroom unit; suggested Commission discuss each of the five (5) Directional Items in roundtable fashion along with additional comments not already broached. Commissioner Soll spoke favorably on the courtyard area and commented that further landscaping would be important to reduce massing of building from perspective of neighborhood below. Commissioner Nemcik suggested Applicant consider angled parking and one-way directional as means of not having to request exception. Per maximum height of structures as it relates to building design, Commissioner Andreen indicated she would not reject request for additional three (3) feet out of hand but it would still be more important to consider how added dimension would impact appearance from neighborhood’s perspective; Assistant Planner Bell responded to Acting Chair Ehdaie’s question by stating that these types of exception requests are different from standard exceptions insofar as they work as incentives in affordable housing scenarios. Assistant Planner Bell explained that the building requesting the three feet is the same as the adjacent one in terms of style and layout but its measurements are altered from maximum height based on where it’s located on slope; Commissioners Root, Nemcik and Ehdaie indicated they would favor granting this exception; Vice Chair Ehdaie indicated support of the height exception, while reminding the Applicant that increasing the setback as much as possible to alleviate the overlook issue would be optimal. Per the proposed parking lot for compliance with site planning: Commissioner Root shared opinion that the use of alternative paving, surrounding landscaping and circulation warrants the design in this direction while insisting on criteria of planters every six spaces would not make it work as well; Commissioner Nemcik shared belief that insufficient parking issue needs to be addressed; Commissioner Andreen indicated that it is more important to maximize parking and the strict enforcement of every sixth planter rule would infringe on it; Commissioner Soll commended alternative paving; ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-63 Minutes Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 21, 2016 Page 7 Acting Chair Ehdaie shared opinion that the parking design works in terms of balance between maximizing affordable housing with its allowable parking. Commissioner Andreen voiced strong endorsement for Applicant to place more emphasis on consideration of children living in neighborhoods that support young families and make provisions for places for them to play safely. AGENDA FORECAST Deputy Director Davidson provided the schedule itinerary for April: April 4th: Oath of Office for the re-appointed Commissioner Nemcik; Election of Chair and Vice-Chair; BMW dealership re-location to Calle Joaquin; re-design of four (4) single-family residences at 323 Grand; back deck of SLO Brew’s new location on Higuera April 18th: 71 Palomar; two commercial-industrial buildings on Via Esteban and at 179 Cross ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Ehdaie adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Brad T. Opstad Recording Secretary Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on May 2, 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-64 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-1000-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FIND THE PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THE MASTER LIST MOTEL INN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 25, 2016 ( 2223 MONTEREY STREET – ARCH-2363-2015) WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH- 2363-2015; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. That the proposed new structures on the Historic Motel Inn site are consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, since historic character-defining features will be retained because the proposed structures are located approximately 20-feet behind the historic structures with no proposed modification to the historic structures. 2. That the proposed new structures are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the new construction is differentiated yet complimentary and compatible with the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the historic motel and project site. 3. That the proposed new structures are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the new additions are adjacent to the historic structures and if removed in the future will leave the form and integrity of the historic property/environment unimpaired. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Cultural Heritage Committee finds that the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources, and that the incorporated mitigations measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-65 Resolution No. CHC-1000-16 ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 2 impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. SECTION 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application ARCH-2363-2015, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. The project shall be in accordance with the mitigations measures identified in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration including the following: a. Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts (Mitigation Measure CR-1). On motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee Member Larrabee, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Papp, and Walthert NOES: None. REFRAIN: None. ABSENT: None. The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January, 2016. Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-66 r Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES January 25, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee arrived at 5:56 p.m.), James Papp, Leah Walthert, Vice -Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Codron, Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Contract Planner Shawna Scott, and Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES By consensus, the committee approved the Minutes of November 23, 2015 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS There were no members of the public desiring to speak. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Citywide. ARCH -2408-2015; Review of City wayfinding signs: Downtown Orientation Map kiosks and a new City Hall Information Center and Wayfinding Kiosk in the Downtown Historic District, City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-67 CHC Minutes 01-25-16 Page 2 Associate Planner Cohen narrated a PowerPoint presentation and presented a brief timeline of events, noting that the project was developed with the assistance of RRM Design Group and Rademaker Design. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no members of the public desiring to speak. There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Associate Planner Cohen presented the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosk mock up samples, describing the dimensions: 7 feet tall and five feet 6 inches wide; added that the information displayed on the kiosk will be double -sided and located in pedestrian walkways in locations that will be identifiable from a distance; stated that the City Hall mailboxes will be relocated and the City Hall Information Center and Wayfinding Kiosk will replace the existing kiosk. Associate Planner Cohen presented a map of the proposed locations of the kiosks, highlighting that the Wayfinding Kiosk will be located in front of City Hall and incorporate similar colors and design to the City Hall Building. Chair Hill recognized Engineer III McGuire, Debbie Rudd of RRM Design Group, and Pierre Rademaker of Rademaker Design to answer inquiries made by the Committee. Committee Member Kincaid inquired about the lack of a kiosk in the quadrant near the Firestone Grill area, noting that visitors enter the downtown in that general area. In response to Committee Member Kincaid's inquiries, Engineer III McGuire stated that the primary locations have been determined near parking garages and secondary locations have been cited for future consideration. Chair Hill inquired about the use of the existing directory signs; questioned if feedback has been provided from the public and asked why existing style and signage are not replicated for consistency. In response to Chair Hill's inquiries, Mr. Rademaker explained that the new kiosks have been developed to include maps, highlighting that the kiosks are strictly for pedestrian use. Community Development Director Codron stated that the presented kiosks are in a different classification for signage in the downtown area. Vice Chair Brajkovich inquired about the location of the kiosk site near City Hall. In response to Vice Chair Brajkovich, Mr. Rademaker explained that the sign near City Hall has been developed to help assist pedestrians in determining locations for City facilities. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-68 CHC Minutes 01-25-16 Page 3 Mr. Rademaker and Ms. Rudd narrated a PowerPoint presentation, noting that this project is in the second phase; emphasized that this phase is conceptual, pending design development phase for maps, orientation, and content. Mr. Rademaker spoke on the influence of the current concepts and characteristics of kiosks from Russel Square, London and New York, New York, highlighting content presented in the different kiosks: pedestrian crossings, historical landmarks, and other pedestrian map information. Ms. Rudd explained that the maps may include additional information such as website links to historical maps and visitor information. Mr. Rademaker presented photos of the mock up kiosks in their anticipated locations respectively and spoke on the anticipated design for the City wayfinding Kiosk, noting that the style of the kiosk has been developed to reflect a similar style to the City Hall building. During the course of discussion individual members of the committee concurred that the following recommendations should be considered: change to color contrast, refine locations of signs, and review the scale and height of the kiosks. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the ARC approve the project based on findings and subject to conditions. ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Chair Hill, to forward a resolution recommending approval to the Architectural Review Commission with the following revisions: (7:0) 1. Provide better color contrast between the background sign color and the map on the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks. 2. Refine the locations of signs considering potential for sign clutter with existing signage and various sign types included in the Wayfinding Sign Program. 3. Include a context map along with the detailed map on the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks. 4. Review the scale/height of Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks for compatibility in the Downtown. 5. Provide alternative illumination for the signs (internally illuminated cabinet signs not allowed in downtown) 6. Review cohesiveness of the different style of signage in front of City Hall. 2. 1009 Monterey Street. HIST -2592-2016; Historic Significance Determination for a Contributing List property at 1009 Monterey Street, C -D -H zone, Rossi/King Organization, applicant. (Rachel Cohen). Contract Planner Shawna Scott narrated a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the contents of the staff report, highlighting that the building's original style has undergone several modifications and the current structure does not retain the original historic character and is not historically significant. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-69 CHC Minutes 01-25-16 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENT Applicant Rob Rossi provided a brief background of the building, presented a timeline of events, and described the current building to be in poor condition, echoing his previous comments at the meeting held on December 7, 2015. There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing. COMMITTEE COMMENTS During the course of discussion the individual members of the Committee discussed the lack of support for the building qualifying for the City's list of historic resources. The Committee encouraged the applicant to reflect the history of the building by incorporating graphics or artwork in the new proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution removing 1009 Monterey Street from the City's List of Contributing Historic Resources. ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Committee Member Baer, to adopt the resolution recommending the Council remove the property from the Contributing List of Historic Resources (7:0). 3. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH -2363-2015; Review of a hotel project with 52 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 24 RV hookups on the Master List Historic Motel Inn property; C -T -S & C -O -S zone; Motel Inn, L.P., applicant. (Marcus Carlon). Associate Planner Carloni narrated a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the contents of the staff report, explaining the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Applicant Rob Rossi provided a brief background of the property, presented a timeline of events, and described the project site. Mr. Rossi explained that the previously approved restaurant building includes portions of the original Historic Motel Inn and noted that it is on the city's Master List of Historic Resources. There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Chair Hill inquired about the property being subject to the Mills Act. In response to Chair Hill's inquiry, Senior Planner Leveille stated that the property is not under a Mills Act contract. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-70 CHC Minutes 01-25-16 Page 5 Committee Member Papp inquired about potential noise impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. In response to Committee Member Papp's inquiries, Applicant Rob Rossi explained that the project site borders along the side of the U.S. 101 freeway, and that the site is at a slightly lower grade than the freeway which reduces noise impact some. He added that the new construction will likely block noise from the freeway and reduce noise in the neighborhood and stated that the ambient noise of the highway is expected to be greater than the anticipated ambient noise of the motel and RV park. During the course of discussion the individual members of the Committee inquired about the building's significance and proposed construction in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior Standards for compatibility, deliberating about the layout of the 52 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 24 RV hookups. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the ARC approve the project based on findings the project is consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee Member Larrabee, to adopt the resolution recommending the Architectural Review Commission approve the project (7:0). 4. 1516 Broad Street. ARCH -2225-2015; Review of a new 2 -bedroom dwelling behind the Master List Renetzky House in the Old Town Historic District; R -2-H zone; Bagnall Gary W. Family, applicant (Walter Oetzelo. Senior Planner Leveille narrated a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the proposed project. PUBLIC COMMENTS Peg Pinard, San Luis Obispo, stated that her property will be most affected by the proposed project due the mass and scale; announced that during her role as a former Council Member and Mayor, she worked to preserve the Old Town Historic District, including the preservation of other historic properties; expressed concerns with the project in terms of compatibility and presented an aerial photo of property, noting that the proposed structure will have a negative impact of allowing sunlight and air flow to her adjoining property. Senior Planner Leveille presented a map to the Committee, highlighting the surrounding properties of 1516 Broad Street. Leo Pinard, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the orientation of homes in the surrounding area; expressed concerns with the proposed project, stating that the proposed secondary unit is near the property line. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-71 CHC Minutes 01-25-16 Page 6 In response to the Public Comments, Chair Hill clarified that the Committee's role is to provide recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the historic preservation standards and guidelines. There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Omni Design Representative Jonathan McAlpin provided a brief summary of the proposed project and responded to the Committee's inquiries, regarding the height of the existing main residence and proposed unit. Mr. McAlpin explained that the main house has undergone a complete restoration. Committee Member Papp announced his visit to a neighboring property and explained similar concerns provided by Ms. Pinard were echoed by an adjacent neighbor; expressed concerns with the mass and scale of the proposed unit that does not appear consistent with the development pattern of the Old Town Historic District. He inquired on the CEQA status of the property. Senior Planner Brian Leveille Responded that the project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA as a small scale infill project. Committee Member Kincaid thanked Ms. Pinard for her presentation and for expressing her concerns to the Committee. By consensus, the Committee expressed concern over the mass, scale, and access configuration of the proposed dwelling. RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to a date uncertain with directional items. ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Brajkovich, seconded by Committee Member Kincaid, continue the item to a date uncertain with the following directional items: (7:0). Reduce the scale, massing, and height of the proposed structure to be more consistent with the pattern of secondary structures on historic properties in the Old Town Historic District (subordinate to primary). Address impacts to adjacent Master List properties by revising lot positioning and access away from neighboring properties internal to the property. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: Staff a. Agenda Forecast Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast of anticipated CHC agenda items for the February 22, 2016 meeting. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-72 CHC Minutes 01-25-16 Page 7 2. Committee The Committee discussed the desire to have an agenda item to discuss CEQA as it relates to historic resources. The committee discussed concerns over a new archaeology firm working on the next phase of the Chinatown project and inquired on the status of an update on recent archaeological work on the project. Chair Hill provided an update on the Downtown Concept Plan, Mission Plaza Update project, and Sign Regulations Update project. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Jo n Paul Maier Assistant City Clerk Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on February 22, 2016. ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-73 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a Planning Commission Use Permit request on a property with Special Considerations. Project includes a request to allow a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE-1035-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Motel Inn, L.P. Representative Studio Design Group Architects Submittal Date November 9, 2015 Complete Date January 11, 2016 Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with Special Considerations “S” overlay) General Plan Tourist Commercial Site Area Approximately 4 acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration recommended for adoption SUMMARY The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location to construct a 55-unit motel/hotel and 23 space RV/Airstream park. The project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission (conceptual) on August 26, 2015 and the PC provided conceptual feedback to the applicant. The subject location includes a Special Considerations Overlay which is governed by Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series); which includes special standards that apply to the property Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 1130). Staff finds the majority of the project to be consistent with Ordinance No. 1130 and recommends approval per the attached draft resolution (Attachment 1), however, staff has provided two potential areas of conflict as provided in section 3.0 below. An Initial Study ( Attachment 9) has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 Item Number: 1 PC1 - 1 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-74 USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 2 PC Conceptual Review 8-26-2015 ARC Conceptual Review 10-19-2015 CHC Review 01-25-2016 PC Review 03-23-2016 ARC Review 03-21-2016 1.0 BACKGROUND & COMMISSION’S PURVIEW 1.1 Background On August, 26, 2015, the PC conceptually reviewed the proposed project. The PC was generally supportive of the proposed site plan (see Attachment 6: PC Staff Report 08-26-2015 & Attachment 7: PC Minutes 08-26-2015) On October 19, 2015, the ARC performed a conceptual review of the subject application. The ARC was supportive of the conceptual plans and provided direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review; no specific directional items for changes to the design were provided (see Attachment 7: ARC Minutes 10-19-2015). On January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the subject application and found the project consistent with historic preservation standards, recommending approval of the project to the ARC. On March 21, 2016, the ARC will formally review the design of the subject project. Staff will provide the PC with an update regarding the ARC’s decision (see Attachment 8, ARC Staff Report 3-21-2016). 1.2 Purview The Commission is tasked with the following: 1. Review the project’s consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 (Attachment 3), the Zoning Regulations, and applicable City standards. 2. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 11). 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) Background and discussion regarding Ordinance No. 1130 is provided in the August 26, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4) and the October 19, 2015 ARC Conceptual Review Staff Report (Attachment 6). Ordinance No. 1130 is provided herein as Attachment 3. 2.2 Project Description A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans): 1. Construction of a motel/hotel with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream Trailer hookups. a. 15 rooms within the main lobby building PC1 - 2 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-75 USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 3 b. 40 rooms among twelve detached bungalow units. 2. 121 parking spaces provided a. 10% parking reduction request (13 spaces). 2.2.1 Notable Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review 1. Use of vegetated split rail fencing adjacent to the creek (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A5.0) 2. Additional entrances facing the creek (compare Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 & Sheet A4.1, “Site Elevation B to Attachment 12: Previous View from the Creek) 3. Shortening of northern RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces (see Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.3) 4. Added three housekeeping buildings (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 and A3.5 “Elevations - Housekeeping Bldgs”) Table 2.2 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard Street Yard ~45 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet + 10 feet for bell tower/spire 45 feet1 + 10 feet for architectural projections Building Coverage (footprint) ~10% 75% Parking Spaces 1212 131 Bicycle Parking 7 7 (1 short term, 6 long) 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS An analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan and Ordinance No. 1130 was provided in the August 26, 2015 PC Staff Report (see Attachment 4, Section 3.0). At the August 26th hearing, the Planning Commission expressed support of the conceptual plans and the discussion mainly focused on lighting and noise adjacent to the creek/residential neighborhood. The following analysis highlights the project components/conditions of approval which address lighting and noise. Except as provided below, no significant changes to the project have been proposed since the PC’s review of the project on August 26, 2015. As such, staff has provided findings of consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 and the Zoning Regulations in the recommended resolution (Attachment 1). 3.1 RV/Airstream Area At the August 26, 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission expressed support for the location of 1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit. 2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. PC1 - 3 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-76 USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 4 the RV/Airstream Area and indicated it’s consistency with spirit/intent of Ordinance No. 1130. The following items/recommended conditions of approval are provided to address noise/light associated with the RV/Airstream Area. 1. A vegetated split-rail fence (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A5.0) will be placed adjacent to the creek to address glare from headlights and limit access to the creek area. a. The use of a vegetated split-rail fence was recommended by the Natural Resources Manager to be used in place of a sound wall due to the adjacency of the creek. The Architectural Review Commission supported the use of split-rail fencing as well. 2. All creek-adjacent RV spaces are designed as “back-in” spaces to limit headlights facing toward the creek 3. Condition of approval #2 ensures that outdoor activities associated with the RV/Airstream area will cease no later than 10:00 p.m., nightly. 4. Condition of approval #6c requires the use of bollard style lighting along the creek rather than the proposed 20-foot tall parking lot pole lights (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A5.0) 5. Condition of approval #1 requires compliance with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Standards (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) which will be verified with photometric plans submitted along with plans for a construction permit. 6. Condition of approval #3 requires that all creek-adjacent airstream trailers have their entrance doors facing away from the creek or are buffered by another trailer. 7. Condition of approval #4 provides the Community Development Director with the ability to require additional fencing height/material density (i.e. more opaque fencing) within the portions of the split rail fence that are south of the two parking areas (one located east of the main hotel/lobby building, the other located west of the bungalows) 3.2 Hotel Room Openings Facing the Creek At the August 26, 2015 hearing, the PC indicated that balconies and primary outdoor spaces facing the creek would not be consistent with Ordinance No. 1130. The PC did not express concern with the creek-adjacent pedestrian walkway and also felt a minimal number of openings facing the creek would be appropriate. Bungalow Entrances The applicant continues to propose a minimal number of window openings facing the creek, however, the applicant modified the bungalow floor plans to create separate entries to each unit, where entrances were previously shared. The revision has created several additional “openings facing the creek” which may present an issue of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3 which states “building openings doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.” Additional entrances facing the creek may result in an increase in potential noise producing activity along the creek area that is associated with patrons entering/exiting hotel rooms e.g. doors opening/closing, loud conversations, additional pedestrian activity along the Creekside walkway). The Planning Commission should discuss the consistency of these PC1 - 4 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-77 USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 5 additional openings with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3. Balconies/Outdoor Patios (Suites 41/41) As shown on plans (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2) all balconies associated with the bungalow units face the inner courtyard, however, Suites 41/42 (see “Suite 41/42 label” on Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2) include ground level outdoor space and 2nd floor balconies (4’ by 7” in size) that are angled toward the creek. Two units with balconies/outdoor patios facing the creek may be considered “minimal” per Ordinance No. 1130, however, staff is looking to the Planning Commission to discuss the consistency of these “openings” with Ordinance No. 1130 Criterion #3. Note: Staff has included a condition of approval (#5) to remove the proposed patio hot tub shown on plans (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A2.0). 3.3 Parking Reduction Request The proposed 13 space parking reduction (10%) request is appropriate at the subject location as the proposed hotel/motel will share parking facilities with the previously approved restaurant, as required by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.060.B) and encouraged by the Community Design Guidelines (Chapter 3.1.C2.c) 3.4 Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces. The northern RV spaces were shortened and the Airstream spaces were shifted per requirements from the Utilities Department due to an existing utility easement with underground water main. The site plan maintains the same level of maneuverability shown on previous plans. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 11). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards & hazardous materials, and transportation/traffic will be less than significant. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval and/or code requirements. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130, the Zoning Regulations, and/or other pertinent City standards. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution PC1 - 5 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-78 USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street) Page 6 2. Project plans 3. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) 4. PC Staff Report 08-26-2015 5. PC Minutes 08-26-2015 6. ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015 7. ARC Minutes 10-19-2015 8. ARC Staff Report 3-21-2016 9. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10. Previous View from the Creek (shown on previous plans) PC1 - 6 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-79 Attachment 2 PC1 - 12 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-80 Attachment 2 PC1 - 13 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-81 Attachment 2 PC1 - 14 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-82 Attachment 2 PC1 - 15 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-83 Attachment 2 PC1 - 16 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-84 Attachment 2 PC1 - 17 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-85 Attachment 2 PC1 - 18 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-86 Attachment 2 PC1 - 19 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-87 Attachment 2 PC1 - 20 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-88 Attachment 2 PC1 - 21 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-89 Attachment 2 PC1 - 22 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-90 Attachment 2 PC1 - 23 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-91 Attachment 2 PC1 - 24 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-92 Attachment 2 PC1 - 25 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-93 Attachment 2 PC1 - 26 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-94 Attachment 2 PC1 - 27 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-95 Attachment 2 PC1 - 28 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-96 Attachment 2 PC1 - 29 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-97 Attachment 2 PC1 - 30 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-98 Attachment 2 PC1 - 31 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-99 Attachment 2 PC1 - 32 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-100 Attachment 2 PC1 - 33 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-101 E O a k Pe r m e a b le Pa v e r s E Oaaa kkkk O aaa E O O kk 295 30 0 305 295 30 0 300 305 29 6 29 7 298 299 301302 303 304 296 297 2 9 8 2 9 9 30 1 297 2 9 8 299 301 302 303 304 306 307 308 29529 292952929 29595299292952929229529 29 29977797972929 01 01300300 La n d s c a p e C o n c e p t Th e c o n c e p t fo r t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f t h e s it e la n d s c a p e is t o c a p t u r e t h e e s s e n c e a n d c h a r a c t e r of t h e o r ig in a l M o t e l In n Th is o ld la n d s c a p e fe a t u r e d m a n y fin e s u b t r o p ic a l pl a n t s t h a t w e r e c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f t h a t e r a a n d wh ic h c a n b e s e e n in m a n y p la c e s in S a n L u is Ob is p o a n d s o u t h e r n C a lifo r n ia a s h e r it a g e p la n t s in o ld e r la n d s c a p e s Wh ile s e v e r a l o f t h e r e m n a n t p la n t s c a n n o t fe a s ib ly b e r e t a in e d in p la c e t h e e x is t in g c it r u s tr e e s w ill b e r e lo c a t e d w it h in t h e la n d s c a p e T h e ta b le o n s h e e t L 3 lis t s t h e e x is t in g p la n t s t o b e re m o v e d a n d r e lo c a t e d Ex a m p le s o f t h e t y p e s o f c h a r a c t e r is t ic p la n t s t o be r e in c o r p o r a t e d in t o t h e n e w d e v e lo p m e n t a r e H o n g K o n g O r c h id T r e e B a u h in ia x b la k e a n a A u s t r a lia n B u s h C h e r r y S y z ig iu m p a n ic u la t u m V ic t o r ia n B o x P it t o s p o r u m u n d u la t u m N o r fo lk Is la n d P in e A r a u c a r ia e x c e ls a B ir d o f P a r a d is e S t r e lit z ia r e g in a W in d m ill P la m T r a c h y c a p r u s fo r t u n e i In a d d it io n t o t h e s e m a n y o f t h e p r o p o s e d p la n t s li s t e d o n s h e e t L 2 a r e a ls o c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f t h e or ig in a l M o t e l In n la n d s c a p e Wa t e r C o n s e r v a t io n Sh e e t L 2 t a b u la t e s t h e e s t im a t e d ir r ig a t io n w a t e r us e fo r t h e p r o p o s e d la n d s c a p e T h e la n d s c a p e wi ll u s e 6 0 o f t h e m a x im u m a llo w a b le la n d s c a p e wa t e r u s e M A W U a n d m e e t s C A L G r e e n T ie r 2 fo r co m m e r c ia l la n d s c a p e s M o s t o f t h e s u b t r o p ic a l pl a n t s lis t e d a b o v e a r e M e d it e r r a n e a n a d a p t e d a n d dr o u g h t t o le r a n t FE B172 0 1 6 18 7 Tank Farm Road Suite 230 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 ph one 805 781 9800 fax 805 781 9803 m a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s Fi leNameFirmaMotelIn nPRELIM1revise d 2 1 2 1 6 L astDateMo difie d 2 1 5 1 6 L- 1 0 Co n c e p t u a l La n d s c a p e P la n Matchl in eSe eSh e etL 2 0 Qu e e n P a lm in c l u d in g e x i s t in g r e l o c a t e d s p e c i m e n s Bi r d o f P a r a d i s e Ti p u T r e e V ic t o r ia n B o x Ca li f o r n i a S y c a m o r e Tr e e s Re d F l o w e r in g G u m S w e e t S h a d e Ja c a r a n d a N e w Z e a l a n d C h r is t m a s T r e e Ol iv e C o a s t L i v e O a k Wi n d m i ll P a l m M e d i t e r r a n e a n Fa n P a l m Ci t r u s B a u h i n i a Ex a m p l e s o f h e r i t a g e p l a n t s in t h e O l d M o t e l I n n s t y l e Na t iv e R I p a r i a n I n t e r f a c e Me d i t e r r a n e a n S u b t r o p i c a l S h r u b s an d G r o u n d c o v e r s LA W N No r t h 0 1 0 2 0 40 4 0 Sc a l e 1 4 0 0 SU R V E Y E D T O P O F C R E E K NO D I S T U R B A N C E B E L O W Ho n g K o n g O r c h i d T r e e Au s t r a l i a n B u s h C h e r r y Vi c t o r i a n B o x Wi n d m a l l P a l m Bi r d o f P a r a d i s e No r f o l k I s l a n d P a l m Attachment 2 PC1 - 34 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-102 2 Fi leNameFirmaMotelIn nPRELIM2revise d 2 1 2 1 6 L astDateMo difie d 0 2 1 2 1 6 L L - 2 0 Co n c e p tu a l La n d sc a p e P la n 187 Tank Farm Road Suite 230 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 phone 805 781 9800 fax 805 781 9803 m a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s p la n n in g e n v iro n m e n t a l s tu d ie s Pl a n t in g D e s ig n N o te s La n d sc a p e d e sig n sh a ll c o m p ly w ith th e C ity o f S a n L u is O b is p o Un ifo rm D es ig n C riteria Al l p la n t m a te ria l h a s b e en sele cte d to h a ve lo w to m ed iu m w a ter re q u ire m e n ts La w n is res tric te d to a re a s w h e re a c tive u s e ica n o cc u r la w n a re a p ro p o se d is le ss th a 5 o f o ve r a ln d s ca p e a re a Al l p la n tin g b e d s sh a ll h a ve a m in im u m 3 la ye r o f o rg a n ic m u lch th ro u g h o u t to im p ro ve w a te r re te n tio n in s o il Co n c e p tu a l Ir r ig a tio n P la n N o te s Ir rig a tio n d e sig n sh a ll c o m p ly w ith th e C ity o f S a n L u is O b isp o Un ifo rm D e sig n C rite ria Al l p la n t m a teria l se lec te d sh a ll h a ve lo w to m e d iu m w a te r re q u ire m en ts pe r W U C O L S T h e m a xim u m a p p lied w a te r a llo w a n ce M A W A a n d es tim a te d w a te r u se E T W U h a ve b e e n ca lc u la te d T h e E T W U is les s th a n th e M A W A Wa te r so u rce sh a ll b e city w a te r w ith a sep a ra te m e te r a n d if req u ire d re cla im e d w a ter is a va ila b le fo r u se Th e irrig a tio n syste m sh a ll c o n s ist o f in lin e d rip e m itte rs E a ch c ircu it sh a ll b e a h yd ro zo n e b a se d o n exp o su re a n d p la n t w a te r req u ire m en ts S h a d y a re a h yrd o zo n e S u n n y a re a h yrd o zo n e L ID F a c ility b o tto m h yd ro z o n e S lo p e s o r sp e cia l so il co n d itio n s b y h y d ro zo n e s Ir rig a tio n c o n tro lle r sh a ll b e w e a th e r b a sed a n d w ill a u to m a tic a lly a d ju st irrig a tio n in re sp o n se to th e ch a n g e s in p la n t s n e ed s a s w e a th e r co n d itio n s ch a n g e La n d s c a p e R e s p o n s e s to L ID F a c ilit y R e q u ir e m e n ts Ty p ica l te ch n iq u e s d e p en d in g o n T ier 1 o r T ier 2 re q u irem e n ts in c lu d e C o o rd in a tio n w ith C ivil E n g in e er o n in filtra tio n s o il m e d ia if re q u ire d S ele c tio n o f w e t d ry a d a p tive p la n ts fo r sto rm w a ter fa cilitie s C o b b le b la n k e ts in co n d itio n s w h ere sto rm w a te r d u ra tio n w a rra n ts Pr e l i m i n a r y P l a n t M a t e r i a l s L i s t Me d it e r ra n e a n Z o n e Tr e e s Ar e castrum rom a nzo ffian um Qu een P alm Eu ca lyp tu s ficifo lia Re d Flow e rin g G u m Ch a m aerop s hu m ulis Me d iter ra n e an Fa n Pa lm Ci trus sp Ci tru s to b e selected Hy m e no sp orum flavu m Sw eet S h a d e Ja ca ra nd a m im o sifolia Ja cara n d a Me troside ro s exc elsa Ne w Z ea la n d C h ristm a s Tree Ol ea eu ro p ea Ol ive Pl a ta nu s race m osa Ca lifo rn ia S yca m o re Qu ercus ag rifo lia Ca lifo rn ia Li ve Oa k St relitzia n icho la i Bi rd o f P ara d ise Ti p ua na tip u Ti p u Tre e Tr ach yca rp u s fortu ne i Wi n d m ill Pa lm Sh ru b s Al yo g yn e h ue g elii Bl u e H ib iscu s Ca llistem on Little Joh n Dw a rf B o ttleb ru sh Sa lvia le uca nth a Me xic an S a ge St relitzia reg in ae Bi rd o f P ara d ise Vi n e s Di stictis b u cinn atoria Bl o o d red Tru m p e t V in e Ma c fa de nya un g u is cati Ca t s C la w Wi ste ria sin en sis Ch in ese W iste ria Su c c u le n ts Ag ave A m erican a M ed io picta Ce n tu ry P lan t Ag ave B lu e G lo w Bl u e G low A g a ve Al o e n o b ilis Go ld e n To o th ed A lo e Al o e stria ta Co ra l A lo e Na tive R ip a r ia n Z o n e Sh ru b s Mu hlen b erg ia rig en s De er Gr ass Rh am n us c aliforn ica Co ffe eb e rry Ri be s sp eciosa Fu ch sia Flow ered Go o seb e rry Ro sa califo rn ica Ca lifo rn ia W ild Ro se Su b tr o p ic a l S h a d e Z o n e N o r th s id e o f b u ild in g s Sh ru b s Al p in ia zerum b e t Sh e ll G in ge r Be g on ia rich m on de nsis Be go n ia Cl ivia m in ia ta Ka ffir L ily Li ro pe m u scari Bi g B lu e L ily Tu rf Ph o en ix ro eb ellin i Py g m y D ate Pa lm Ra p h io le p is in d ica B a llerina Ba lle rin a In d ia H aw th o rn Ti b ou chin a u rvillean a Pr in cess Flo w er Tu p id an thu s calyp tra tu s Um b rella Tree FE B172 0 1 6 No r th 0 10 2 0 4 0 40 Sc a le 1 4 0 0 EX IS T IN G D A T E P A L M RE T A IN O R R E P O S IT IO N O N S IT E 306 xt25;AeccDbFace (AeccLand100) xt0 0260436 EUC 31 1 29 5 30 0 29 0 2 8 5 29 0 305 306 307 308 31 0 2 9 0 300295301 3 0 2 306 Ca lculate Max Annual Applied W ater Allowance MAWA and Estim ated Total W ater Use ETW U 97 City St ate Zi p http www slocity org utilities download outdoorconserv pdf En ter values for your project in square feet MA WA Gallons 712 804 0 0 To tal Landscape Area 54975 MAWA Unit s 9529 5 Tu rf 274 5 Lo w Drought Tolerant 3914 0 E TWU Gallo ns 689 908 00 Mo derate 1309 0 E TWU Uni ts 922 34 Hi gh Thirsty 0 Sp orts Field 0 Ve getables 0 check total 5497 5 Pr oject Nam e Mo tel Inn Na m e of Project Applicant Ti tle Te lephone No Fa x No Em ail Address Co m pany St reet AddressSa n Luis Obispo C A 4333 43 3 @ 6 57 @ 3 93 @ 3 84 @@ @ 3 53 @@ @ 3 @ 96 @ 3 84 3 67 0 3 7 7 0 @ 384 0 Attachment 2 PC1 - 35 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-103 xt0 0260436 EUC 310 312 297 295 2 9 4 2 9 4 294 30 2 22 30 2 30 293 29292 291 2 29191 290 298 29998 2 8 5 2 9 0 5 29 6 30 5 30 6 30 7 30 8296 296 296 29329 303 304 187 Tank Farm Road Suite 230 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 phone 805 781 9800 fax 805 781 9803 m a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s p la n n in g e n v ir o n m e n ta l s tu d ie s Fi leNameFirmaMotelIn nPRELIM3tre erevise d 2 1 2 1 6 L astDateMo difie d 2 1 6 1 6 L- 3 0 Tr e e R e m o v a l a n d Pr o te c tio n P la n No rth 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 40 Ex is tin g R ip a r ia n T r e e C a n o p y to b e p r o te c te d in p la c e Pe r m e a b le Pa v e r s EX IS T IN G T R E E CA N O P Y T Y P 1 Ex i s t i n g T r e e s C a l i p e r S t a t u s 1. C a n a r y Is la n d D a t e P a lm 3 0 S a v e T r a n s pl a n t 2. Q u e e n P a lm 3 0 T r a n s p la n t 3. Q u e e n P a lm 1 4 T r a n s pl a n t 4. Q u e e n P a lm 1 4 T r a n s pl a n t 5. Q u e e n P a lm 1 2 T r a n s pl a n t 6. Q u e e n P a lm 1 2 T r a n s pl a n t 7. Q u e e n P a lm 1 4 T r a n s pl a n t 8. E u c a ly p t u s 3 6 R e m o v e 9. F ic u s 8 R e m o v e 10 O rc h id T r e e 8 R e m o v e 11 W e e p in g B o t t le b r u s h 8 R e m o v e 12 C it r u s 1 0 R e m o v e 13 C it r u s B r u s h C h e r r y 8 R e m o v e 14 V ic t o r ia n B o x 1 0 R e m o v e 15 C it r u s 8 R e m o v e 16 V ic t o r ia n B o x 1 4 R e m o v e 17 C it r u s 1 4 R e m o v e 18 M a g n o lia 8 Tr a n s pl a n t 20 C it r u s 8 Tr a n s pl a n t 21 C e d a r 1 6 R e m o v e 22 O a k 2 4 S a ve 23 A u s t ra lia n B u s h C h e r r y 1 8 S a ve 24 P it t o s p o r u m u n d u la t u m G r o u p R e m o v e 25 B la c k A c a c ia 1 6 R e m o ve 4 23 5 9 10 15 16 1718 19 20 21 FE B172 0 1 6 8 14 13 12 11 6 7 22 232425 Attachment 2 PC1 - 36 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-104 Attachment 2 PC1 - 37 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-105 Attachment 2 PC1 - 38 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-106 Attachment 2 PC1 - 39 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-107 Attachment 2 PC1 - 40 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-108 Attachment 2 PC1 - 41 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-109 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Conceptual Review of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: USE 1035-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Phone Number: 781-7177 E-mail: ddavidson@slocity.org RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with Ordinance 1130. SITE DATA Applicant Motel Inn,L.P. Representative Studio Design Group Architects Zoning C T S Tourist Commercial with Special Considerations S” overlay) General Plan Tourist Commercial Site Area Approximately 4 acres Environmental Status Subject to preparation of an Initial Study due to creek adjacency,historic property status and highway 101 location. SUMMARY The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of a project that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the creek. Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria. After complying with Planning Commission direction on consistency with Ordinance 1130, the project applicant will finalize plans to move forward to the Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission prior to returning to the Planning Commission for final action. Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 Item Number: 1 PJD PJD DD Attachment 4 PC1 - 48 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-110 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The project is expansion of a formerly existing motel use and includes a new RV parking use. Both aspects are subject to a Planning Commission Use Permit. The purpose of the use permit is to review the project for consistency with specific design criteria that are intended to protect the creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood. This conceptual review process is intended to receive feedback and early direction regarding the consistency of the project with Ordinance 1130 prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with detailed design plans. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres Present Use Development Parking lot accessory structures, and ruins of the Historic Motel Inn Topography Generally level Access North end of Monterey Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North:Highway 101 East:San Luis Creek West:C T S,Apple Farm Inn South:R 1 S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood The project site is roughly four acres on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, adjacent to Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property. On the south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are adjacent to the motel portion of the property. The former Motel Inn on this site was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as the Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed around 1925 when Monterey Street was the highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade. Many of the motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration; however the original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original restaurant. Portions of the site are paved with asphalt and contain foundations of the original motel structures and pool. The site is included in the City’s Master List of Historic resources. 2.2 Project Description The project intends to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn, along with a restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a courtyard setting. The remaining portions of the original structures would be retained and integrated into the project. Thirty-two 32) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings with some of the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a separate building at the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of the Motel Inn. Attachment 4 PC1 - 49 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-111 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 3 The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short term park. A total of 25 RV spaces are proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site available for overnight guests. The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would occur with final review of the use permit. 2.3 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2 Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet Max.Height of Structure(s)30 feet 45 feet1 Building Coverage footprint)13%75% Parking Spaces 119 1302 Bicycle Parking 29 16 Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to HWY 101 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The C-T zone is designed to accommodate visitor serving uses such as a motel. However, new or expanded uses require Planning Commission review due to Ordinance 1130 and the RV park use triggers the review of PC Use Permit regardless of Ordinance 1130. The Use Permit is contingent on findings for consistency with Ordinance 1130 and for compatibility with this unique location adjacent to the creek, the highway and a residential neighborhood. The CHC’s future review 1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit. 2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses. Attachment 4 PC1 - 50 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-112 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 4 will rely on the project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Program guidelines while the ARC’s future review will rely on the Citywide Community Design Guidelines. A very similar project, absent the RV park, was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for this site in 2003. The previous project was larger in scale. Construction permits were not pursued for the previous project and the entitlements have since expired. 3.1 General Plan Policy The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper MontereyStreet region is concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants. Land Use Element policy 3.6.2 is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses: The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.” Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential neighborhoods as the first priority. Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3: In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.” The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses. Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay) In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3). Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130 since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways. Attachment 4 PC1 - 51 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-113 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 5 However, staff’s primary concern is that the RV park may conflict with the spirit of the ordinance since it may be viewed as an outdoor recreation use. Ordinance 1130 states that outdoor recreation uses or parking areas be on the interior of the site or should be shielded from the creek by buildings. The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key design criteria of Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity. 1. Creek setbacks Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan). 2. Building openings Openings facing creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard setting surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the creek are detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the buildings contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the buildings appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of the patios and decks face inward towards the center of the site. 3. Screening between buildings and creek This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood. 4. Lighting between buildings and creek At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek. 5. Common driveways The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is instead alongside the proposed development. 6. Land Use compatibility The low scale motel use is an ideal complementary use adjacent to the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood. However, the RV park may be contrary to the objective of Ordinance 1130 by positioning RV spaces facing the creek along with potential noise, additional light and glare. Although the RV park is conceptually a good use for this freeway oriented, narrow site, its accompanying potential impacts may not be compatible with riparian or residential land uses as expressed in the ordinance. Attachment 4 PC1 - 52 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-114 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 6 7. Noise generating uses such as parking and active recreation uses This is the criteria that appears to specifically conflict with the RV parking use. Ordinance 1130 specifically notes that parking and “active recreation” uses should be on the interior of the site using buildings as a buffer from the creek and residential uses. The project proposal identifies seven RV parking spaces located at the creek setback, along with spaces for several of the applicant installed airstream trailers. The RV parking spaces would act as camp sites, and although outdoor fire pits are not allowed in the City, this may be considered an outdoor active use. Fortunately, the creek provides heavy tree screening at this location and much of the land opposite the creek is not lined with sensitive residential uses. Although this is a creative use for the site, it appears to be inconsistent with Ordinance 1130 unless it can be clearly buffered from the creek. Figure 2: Site plan identifying proposed RV park location 8. Site drainage Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will guide the project design. Attachment 4 PC1 - 53 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-115 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 7 9. Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary. The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone. 3.5 Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130: a. Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and lighting will be required. b. Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on Monterey Street while allowing logical access. Details of enclosures will need to be included with the final project design. c. Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking spaces, however the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as guests as the hotel. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As proposed the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101, and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the project’s consistency with Ordinance 1130. The design of the motel project appears consistent with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130. However, the unique RV parking proposal may conflict with the ordinance provisions and may need additional creek buffering in order for the Commission to make positive use permit findings. The following discussion items have been identified to formulate discussion: 1. RV Park creek buffering. A landscaped screening wall with a natural stone appearance designed with varying heights and setbacks may allow the RV sites to be consistent with Ordinance provisions while helping to block light and potential noise. However, this wall would alter the quality of the RV park from the users perspective. 2. Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed building design. Attachment 4 PC1 - 54 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-116 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015) Page 8 Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity (Land Use) map 2. Reduced-scale project plans 3. Ordinance 1130 Attachment 4 PC1 - 55 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-117 Attachment 5 PC1 - 56 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-118 Attachment 5 PC1 - 57 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-119 Attachment 5 PC1 - 58 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-120 Attachment 5 PC1 - 59 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-121 Attachment 5 PC1 - 60 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-122 Attachment 5 PC1 - 61 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-123 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) SUBJECT: Conceptual Review of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY:Steve Matarazzo, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1992-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy Director Phone Number: 781-7169 E-mail: tcorey@slocity.org RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and other direction that may be a part of the conceptual review hearing. SITE DATA Applicant Motel Inn, L.P. Representative Studio Design Group Architects Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with Special Considerations “S” overlay) General Plan Tourist Commercial Site Area Approximately 4 acres Environmental Status Subject to preparation of an Initial Study due to creek adjacency, historic property status and highway 101 location. SUMMARY The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of a project that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the creek. Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria. The Planning Commission reviewed the project conceptually on August 26, 2015 and found the project to be consistent with land use and zoning designations of property; and, consistent with the “S”, special considerations, overlay zone (Ordinance 1130). The applicant is now requesting a conceptual architectural review of the preliminary site and architectural plans prior to proceeding with final review of more complete plans to the Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission. Meeting Date: October 19, 2015 Item Number: 1 TAC SM Attachment 6 PC1 - 62 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-124 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 2 The developer is also working with the City and Caltrans to determine the extent of roadway improvements/restrictions that may be needed to reduce the speed of vehicles accelerating onto the Highway 101 north-bound on-ramp, immediately adjacent to the site. Other conflicting traffic movements at the on-ramp/off-ramp locations will also be evaluated with final recommendations going to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The project proposes an expansion of a former, existing motel (the historic Motel Inn) and would include a new RV parking use. Both land uses are subject to Architectural Review Commission site and architectural plan approval and Planning Commission use permit approval. This conceptual architectural and site plan review process is intended to receive feedback and early direction regarding the consistency of the project with Ordinance 1130 and the community design guidelines prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with more detailed design plans. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres Present Use & Development Parking lot , accessory structures, and remnants of the Historic Motel Inn Topography Generally level Access North end of Monterey Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Highway 101 East: San Luis Creek West: C-T-S, Apple Farm Inn South: R-1-S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood The project site is approximately four acres, on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, adjacent to Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property. On the south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are across the creek and otherwise adjacent to the motel portion of the property. The former Motel Inn was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as the Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed circa 1925 when Monterey Street was the highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade. Many of the motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration; however the original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original restaurant. The site is also included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. Attachment 6 PC1 - 63 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-125 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 3 2.2 Project Description The project proposes to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn (Mission revival architectural style), along with a restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a courtyard setting. The remaining portions of the original structures would be retained and integrated into the project. The developer has agreed to design the new structures attached to the historic building remnants so that there is sufficient differentiation between the old and new. Fifty-two (52) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings with some of the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a separate building at the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of the Motel Inn. The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short-term rental park. A total of 25 RV spaces are proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site (with permanent utility hookups) available for overnight guests. The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would occur with final review of the use permit. 2.3 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2 Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 30 feet 45 feet1 Building Coverage (footprint) 13% 75% Parking Spaces 119 1302 Bicycle Parking 29 16 Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to HWY 101 1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit. 2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses. Attachment 6 PC1 - 64 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-126 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 4 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 3.1 Design Conceptually, the project satisfies the Community Design Guidelines regarding commercial project design outside of the downtown area. Section 3.1 of the commercial project guidelines addresses the following design objectives: 1. Consider the city’s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding area; 2. Avoid boxy structures with large flat wall planes; 3. Preserve the design integrity of historically significant structures; 4. Provide landscaping to help screen parking and storage areas; 5. Provide safe access to the site and design parking to avoid awkward turning movements; 6. Consider the need for signs and their appropriate scale early in the design process; 7. Locate outdoor equipment and trash enclosures in the least conspicuous parts of the site; 8. Neighborhood compatibility design objectives include having an appropriate design theme, having buildings of proportional scale and size, having appropriate building setbacks and massing and using appropriate colors, textures and building materials; 9. Architectural design should involve a consistent use of colors, materials and detailing throughout all elevations of the buildings. The proposed project is consistent with the above guidelines by keeping the scale of development relatively low profile, and it is well buffered from the adjoining neighborhood by creek vegetation and setback. The Mission Revival style reflects the historic parts of the former motel and avoids boxy building shapes, providing consistent design, materials and detailing (e.g., tiled gabled roofs, trellis and porch elements, cap pieces, recessed windows, small paned windows, wood framing above windows, and decorative exterior stairways). As there are no permanent buildings proposed on the other half of the property, primarily site plan considerations are directed toward the recreational vehicle park. The site plan is well- designed for its purpose easily accommodating the proposed 25 RVs. The 10 proposed Airstream vehicles will be of a more stationary nature, but still moveable. Therefore, what appears to be a tandem parking” situation adjacent to the short-term RV parking, will not present a problem. Further, some of these mobile vehicles are shown to be located within an existing water easement (along the northerly property line) and an access easement (along the easterly property line). The developer will need to contact the water department to coordinate activities in the water line easement area. The 50 foot access easement is currently being researched by staff. However, this easement area should not present a problem for the site plan as the Airstreams are moveable, if and when required. (The applicant believes this is some kind of trail easement which would eventually go under the freeway to connect with a future trail system.) The Commission should also consider any screening issues of the RV park within its site plan orientation. Existing vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way on one side, and the riparian corridor of San Luis Creek on the other appear to provide excellent visual screening from the traveling public on Highway 101 and across the creek to the adjacent neighborhood. Attachment 6 PC1 - 65 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-127 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 5 3.2 General Plan Policy The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper Monterey Street region is concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants. Land Use Element policy 3.6.2 is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses: The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area; at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.” Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential neighborhoods as the first priority. Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3: In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.” The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses. 3.3 Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay) In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3). Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130 since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways. The The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key design criteria of Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity. Attachment 6 PC1 - 66 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-128 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 6 1. Creek setbacks Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan). 2. Building openings Openings facing the creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard setting surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the creek are detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the buildings contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the buildings appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of the patios and decks face inward towards the center of the site. 3. Screening between buildings and creek This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood. 4. Lighting between buildings and creek At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek. 5. Common driveways The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is instead alongside the proposed development. 6. Land Use compatibility The low scale motel use is consistent with the zoning, will not adversely affect the creek and will be well buffered from the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Also, in its conceptual review, the Planning Commission did not see a problem with the complementary use of a small RV parking area within the motel site. 7. Site drainage Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will guide the project design. 8. Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary. The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone. Attachment 6 PC1 - 67 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-129 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 7 3.4 Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130: a. Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and lighting will be required. Highway vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way appears adequate to screen the property, and in particular the RV parking area. b. Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on Monterey Street while allowing easy access. Details of enclosures will need to be included with the final project design. c. Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking spaces; however, the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as guests of the hotel. d. Signs: The project will retain the historic free-standing motel sign. Other signage will be subject to future ARC review and approval. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As proposed, the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101, and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The design of the motel project appears consistent with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130. The following items have been identified to formulate discussion: 1. RV Park creek buffering. The City’s Natural Resources Manager is recommending a wooden rail fence with appropriate signing to address potential trespass into the riparian area. This type of pedestrian restriction would still allow the visual enjoyment of the resource. 2. Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed building design. Attachment 6 PC1 - 68 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-130 USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015) Page 8 Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity (Land Use) map 2. Reduced-scale project plans 3. Ordinance 1130 Attachment 6 PC1 - 69 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-131 DR A FT DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 19, 2015 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn Absent: Commissioners. Ken Curtis and Allen Root Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Interim-Community Development Liaison Marcus Carloni, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Consulting Planner Dave Watson, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was modified to move item 2 (224 Tank Farm Road) into the item 1 position. MINUTES There were no minutes presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 224 Tank Farm Road. ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water tower, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; Verizon Wireless, applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a date uncertain to allow time to consider and take action on the Use Permit application associated with this project. On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to continue to a future Architectural Review Commission Meeting. AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Root. Attachment 7 PC1 - 70 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-132 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 2 The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-1992-2015; Conceptual design review of a proposed hotel adjacent to the historic Motel Inn. Project proposes 52 one and two story units, up to 25 Recreational Vehicles, two pools, a restaurant, and associated parking and site improvements; C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones; Motel Inn, LP, applicant. Chair Wynn and Commr. Soll recused from this item due to conflict of interests and left the conference room at 5:05 p.m. Community Development Director Codron summarized the purpose of a Conceptual Review, noting that in these cases applicants seek feedback before the project is presented for approval and for public notification; explained that due to the complexity of the project, the format is altered, thus allowing applicants the opportunity to present before providing staff with a framework for the conversation. The Applicant provided an overview and brief history of the project; stated the project met ordinance requirements, noting the improvements to the current design. The applicant answered Commission’s questions regarding the patio and picnic areas for the RV parking, indicating that each RV space would have its own picnic area, and would have access to all of the Motel amenities. In response to Commr. Nemcik, the Applicant noted the surface on the street would be made of pavers and asphalt. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a quick overview of the project site, recommending that the commission formulate discussions regarding the RV Park creek buffering; stated that the City’s Natural Resource Manager recommended a wooden rail fence with signs to address potential trespassing into the riparian area; suggested a discussion on the Motel bungalow units, stating that the decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed building design. Vice-Chair Ehdaie acknowledged correspondence received by Bob Lucas; reviewed the contents of an email from Commr. Root, expressing his support for the project; and noting that the project meets Ordinance 1130 and setback requirements. In response to Commr. Nemcik, Community Development Director Codron, stated the fence would be a split-rail fence, which is the City standard design for creek corridors. Commr. Andreen, asked staff for interpretation on the meaning of the word “should” as opposed to “shall” in City Ordinance 1130. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the language in question is generally designed to provide flexibility. Attachment 7 PC1 - 71 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-133 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 3 Community Development Director Codron expounded on the previous comment, noting the use of the word “should” is subject to intent; explained the intent in this case is to preserve the residential feel of the surrounding area. In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, regarding the reason for the rail fence as opposed to a wall fence that could potentially help mitigate noise and light issues, the Applicant stated that the Planning commission was pleased with the rail fence noting that a solid wall was not needed due to distance, thick riparian area and the fact that RV guests will not be using the space as a recreational area. In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, the Applicant stated the studies submitted between 2003 and 2005, including a noise study, remain current; declared that a masonry wall would be a mistake in this area and would not be needed due to the kind of activities that would take place in the RV area, noting that noise from the highway would be greater than the noise generated in the RV area. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, affirmed his support for this project from a neighbor’s perspective; opined the project represents a low intensity type of recreation appropriate for this particular property, noting that he does not anticipate an excessive amount of noise; expressed his belief that the project would be an enhancement to the city. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commr. Andreen expressed appreciation for Mr. Garth’s perspective; voiced concerns over the use of the word “should” in section 7 of Ordinance 1130; acknowledged the general consensus that RV users are typically a respectful group; opined that she does not believe this would be a major noise generator; asserted interest in seeing noise studies; opined that this project would be appropriate and attractive, posing no major concern with regard to the open spacing of the creek or fencing choices; voiced support for seeing the project move forward. Commr. Nemcik noted that the design is elegant and beautiful; stated the applicants are heading in the right direction and have been cautious in addressing all of the points in Ordinance 1130; opined that the split rail fence would be appropriate; indicated support for the project. Vice-Chair Ehdaie stated this project would add value to the community; expressed satisfaction with the way ordinance 1130 was addressed; asserted interest in reviewing the noise study; noted no concerns with the patio spacing; voiced support for seeing the project move forward. Attachment 7 PC1 - 72 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-134 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 4 There were no further comments made from the Commission. The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review. No specific directional items were provided from the ARC. Chair Wynn and Comm. Soll rejoined the meeting room at 5:50 p.m. 3. 1299 Orcutt Road. ARCH-0224-2014; Continued review of the “West Creek” project design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land; Robbins/Reed, applicant. Scott Martin, Architect with RRM Design Group, provided an update on the changes made to the project since the previous conceptual hearing and addressed previous directional items; noted adding a round-a-about which created changes in circulation and connectivity. The applicant pointed out changes in geometry, including additional retaining walls, based on recommendations from the Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill; stated the project meets pedestrian connectivity based on the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; provided a new grading plan to help balance the site and proposed implementing innovative parking solutions such as decupling the garages from the properties and selling the garages separately; suggested having a shared “fun car” that could be made available for rent as well as providing plenty of long and short-term bike storage; noted ample parking in the single-family residential area as well as on the streets near Orcutt Road; stated the neighborhood would not be impacted by parking issues. In response to Commr. Andreen, the applicant stated the pool would not be accessible to the single-family dwellings due to costly ADA requirements and would only be used by the multi-family residents. In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiries regarding parking, the applicants noted they would have no problem allocating some of the parking spaces in the PG&E easement area to multi-family parking, and would have no issues for making the shared fun car or truck available to all residents. In response to Commr. Wynn’s inquiry, the applicants confirmed storage requirements would be met notwithstanding the decupling concept and indicated there would be long- term bicycle parking all throughout the site. Applicants stated that they would like to receive feedback regarding parking, grading and architecture. City Consultant, Dave Watson, presented the staff report, reviewed improvements and changes to the site-plans, evaluated directional items from the previous conceptual review, and went over additional topographic information. Pointed out competing policies relative to grading in the setback areas; advised the commission to establish a Attachment 7 PC1 - 73 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-135 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 5 minimum number of parking spaces and to discuss pedestrian linkage; noted that staff agrees with mixing land usage but suggested common areas should stand-alone; expressed support for the design styles and for positioning the garages in the rear areas; suggested focusing the conversation to the directional items from the previous conceptual review; noted that the information gathered from this review would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council. In response to inquiry by Commr. Andreen, Natural Resource Manager, Bob Hill, stated that he visited the site on two occasions, in two different seasons; noted that the riparian area was highly denuded; attested to the lack of strong concerns for the removal of what is on site; explained that a 2 to 1 slope is steeper, indicating that it could be made stable and has the potential for ample restoration; believes a more robust riparian canopy could be achieved; confirmed the project is fully compliant with the creek setback regulations as well as the setbacks specified for both creeks and wetlands in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; explained that the community design guidelines have language about grading in setbacks which would be used as the policy in this case; expressed not having concerns with erosion, asserting that the site would have a water erosion control plan which would be monitored by the water board. In response to inquiry by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, Natural Resource Manager Hill indicated there are no proposed bridges on the creek. Community Development Director Codron, noted that the specific site policy does not require additional discussions for bridges; asserted the applicant is working with staff to develop a two-part parking reduction strategy with a proposal that could be effective; noted confidence in the process. In response to Commr. Andreen’s inquiry, Community Development Director Codron, stated the City is responsible for maintaining the streets. Civil Enginner Hal Hannula provided an overview of the PG&E easement area; opined that fewer pavement and parallel parking spaces might be a better use of the area. Staff clarified that all perpendicular parking on A2 Street is additional and not a part of the parking requirement. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the plans indicate 26-feet back up space available for vehicles in the alleys between units. Attachment 7 PC1 - 74 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-136 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Wynn acknowledged receiving correspondence from the applicant and Mr. Flores. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Community Development Director Codron responded to questions regarding decupling, stating it is not a new concept but a widely recognized way for dealing with the need for single-occupancy parking; noted that the Tolosa Ranch Apartments offer parking separately; stated that analysis will be done to see how this would impact parking. Chair Wynn stated that the idea of decupling is good, but noted concerns about its sustainability; suggested a need to review Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville’s input on the matter. Also voiced concerns with R-2 guest parking. Commr. Nemcik stated the rationale items for reducing parking are a good idea but does believe they would warrant a parking reduction; noted that even if people bike, they would most likely also own vehicles; voiced concerns regarding sufficient parking. In response to Chair Wynn, Consultant Watson clarified that in the R-4 zone the applicants fall seventeen percent below the parking requirements. Commr. Andreen expressed apprehension over the lack of parking; opined that people in California rely on their cars and do not change quickly; stated the gap is too far from the normal requirements. In response to Commr. Soll, Consultant Watson, clarified that the proposal has 160 spaces of the 194 space requirement; suggested a viable solution would be to set a threshold and let the applicants work with Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville and staff to develop a plan. Vice-Chair Edhaie concurred with Commrs. Nemcik and Andreen, voicing concerns over the reduced parking; noted being in favor of setting a threshold and allowing the applicant time to work through the issues. Commr. Andreen stated that a 17 percent is not an acceptable reduction. Consultant Watson suggested reducing to a ten percent threshold, noting that staff can include contingency plans that would allow for more parking to be created to satisfy demand. Community Development Director Codron clarified that the additional parking reduction is allowed within the zoning regulations. Attachment 7 PC1 - 75 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-137 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 7 The Applicant clarified that they are asking for a seven percent reduction on a project that requires 200 spaces. Chair Wynn expressed support for developing a contingency plan built into the parking plan. The Commission, having established concerns over parking, agreed to have the applicant work with staff and Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville to come up with a solution that could incorporate a contingency plan. Chair Wynn shared concerns over the creek channel looking manufactured; suggested adding bumps and pockets to add more naturalness; noted concerns with bicyclists’ ability to ride up the steep areas. Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni, acknowledged concerns and constraints due to grading; noted that staff is not against grading; stated that the goal was to make the commission aware of those constraints. Chair Wynn, expressed satisfaction with the grading; acknowledged the positive direction of the project; requested to see the overall stepping of the site. During the course of discussion, the Commission concluded there is connectivity; suggested adding more pathways to Orcutt Road. The applicant provided an overview of the new architectural styles, noting the addition of a craftsman style house for which Chair Wynn and Commr. Andreen voiced support. In response to Commr. Andreen, the applicant stated that the homeowners would have an option to choose from a set of colors to ensure an eclectic color palate in keeping with the San Luis Obispo style; noted that there will be trees in between the single family homes. The Applicant noted remaining concerns over parking; stated a commitment to working toward the City’s requirements; voiced misperception over lack of consistency in the requests made by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission with regard to number of parking spaces; expressed appreciation for Commission feedback. There were no further comments made from the Commission. The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review with the following directional items: 1. Note: The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on conceptual information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full application submittal for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans, Attachment 7 PC1 - 76 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-138 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 8 the ARC may require additional changes and or modifications to the project that were not previously known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional items. 2. Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City checklists. 3. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on- street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk). 4. Provide details on the pedestrian connection to the adjoining Mobile Home Park with final design plans. 5. Explore pedestrian connectivity from the connection of Street A-4 and Street A- 3 to Orcutt Road (between the residential lots). 6. Explore alternatives to proposed grading along the creek (especially within the creek setback) to provide a more varied/naturally appearing slope bank. 7. Explore additional parking reduction options to be considered by the ARC with final design review plans, based on a 10% reduction, with a minimum of 174 parking spaces (21 guest parking spaces and at least 153 resident spaces) required unless an acceptable alternate or contingency plan can be implemented with the final design. 8. In conjunction with Public Works review of the project, introduce extensions of the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly towards A-2 Street to break up the extent of common street parking, as a part of final design review by ARC. 9. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. 10. Provide 3D renderings to illustrate the proposed use of taller retaining walls (in particular: the tiered walls along Orcutt Road and the taller retaining walls associated with the condo structures). Include landscaping/screening proposals with these renderings. Attachment 7 PC1 - 77 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-139 DR A FT Draft ARC Minutes October 19, 2015 Page 9 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a forecast of upcoming agenda items; noting an upcoming hearing on November 2, 2015 for 222 Tank Farm, and stated there will be a conceptual review on November 16, 2015 of the San Luis Ranch Project and an appeal of a guest house at 128 Chorro Street. 2. Commission: The Commission discussed the new format for conceptual review hearings. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary Attachment 7 PC1 - 78 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-140 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) SUBJECT: Review of a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements on the Master List Historic Motel Inn property. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner 2229 Monterey Street Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2363-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Motel Inn, L.P. Representative Studio Design Group Architects Submittal Date November 9, 2015 Complete Date January 11, 2016 Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with Special Considerations “S” overlay) General Plan Tourist Commercial Site Area Approximately 4 acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration recommended for adoption SUMMARY The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location to construct a 55-unit motel/hotel and 23 space RV/Airstream park at the Master List Historic Motel Inn property (Attachment 2, Project Plans). The project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission (conceptual), Architectural Review Commission (conceptual), and Cultural Heritage Committee (final determination) as discussed in Section 1.1 below. The subject location includes a Special Considerations Overlay which is governed by Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series); which includes special standards that apply to the property (Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 1130). Staff finds the design of the project to be consistent with Ordinance No. 1130, the Community Design Guidelines, historic preservation standards, and applicable City standards and recommends support by the ARC as discussed in section 3.0 below. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration at a subsequent hearing. Meeting Date: March 21, 2016 Item Number: 1 Attachment 8 PC1 - 79 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-141 ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street) Page 2 PC Conceptual Review 8-26-2015 ARC Conceptual Review 10-19-2015 CHC Review 01-25-2016 PC Review 03-23-2016 ARC Review 03-21-2016 1.0 BACKGROUND & COMMISSION’S PURVIEW 1.1 Background On October 19, 2015, the ARC performed a conceptual review of the subject application. The ARC was supportive of the conceptual plans and provided direction to the applicant to return to the ARC for final design review; no specific directional items for changes to the design were provided (see Attachment 7: ARC Minutes 10-19-2015). On January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the subject application and found the project consistent with historic preservation standards (see Attachment 8: CHC Staff Report 01-25-2016, Attachment 9: CHC Minutes 01-25-2016, and Attachment 10: CHC Resolution). 1.2 Purview The Commission is tasked with the following: 1. Review the project’s consistency with previous ARC direction (no specific directional items in this instance, other than to return for final design review). 2. Review the project’s consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 (Attachment 3), the Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards. 3. Comment on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration ( Attachment 11). The Planning Commission will take final action on the MND at a subsequent hearing. 4. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 10) and take final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting A detailed description of site information and setting can be found in the October 19, 2015 ARC Staff Report which is Attachment 6 to this report. 2.2 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) Background and discussion regarding Ordinance No. 1130 is provided in the August 26, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4) and the October 19, 2015 ARC Conceptual Review Staff Report (Attachment 6). Ordinance No. 1130 is provided herein as Attachment 3. 2.2 Project Description A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans): Attachment 8 PC1 - 80 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-142 ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street) Page 3 1. Construction of a motel/hotel with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream Trailer hookups. a. 12 rooms within the main lobby building b. 40 rooms among twelve detached bungalow units. c. Lobby building and bungalow units are located behind the previously approved restaurant building which contains the remaining Motel Inn Historic features on the north facing elevation of the approved restaurant building (shown for reference in Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet A-3.6). 2. Mission Revival style architecture with features including: a. Bell tower, arched windows and doors, curved parapets, red-tiled roof, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafters. 3. 121 parking spaces provided a. 10% parking reduction request (13 spaces). The request will be evaluated by the Planning Commission. 4. Tree removals (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet L3.0). No removal of heritage trees. The City Arborist supports tree removals that are within the footprint of the proposed structures. 2.2.1 Notable Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review 1. Additional entrances facing the creek (compare Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 & Sheet A4.1, “Site Elevation B to Attachment 12: Previous View from the Creek) 2. Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces (see Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.3) 3. Added three housekeeping buildings (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 and A3.5 “Elevations - Housekeeping Bldgs”) Table 2.2 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed Ordinance Standard Street Yard ~45 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet + 10 feet for bell tower/spire 45 feet1 + 10 feet for architectural projections Building Coverage (footprint) ~10% 75% Parking Spaces 1212 131 Bicycle Parking 7 7 (1 short term, 6 long) 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, and Ordinance No. 1130 was provided in the October 19, 2015 ARC Staff Report (see Attachment 6, 1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit. 2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. Attachment 8 PC1 - 81 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-143 ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street) Page 4 Section 3.0). Except as provided below, no significant changes to the project have been proposed since the ARC’s review of the project on October 19, 2015. As such, staff has provided findings of consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Ordinance No. 1130 in the recommended resolution (Attachment 1). Note: the 10-19-2015 ARC Staff Report (Attachment 6) included two items for ARC discussion; RV Parking creek buffering” related to the use of a split rail fence adjacent to the creek, and Motel bungalow units” related to openings facing the creek per Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #2 see Attachment 6, ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015). At the 10-19-2015 hearing, the ARC indicated that the use of split rail fencing and the proposed opening facings the creek were consistent with Ordinance No. 1130. Per this direction, the designs remain unchanged, with the exception of additional doors facing the creek per section 2.2.1 above. 3.1 Analysis of Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review 1. Additional entrances facing the creek. Staff Response: The applicant modified the bungalow floor plans to create separate entries to each unit, where entrances were previously shared (see figure below). The revision has created several additional “openings facing the creek” which may present an issue of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3 which states “building openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.” Additional entrances facing the creek may result in an increase in potential noise producing activity along the creek area that is associated with patrons entering/exiting hotel rooms (e.g. doors opening/closing, loud conversations, additional pedestrian activity along the Creekside walkway). It is recognized that openings facing the creek may be considered more of an issue of functionality rather than design and, as such, staff is requesting the ARC provide feedback on this issue in order to inform the Planning Commission’s upcoming review of the Use Permit. 2. Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces. Staff Response: The RV spaces were shortened and the Airstream spaces were shifted per requirements from the Utilities Department due to an existing utility easement with underground water main. The site plan maintains the same level of maneuverability shown on previous plans. Staff recommends the ARC support the revised layout. 3. Added three housekeeping buildings. Staff Response: The three housekeeping buildings were added to provide additional maintenance service for the hotel. The single story structures are designed to be consistent with the project’s architecture and are low in scale. Staff recommends the ARC support the propose structures. 3.2 Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation As noted above, the proposed structures are located adjacent to the Master List Historic Motel Inn. The CHC reviewed the project on January 25, 2016 (see Attachment 8: CHC Staff Report Attachment 8 PC1 - 82 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-144 ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street) Page 5 01-25-2016 & Attachment 9: CHC Minutes 01-25-2016) and found the proposed new structures to be compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the historic motel inn and project site, consist with historic preservation standards. The CHC also reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( Attachment 11) and found it to properly characterize the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources, and found the incorporated mitigations to appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. The CHC recommends approval of the project to the ARC per CHC Resolution No. 1000-16 (Attachment 10: CHC Resolution No. 1000-16). 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 11). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards & hazardous materials, and transportation/traffic will be less than significant. The Planning Commission will perform the final review/decision regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval and/or code requirements. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 1130, historic preservation standards, and/or other pertinent City standards. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Project plans 3. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series) 4. PC Staff Report 08-26-2015 5. PC Minutes 08-26-2015 6. ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015 7. ARC Minutes 10-19-2015 8. CHC Staff Report 01-25-2016 9. CHC Minutes 01-25-2016 10. CHC Resolution 01-25-2016 11. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12. Previous View from the Creek (shown on previous plans) Attachment 8 PC1 - 83 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-145 PC1 - 229 ATTACHMENT 3 PC2-146 City of San Luis Obispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM USE-1 035-2015 (PR-0113-2015) February 24, 2016 1. Project Title: Motel Inn & RV Park 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marcus Carloni , Associate Planner (805) 781-7176 mcarloni@ slocity.org 4. Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Motel Inn L.P. P .O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7. Zoning: Attachment 9 C-T -S (Tourist Commercial with "Special Consideration" Overlay due to the San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property.) PC1 -93 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-147 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population I Housing Agriculture Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Materials X Air Quality Hydrology I Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use I Planning X Transportation I Traffic X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities I Service Systems Geology I Soils Noise X Mandatory Findings Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department ofFish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State age ncies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). PC1 -95 of ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-149 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 X made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR ofNEGA TIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signatmo~ February 24, 2016 Date Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron Printed Name Community Development Director PC1 -96 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-150 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e .g . the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e .g . the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants , based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made , an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance PC1 -97 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-151 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation Sources Potentially Significant Issues 2 2 1,2 Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X a), b) The proposed buildings are situated in a previously developed area and are low scale that will not exceed two stories (structure height of approximately 32 feet). The proposed project does not have the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas and the project will not affect scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings . c) The project site is located in an area zoned for commercial development and was previously disturbed with buildings and site development associated with the Historic Motel Inn. The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines which address compatibility of proposed development on the site and in relation to surroundings. Additionally, the Planning Commission will review the project for compatibility through requirements of Ordinance No. 1130. In 1989, commercial properties on the east side of Monterey Street (including this property) were rezoned to include the "S", Special Consideration, overlay district. The implementing ordinance , Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites within the S district overlay. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental quality are addressed in the design criteria. The design criteria include specifications which limit building openings onto the creek and address lighting, screening between land uses, riparian corridor protection, building height and grading limitations and drainage control. d) New sources of lighting will be evaluated as part of the review of ordinance No. 1130 to ensure that lighting remains on- site and does not produce glare that could affect neighboring properties. The project will also be reviewed by the ARC and at the time of building permit submittal for compliance with the City's Night Sky Ordinance (SLOMC 17.23) which contains provisions to minimize glare and protect the natural environment from excessive and/or misdirected light and glare. Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? X X X a),b),c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with the project. PC1 -98 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-152 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion: a-c) No Impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the pro.iect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 3,4,5 X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X r------r------~--------~---------+------~ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 4 , 5 pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 4, 5 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? a-e) The proposed project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is a commenting agency to assess air pollution impacts from both construction and operational phases of the project. The APCD found potential impacts associated with operational and construction phase impacts unless recommended mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The APCD provided a letter dated November 17, 2015 (Appendix C) which included recommended mitigations to address construction impacts, operational phase impacts, and sensitive receptors. With incorporation of all mitigation measures and recommendations provided by APCD, impacts to air quality will be less than significant. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Conclusion: a -e) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 6 X 6 X 7, 8, X 6 X 3 X PC1 -99 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-153 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X (a-d) The proposed project complies with required setbacks from the creek bank and C/OS portion of the site. South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek in the vicinity of the area of the project and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City's Natural Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or otherwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. However, due to the proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of the site , there is the potential for construction-related impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BI0-1) has been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor are utilized under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP). San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130 ( 1989 Series) for the C-T -S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank (on the project site) the creek channel is vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All proposed structures and other improvements are above the established top of bank. Residential properties across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang the creek channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a significant biological corridor. Its condition could be enhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoration and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), criterion No. 3. The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and has recommended mitigation measures (BI0-2) requiring a planting plan which would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non-native plantings with appropriate trees , shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources for South -C entral California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse , complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species . (e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the project site is not part of a local, regional , or state habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b. Equipment will be fueled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e . All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage /creek system . Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers . Conclusion: a-f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated . 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 10, 11' X PC1 -100 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-154 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains , including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Historic Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues 12, 13 14 13 13 Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List Historic Motel Inn was constructed in the 1924-1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style . The Motel Inn is significant historically since it is associated with events that made a broad contribution to California's history and cultural heritage. This is the first location to use the word "motel" and the first business to employ motoring comfort accommodations which represented a shift away from auto camps and cabins . Building permits issued under previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the fa<;:ade remaining from the original restaurant building. That said , these remaining building remnants from the historic Motel Inn are not a part of the currently proposed project and will be incorporated into a building which is currently under construction pursuant to building permits issued under previous entitlements . a) The proposed project includes the construction of a lobby building with 12 attached hotel rooms , a mix of one and two story detached bungalows with a total of 40 hotel rooms, and a 1.6 acre site with 25 RV hookups . Due to the fact that the applicant has a current, approved building permit regarding partial construction of those elements of the project which are of historic value, no further evaluation is required for that part of the project. However, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will still need to review the remaining components of the project to insure that the entire project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines of the City and the Secretary of the Interior (SOl) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed development requires an evaluation of the projects compatibility with the remaining character defining elements of the historic Motel Inn which are incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building which is under construction . The project's compatibility with the approved restaurant building (including the remaining historic lobby building and fa<;:ade of the original structure) will be evaluated by the City 's Cultural Heritage Committee for conformance with relevant City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. An evaluation has been provided by City Staff for review by the Cultural Heritage Committee which finds that the proposed new construction will not detract from the historic significance of the remaining historic features to be incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building. Proposed development will be located approximately 20-feet behind the previous! y approved restaurant building (which includes the historic features) and the scale of the lobby building and bungalow units will not block views, nor overwhelm or detract from the remaining historic features . The proposed architectural style of the new development incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the original Motel Inn architectural style. The new work will not detract or destroy any of the character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved restaurant building and the proposed structures will preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property. The RV portion of the property is of a relatively low intensity with only 25 potential RV spaces on the site plan. The parking of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, will not detract from the original motel setting, or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist-oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor- serving purpose of the property . Less than significant impact. Archaeological Resources b-d) The project site is considered an archaeologically "sensitive area" because it is within 200 feet of the top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. In January, 2002, Bertrando & Bertrando prepared an Extended Phase I Testing report, which is attached to this initial study as Appendix F. No archaeological deposits were identified. While no archaeological resources were discovered in the test trenches, it is possible that resources could be uncovered with project excavation and grading. The Phase 1 testing report found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could be impacted during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with mitigation PC1 -101 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-155 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated incorporated. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources , archaeological resources, or cultural materials , then construction activities , which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the_risk ofloss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. II. Strong seismic ground shaking? III. Seismic-related ground failure , including liquefaction? IV. Landslides? 16 16 16 16 X X X X X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1---1--'7-+-----+-----+---=X...::....__+-----l c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 16,17 would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3 .2 of the 17 California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 17 tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X X X a) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep . In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults . The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line , near Los Osos Valley Road . According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10 ,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are PC1 -102 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-156 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated considered "active". Other active faults in the region include : the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of "High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Building Code. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake . No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact. b) The site is already partially developed and is an infill site located in an urbanized area. The project will not result in loss of topsoil to a level that would be considered significant. c), d) A soils engineering report will be required by the Building Division at the time of submittal for building and grading permits. The soils report will require data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, and conclusions and recommendations for grading and construction . Grading and building techniques must be designed in compliance with the report. To ensure the proposed project does not pose a risk to occupants and structures the construction plans submitted to the building division for review and approval shall be consistent with recommendations of the soils engineering report. e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City's sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Conclusion: a-e) Less than Significant impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 5 X 5 X a), b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis , the state of California recently passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consistent with City policies for infill development and efficient use of existing infrastructure. As discussed in the above air quality analysis , the APCD has provided comments on the project to address construction and operational phase impacts of the project (Appendix C). Compliance with recommended mitigation measure AQ-1 a lso includes measures to reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions which are also produced with operational and construction phase emissions discussed in the Air Quality analysis. These characteristics of the proposal coupled with the requirement to address APCD comments finds the project consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will result in less than significant impacts. Conclusion: a, b) Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? - X X PC1 -103 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-157 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 19,20 Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X a) The proposed hotel and RV park use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Impact. b) A Phase I environmental site assessment was prepared by Ceres Associates and 1s attached as Appendix G. Recommendations are included in the report which will require certain actions. Since the site previously had a service station use there may be underground tanks remaining in place. As an example, the site assessment recommends that ground penetrating radar (GPR) be utilized to determine if any underground tanks exist, and that sampling be conducted to assess if asbestos is contained in the remaining building on-site . Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. c), d) The proposed project is not within one quarter mile of an existing school and the project would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites . No Impact. e), f), g) The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and would not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans. No Impact. i) The project site is not located within the wildland interface zone. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: a & c-h) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local - X X PC1 -104 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-158 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 groundwater table level (e .g . the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 20.21 20,21 Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X X X a), b) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. The existing on-site water well is proposed to be removed but could be used for landscape irrigation. No significant change is expected to the local groundwater table. The well site is down gradient from the rural upstream properties that rely on groundwater. No impact. c), d), e), f) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off and the proposed project does not increase impervious surface area. If applicable, plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. The project will be subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. These regulations address both water quantity and water quality. The project will be required to retain and/or treat the runoff from the impervious surfaces including parking areas, drive aisles, and roofs . A water quality upgrade is expected from this previously developed site. City Engineering Standards address point source controls for solid waste and materials storage areas . Less than significant impact. g), h), i) The project site is loc ated within the I 00-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map as is the majority of the downtown area. The project is therefore subject to showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Per section 3.0 of the Waterways Management Plan, new development projects and redevelopment projects within the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain that are not located within the Mid-Higuera or special Floodp lain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are met. Furthermore, the project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (flood ordinance). The engineer of record has modeled the project to show that the structures are located outside the SFHA and that the project will not impact adjoining properties . A Letter of Map Change will be processed as a condition of building permits . The project will be required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1-foot above the defined 1 00-year flood elevation at the time, or for PC1 -105 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-159 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sourc es Potenti a ll y Less Than Less Than No Significant Si gnificant Si gnificant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Iss ues with Impact Miti gation Incorporated commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of FEMA "flood-proofing " measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The new structure s and improvements will be located away from the top of creek bank in accordance with the Creek Setback Ordinance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the pro.iect: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation 19 ,22 of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 19 ,22 natural community conservation plan ? Evaluation X X X a), b), c) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated for Tourist Commercial land uses by the General Plan which the proposed visitor-serving development is consistent. The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans . No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan ? a, b) No known mineral resources are pre sent at the project site . Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan , specific plan , or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No Impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 23,24 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance , or applicable standards of other agencies ? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne 23 ,24 vibration or ground-borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 23 ,24 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the _ project? X X X X PC1 -106 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-160 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Attachment 9 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X a), b) The site is located adjacent to Highway 101, the principal noise source affecting existing and future noise conditions in the vicinity. Due to existing noise from Highway 101, the project site is exposed to noise levels in the 60-70dB range. The General Plan Noise Element lists the acceptable range of noise as up to 60 db without the need for any specific noise studies or mitigation . Hotels and motels are noise sensitive uses as designated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 decibels (dB) are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB is acceptable for indoor areas. Outdoor noise levels in the 60-70 dB range are classified as "conditionally acceptable". This means that development may be permitted provided it is designed to meet acceptable (for the proposed land use) noise exposure levels . Due to existing and projected noise levels emanating from Highway 101, in previous approvals for the site, the applicant was required to prepare a noise study to evaluate mitigation strategies for meeting interior and exterior noise standards . The noise study was prepared for a similar, but somewhat different hotel use , by Donald Asquith , PhD , and is attached as Appendix H. The study notes how the freeway noise source varies in elevation above the site from west to east. The northbound on-ramp from Monterey Street is approximately 5 feet higher at the westerly end of the site, increasing to 15 feet at the easterly end . While noise exposure from the highway is still significant, this grade differential from the noise source does reduce the traffic noise levels from what they would otherwise be if the noise source was at the same elevation as the project site. Outdoor spaces that are created within the project site should be designed to consider the freeway noise and exposure of visitors to the noise. For outdoor areas, similar to previous approvals , proposed buildings are sited such that outdoor areas are situated on the opposite side of proposed structures which will attenuate freeway sound levels to acceptable outdoor noise levels. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques for the motel units , according to the noise study and consistent with the City Noise Guidebook. City staff also visited the project site on December 17, 2015, measured noise from the freeway with a sound meter and found the noise levels to be consistent with the prior Asquith study. Recreational vehicle parks are not listed in the General Plan Noise Element as Noise Sensitive uses. For the RV park portion of the project it can be anticipated that recreational vehicle travelers would anticipate freeway noise at this location as it is somewhat common that RV parks are located adjacent to freeways and major roadways. It is not anticipated that RV travelers would have the same expectation of interior noise reduction or quiet outdoor or indoor noise levels as motels or hotel accommodations. Less than significant impact. Noise increases resulting from the proposed project c), d) The hotel and RV park uses are not anticipated to produce sound levels which would exceed thresholds of the General Plan noise element or Noise Ordinance. To a considerable degree, it can be anticipated that proposed structures will help buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition, parking areas for the motel use and RV parking are between 120 feet to 150 feet from the nearest residence on San Luis Drive, and further buffered by San Luis Creek and a heavily vegetated riparian corridor. In addition, Ordinance 1130 contains specific provisions to ensure compatible noise levels with residential uses across the riparian corridor which will be reviewed for conformance by the City Planning Commission. Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including groundbome vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance , which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact. PC1 -107 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-161 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated e), t) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan , is not located within two miles of a public use airport, and is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the pro_ject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area , either directly X (for example , by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) The project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other infrastructure . The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Less than significant. b), c) The project would not displace any existing housing or substantial numbers of people. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X The proposal is for a tourist-oriented land use which will not require the provision of public facilities such as parks or schools. There is also adequate capacity of water, sewer, police and fire protection to service the proposed development. The development will be subject to the standard traffic and water impact fees. Conclusion: No impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or X regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project_include recreational facilities or require the X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a), b) The project does not include permanent residential units and the transitory nature of the hotel guests and RV park use should not place an additional substantial burden on nearby residential facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would be accelerated. No Impact PC1 -108 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-162 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 Conclusion: No impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict_with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies , plans , or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Project Traffic Impact Sources 27 25, 26,27 Potentially Significant Issues Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X a), b) The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Monterey Street as an arterial road and adopts level of ServiceD (LOS D) as the maximum acceptable level of traffic congestion during PM peak hour conditions outside the downtown. The Circulation Element does not prescribe any modifications to Monterey Street northeast of its intersection with Grand Avenue. Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) on the more intensive but similar motel project at this site, approved in 2003 . (See Appendix I, attached.) The TIS evaluated how traffic from the project would affect the operation of nearby intersections. According to the report, full development of the motel would generate approximately I, 148 vehicle trips per day, with 29 trips entering the project site and 52 trips departing during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips entering and 35 trips departing during the PM peak hour. The TIS forecasted how this additional traffic would be distributed to the following intersections and evaluated its impact on the traffic level of service (LOS). (The traffic impacts of the current, proposed project will be significantly less based on an average daily trip generation of 4 75 trips , according to the Omni Means draft Technical Memorandum dated November, 2015. See Appendices, attached .) 1. Monterey Street & U.S. 101 NB On/Off Ramps at Project Driveway 2. Monterey and Garfield 3. Monterey Street and Buena Vista 4. Buena Vista and Garfield 5. Buena Vista and U.S. 101 Southbound OffRamp 6. Monterey Street at Apple Farm Inn Driveway 7. Monterey Street at La Questa Motor Inn Driveway The TIS concluded that under "existing + Project" conditions, area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (generally at LOS Cor better), in compliance with Circulation Element standards. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. PC1 -109 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-163 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sourc es Potenti a ll y Less Than Less Than No Significant Si gnificant Si gnificant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Iss ues with Impact Miti gation Incorporated Cumulative Traffic Impacts: The prior traffic impact study also considered the prior project's contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at build-out of the City's general plan land uses. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis showed that intersections 1, 3, 4 , 6 and 7 listed above will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For intersection 2 (Garfield @ Monterey), the Garfield approach to Monterey would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, without that project's traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization would not meet Caltrans warrants but that actual conditions should be monitored as traffic conditions change to determine the future need for a signal , or possibly all- way traffic controls . Under build-out conditions , the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp (intersection 5, above) would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, without project traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization of this intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants, but like the Garfield intersection, monitoring should be und ertaken and signalization may be warranted in the future . Conclusion: Less than significant impact. (Note: This project will pay city Transportation Impact Fees as required by ordinance . Revenues from these fees are used to pay for mitigating area-wide traffic conditions as those mitigations become necessary . Payment of the fee constitutes this project's fair share contribution toward mitigating potential, future substandard traffic conditions.) Traffic Geometries Concerns d) Access to the Motel Inn site is chall enging due to its immediate proximity to th e northbound on ramp and southbound off- ramp of Highway 101. Therefore, a traffic study was conducted by Omni-Means (November, 2015) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed new traffic to the area and identify the most re asonable measures to mitigate road and driveway geometric issues. The study was conducted in partnership with Caltrans . The study recommends : (1) restricting southwest (SW) left turns for approximately 120 feet of the Northbound (NB) 101 off ramp; (2) providing a west-bound (WB) left turn refuge/acceleration lane for hotel traffic ; (3) realigning the Monterey Street curb line ; and (4) making minor adjustment to affected motel driveways along Monterey Street. A conceptual graphic of the recommended mitigation is shown below. PC1 -110 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-164 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 2363-2015 the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 29 Attachment 9 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X a) b) c) The City Water Resource Recovery Facility and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer laterals to convey wastewater to the sewer main that parallels the project's western property line. All on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Resource Recovery Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of future development. The site includes existing pubic water and sewer mains in easements along the northern and western property lines. This water main is the transmission water main from Reservoir 1. Proposed development at the site shall be sited outside of these easements. Storm drainage facilities in the vicinity are adequate to serve the proposed project and no expansion is required which could result in significant environmental effects. Less than significant impact. d) Water demand from the project was anticipated as part of General Plan build out. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. Less than significant impact. e) f) g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X X X PC1 -112 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-166 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated indirectly? 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items : a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N /A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated ," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 1130 , 1989 2. Project Plans 3. Municipal Code 4. Response Letter from Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2015 5. APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook 6. Ecological Analysis of Apple Farm II , 8/20 /02, Levine-Fricke 7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek Setback ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations) 8. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, 2006 9. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory, December, 1983 10. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines, 2010 11. Historical Resources Inventory of Property, Bertrando, September 2000 12 . Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of the Motel Inn, August 2004 13. Archaeological Report , Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002 14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines , 1995 15. Extended Phase I Testing Report, Bertrando, 2002 16 . San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, State Geologist (Alquist-Priolo Map), 1990 17. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U .S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984 18 . Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates, October, 1999 19 . City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, 2014 20. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 06031 00005C) 21. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan, Above Grade Engineering, San Luis Obispo, November 2015 22 . City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 23. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element & Guidebook 24. Noise Investigation, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 PC1 -113 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-167 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 25 . Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 91 h Edition, 2012 26. Motel Inn Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, March 2002 27. Traffic Report, Omni-Means, November 2015 28 . City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations 29. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, 1994 Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: Appendix B : Appendix C: AppendixD: Appendix E: AppendixF: Appendix G: AppendixH: Project Plans Not Used Air Pollution Control District Letter Dated November 17 , 2015 Ecological Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek, Levine-Fricke, May 2002 and USFWS Protocol Survey, Levine-Fricke, June 2003 Historic American Building Survey of Former Motel Inn, 2004 (with limited attachments) Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ceres Associates Noise Study, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 No Impact Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study, OMNI-MEANS , Nov. 2015 & Higgins Associates , 2002 ; (with limited attachments) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ~ Monitoring Program AQ-1 : All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site . Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-I: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage /creek system. ~ Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. PC1 -114 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-168 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. ).-Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City's Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement plan as necessary to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the creek corridor. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources , archaeological resources , or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4 .60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts . ).-Monitoring Plan, CULT 2 : All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure . Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. ).-Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1 : All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action. Mitigation Measure: TT -1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as approved by the City and Caltrans. ).-Monitoring Plan, TT -1 : All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November 20 15) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors . Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. PC1 -115 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-169 APCD Comments Regarding the Mote/Inn -Monterey Stree t Project November 17, 2015 Page 2 of 8 A Attacbment 9 ppena1x c deems appropriate. The methodCsl selected should be clearly outlined in the mitigation measures. Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities. the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required. In addition. the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal; • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH -non -permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate; • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted; • The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's construction phase thresholds; • During soil excavat ion , odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance; and , • Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering Division at 781-5912. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO County APCD has identified areas throughout the County where NOA may be present (see the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4). If the project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), the following requirements apply. Under the ARB Air Taxies Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction , Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (931 05), 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 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 an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD . More information on NOA can be found at slocleanair.org/business/asbestos .php . Demolition/Asbestos Demolition act ivities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, abatement, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing buildings or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g ., transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If this project will include any of these activities. then it may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions. including the PC1 -117 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-171 APCD Comments Regarding the Mote/Inn -Monterey Street Project November 17,2015 Page 3 ofB A Attacbment 9 ppena1x c requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants C40CFR61. Subpart M-asbestos NESHAPl. These requirements 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. Please contact the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 and also go to slocleanair.org/business/asbestos .php for further information . To obtain a · Notification of Demolition and Renovation form go to the "Other Forms" section of: slocleanair.org/business/onlineforms.php. Developmental Burning Effective February 25, 2000, the APCD prohibited developmental burning of vegetative material within San Luis Obispo County. If you have any questions rega r ding these requirements, contact the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 . Dust Control Measures Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with grading areas that are within 1.000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD's 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to p r event airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph . Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. Please note. since water use is a concern due to drought conditions. the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook; c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; d . Permanent dust control measures iden t ified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities; e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabil ized 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 should be completed as soon as possible. In addition , building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with eve Section 23114; PC1 -118 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-172 APCD Comments Regarding the Mote/Inn -Monterey Street Project November 17, 2015 Page4 ofB A Attacbment 9 ppena1x c j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; I. All PM 10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans; and, m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period . Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Construction Permit Requirements Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during the project's construction phase . Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive . For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook. • Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers; • Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator; • Internal combustion engines; • Rock and pavement crushing; • Unconfined abrasive blasting operations; • Tub grinders; • Trammel screens; and, · • Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc). To minimize potential delays. prior to the start of the project. please contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Construction Phase Idling Limitations Projects that will have diesel powered construction activity in close proximity to any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation measures to ensure that public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions: To help reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project. the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: PC1 -119 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-173 APCD Comments Regarding the Mote/Inn -Monterey Street Pr oject November 17, 2015 Page 5 ofB 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations A Attacbment 9 ppena1x C 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-Californ ia 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 djesel-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 a restr icted 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 id li ng limit. d. 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/regact/2007 /ord iesl07 /frooal.pdf. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors 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; and d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS APCD staff has estimated the operational impacts of this development by running the CaiEEMod computer model , a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use and the resulting emissions related to this project's land uses . The results of the model, using conservative County average trip distances, demonstrated that the operational impacts will likely exceed the APCD's thresholds in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Handbook. As a result of this estimated threshold exceedance for ROG+NOx and greenhouse gases. this project must implement Standard Mitigation Measures. which can be found in Table 3-5 of the APCD's 2012 CEOA Handbook. to bring the project below the significance threshold. PC1 -120 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-174 APCD Comments Regarding the Mote/Inn -Monterey Street Project November 17, 2015 Page 6 ofB Wood Combustion A Attacbment 9 ppena1x C Under APCD Rule 504, only APCD approved wood burning devices can be installed in new dwelling units. These devices include: • All EPA-Certified Phase II wood burning devices; • Catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 4.1 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA-Certified but have been verified by a nationally- recognized testing lab; • Non-catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 7.5 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA-Certified but have been verified by a nationally- recognized testing lab; • Pellet-fueled woodheaters; and • Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. If you have any questions about approved wood burning devices. please contact the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912. San Luis Obispo Car Free Program Vehicle emissions are often the largest source of emissions from the operational phase of development. This project has the potential to increase the amount of vehicle trips to our County and appropriate mitigation measures must be considered. San Luis Obispo (SLO) Car Free is a program to encourage car-free transportation to and around San Luis Obispo County. SLO Car Free provides tools to travelers on the pleasures and availability of traveling to our area without their cars, or by parking their cars once they arrive . By pledging to travel to, or around SLO County without a car, visitors receive special incentives from participating hotels, restaurants, transportation services and attractions. In addition, businesses who join SLO Car Free as a participating business receive free advertisement on their website, highlighting the businesses efforts to encourage "green ," tourism to San Luis Obispo County. Your business is also promoted through several social media networks and at the numerous events that SLO Car Free participates in each year. The SLO Car Free website (SLOCarFree.org) is a hub for information and web-links on transportation, lodging, attractions and other visitor needs. Visitors can use the website to find out what they can do in SLO County and how they can do it without a car. To mitigate the potential vehicle trips to the proposed <business/facility. etc) the business must sign up to participate in the SLO Car Free Program. provide incentives to car-free travelers. and promote the program in their communication tools. To get signed up for SLO Car Free. please contact Meghan Field in the APCD Planning Division at 805-781-5912. Operational Phase Idling Limitations Public health risk benefits can be realized by idle limitations for diesel engines. To help reduce the emissions impact of diesel vehicles utilizing the RV facilities 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 PC1 -121 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-175 A Attacbment 9 ppena1x C APCD Comments Regarding the Mote/Inn -Monterey Street Project November 17,2015 Page 7 of8 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 a 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)(3) 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. d. 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/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (List sensitive receptors here based on the following list: schools. residential dwellings. parks. dav care centers. nursing homes. and hospitals -ifnone. then eliminate "b"J Fire Pits 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 and electrification of loading docks (e.g., electrical plug-ins for truck refrigeration units and electrification of loading equipment) is recommended; and d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. If the developer is planning on including fire pits in the project, the following comments apply relating to operational phase impacts: Recent studies that examined the impact of bonfires/campfires on public health showed that smoke from bonfires/campfires impacted air quality in nearby residential areas. To address air quality impacts APCD recommends: • Locating fire pits at least 700 feet from the nearest residence; and, • Fire pits should be at least 100 feet apart (If a city has 15 or fewer fire pits, they must be separated by at least 50 feet); and, • Fire pits should not be used when air quality for fine particulates (PM 2.s ) is forecasted to exceed 100 on the Air Quality Index (AQI). Based on historical air quality data, the AQI is expected to rarely exceed 100 in the vicinity of this project. PC1 -122 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-176 ~COU N~ I Air Po ll ut ion Cont ro l Distri ct apcu San Luis Obispo County Naturally Occurring Asbestos Construction and Grading Project Form Applicant Information/Property Owner Project Name Address Project Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Email for Contact Person Project Site Latitude, Longitude Phone Number Date Submitted Agent Check DESCRIPTION APCD REQUIREMENT 1 Applicable (attach applicable required information) Project is subject to NOA requirements but NOT disturbing NOA (See Website Map) Geological Evaluation htto://www slocleanair.oreJbusiness/asbestos.oh o Project is subject to NOA requirements and Geolog ical Evaluation project is disturbing NOA-more than one acre Project is subject to NOA requirements and Geological Evaluation project is disturbing NOA-one acre or less A Attacbment 9 ppena1x c Assessors Parcel Number Phone Number APCD REQUIREMENT 2 Ex emption Request Form Dust Control Measure Plan Mini Dust Control Measure Plan Please note that the applicant will be invoiced for anv associated fees. REQUIRED APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Legal Decla r ation/Authorized Signa t ure Date APCD OFFICE USE ONLY Geological Evaluation Exemption Request Form Dust Control Measure Plan Monitoring, Health and Safety Plan App rov ed Yes 0 No 0 Approved : Yes 0 No 0 Approved : Yes 0 No 0 Approv ed : Yes 0 No 0 Co mments: Co mm ents: Co mments: APCD Staff: Dat e Receiv ed : Date Re viewed OI S Site# OIS Pr oj # In vo ic e No. Ba sic Fee Addi t io nal Fees Bill abl e Hrs Tot al Fee s H :\1 N FO\Form s\E N FORCE M E NT\N OAC&G P roj ectForm&Exem ption Req u es t -20 14.docx T 805.7 8 1.5912 F 8 05 .7 8 1.1002 W s locleanai r.o rg 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis obfs~. c:AJ :M401 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-178 ( f!i.co uNTC I Air Po ll ut ion Con tro l Dist ric t ~ape San Luis Obispo County Naturally Occurring Asbestos A Attacbment 9 ppena1x c Construction & Grading Project Exemption Request Form Applicant Information/ Property Owner Project Name Address Project Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Email Address Project Site Latitude, Assessors Parcel Longitude Number Phone Number Date Submitted Agent Phone Number The District may provide an exemption from Section 93105 of the California Code of Regulations-Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure For Construction. Grading. Quarrying. And Surface Mining Operations for any property that has any portion of the area to be disturbed located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit; if a registered geologist has conducted a geologic evaluation of the property and determined that no serpentine or ultramafic rock is likely to be found in the area to be disturbed . Before an exemption can be granted , the owne r /operator must provide a copy of a report detailing the geologic evaluation to the District for consideration . The District will approve or deny the exemption within 90 days. An outline of the required geological evaluation is provided in the District handout "ASBESTOS AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, QUARRYING, AND SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS-Geological Evaluation Requirements." See the APCD Website map: http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php NOTE: A basic exemption evaluation fee of $172.00 will be charged. APPLICANT MUST SIGN BELOW: I request the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District grant this project exemption from the requirements of the ATCM based on the attached geological evaluation. Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature Date: OFFICE USE ONLY-APCD Required Element-Geological Evaluation Date Received: Date Reviewed: OIS Site#: OIS Project#: APCD Staff: Approved Not Approved Comments : H :\1 N FO\Form s\E N FORCE M EN TIN OAC&G P raJ ectForm&Exem ptlon Req uest -20 14.docx T 805.781.5912 F 805 .781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis obfs~, c:AJ ~401 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-179 ~ca l Air Po ll ution Contro l District San Luis Obispo County Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Fees A Attacbment 9 ppena1x c Projects where Naturally Occurring Asbestos such as serpentine rock is likely to be found are subject to the State Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Grading projects in the APCD planning area for serpentine rock will require prior District approval of an exemption from the ATCM or an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan Effective August 1. 2011, the revised project review fees by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) are as follows: Basic Fee Additional Fee Geological Geological Geological Geological Dust Control Dust Control Evaluation Evaluation & Evaluation & Evaluation & Plan Review Plan Review & & Full Conditional one (1) acre more than one and Approval Approval with Exemption Exemption or less (1) acre Monitoring Construction, Grading, Roads, Surface Mining, $172.00 $230.00 $287.00 $287.00 $115.00 $230.00 & Quarrying in Serpentine Prior to any grading activities at your site, a geologic analysis may be necessary to determine if serpentine rock is present. All subject project applicants should complete an exemption form or the Construction and Grading Project form. These forms, maps, and additional information can be found on the District web site at: www.slocleanair.org In order to process the review of your project in the shortest time possible, please contact the District immediately at 805-781-5912 Please note that any necessary San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District staff time or resources expended to provide State regulation compliance determinations to any person, regardless of permit status, may be charged at a rate which reflects labor costs as set by the Air Pollution Control Board and actual costs incurred by the APCD. PC1 -126 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-180 -1 ' . i ' " ' • I r . } . , l • j . i . ! . i . I l ' A Attachment 9 ppena1x-o Motel Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Raptor Survey 021 ~1 0061-00 June 2003 Prepared for: King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared by: LFR Levine Fricke 301 South Miller Street, Suite 210 Santa Maria, California 93454 PC1 -127 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-181 • ! -' ' I . l • 1 ~ • i l ' . ' . ' . I ' A Attachment 9 ppena1x-o Mote/Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF& Nesting Rap tor Survey CONTENTS CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1 3.0 HABITAT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 1 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 2 5.0 NESTING RAPTOR SURVEY ............................................................................................... 3 6.0 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG SPECIES ACCOUNT ............................................... 3 7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 4 8.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 5 FIGlJRES ......................................................................................................................... ? APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURES Project Location Map CRLF survey area APPENDIX Photographs of Site Pagei PC1 -128 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-182 . i ! -! .. I . ) ~ -i . I :! : r ~ i '1 ' . i -l • ! -' A Attachment 9 ppena1x-o Mote/Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Raptor Survey 1.0 2.0 3.0 Introduction LFR Levine-Fricke (LFR) has prepared this report of the findings from the USFWS protocol California red-legged frog (Rana aurora spp. draytonii; CRLF) survey and the nesting raptor survey associated with the "Apple Farm Phase 2" and "The Motel Inn" (Site). The surveys were conducted within the San Luis Obispo Creek (Creek) riparian corridor in the vicinity of the Site. The frog survey was conducted using United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol CRLF survey· guidelines (USFWS 1997). The proposed development site is located on the southeast side of Monterey Street, just south of the intersection of Monterey Street and Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. The Site is adjacent to and on the north side of San Luis Obispo Creek (Figure 1 ). The CRLF is federally listed as threatened and is a state "species of special concern." All raptors, including their nests and eggs, are protected under California Department of Fish and Game code (Section 3503.5). Project Description The project involves demolition of existing structures on the property located at 2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, in order to facilitate the Motel Inn Redevelopment Project as approved by the San Luis Obispo City Council and the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission. These approvals were granted through the adoption of Resolution Number 9418 (2003 Series), approving Application number A & ER 122-01. The CRLF and nesting raptor surveys described herein were conducted to satisfy conditions of approval for that project. Habitat Description The following habitat description is from LFR (2002) . San Luis Obispo is situated in the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range, eight miles inland from the Pacific Ocean at A vii a Beach. The climate in the San Luis Obispo area is moderate with warm, dry summers and a strong maritime influence. There is a short winter "rainy" season but minor change in overall temperature. Precipitation primarily occurs between January and April and averages 15 to 20 inches per year. The project site is located in the northeastern comer of the city of San Luis Obispo. The southern edge of the proposed development is adjacent to a well-developed riparian corridor along San Luis Obispo Creek, which extends southwest from Cuesta Canyon. The upper canopy is dominated by large western sycamores (Platanus racemosa), with arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) as an associate species on the margins of the corridor. Both walnut (Juglans sp.) and California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) are present in the area, but uncommon. Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) are also present as scattered individuals. Non-native trees within the corridor consist ofblue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). The presence of Monterey pine and other ornamental species, such as the invasive myoporum (Myoporum Pagel PC1 -129 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-183 -' ~ l r -J -1 " 1 l I • I . l . i ~ l . I I . . i . ! . l A Attachment 9 ppena1x-o Motel Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Raptor Survey 4.0 laetum), increases on the western end of the Site near the existing Apple Farm establishment. The understory of the riparian corridor is dominated by periwinkle (Vinca major). This highly invasive, spreading, perennial vine is known to thrive along tree-covered drainages and create a dense cover that prevents the establishment of other plant species (Bossard, et al., 2000). The diversity and cover of other species in the understory is generally limited. Ruderal species line the northern edge of the riparian corridor that connects to highly disturbed graded areas or existing structures. The non-native smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum) is common in this disturbed margin. In addition to periwinkle, other highly invasive species are uncommonly present as isolated individuals at the edge of the riparian corridor: pampas grass ( Cortaderia selloana), giant reed (Arundo dona:x), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and French broom (Genista monspessulana). Small individuals of castor bean (Ricinus communis) were also observed . The species present on the margins of the creek and within the creek include cattail (Typha sp.), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense), sneezeweed (Helenium sp.), and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum). Methodology The nesting raptor survey was conducted during the day by LFR biologist Mitch Siemens prior to performing the daytime CRLF survey. Nikon 8X40 roof prism binoculars were used to scan the trees on the Site for signs of stick nests or white wash that might indicate raptor nesting locations. The Site and surrounding area were scanned for any raptor behavior that might signify current breeding status (i.e. flying patterns, vocalizations, prey exchanges) . The protocol CRLF survey took place during the day and night on May 51h and 11th, 2003 . A search for CRLF was conducted while walking slowly and as quietly as possible through the Creek channel. The daytime portion of the surveys began at 6:00 p.m. and concluded at approximately 7:30p.m. The nighttime portion of the surveys began at 9:00p.m. and concluded at 10:30 p.m. Weather conditions during the survey included overcast skies, no wind, and temperatures ranging from 62-66 degrees Fahrenheit. The survey took place along the Creek from the south side of the 101 Freeway to approximately 100 meters south of the southern boundary of the Site (Figure 2). The channel bottom and banks of San Luis Obispo Creek and portions of the surrounding upland habitat were included in the search for CRLF at the Site. Nikon 8X40 roof prism binoculars were used during both day and night surveys to aid in identification of frogs and other wildlife encountered in the field. The nighttime portion of the survey required use of a NITE LITE, Wizard II, 6 volt head lamp. Digital photographs of the Site were taken, and field notes documenting significant observations made during the survey were recorded. Page2 PC1-130 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-184 ~ l , .. , I . ; -I . i . ' i j . ' -! ! . i -I i . i • I A AttaC'.bment 9 ppencflx-o Mote/Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Raptor Survey 5.0 6.0 The California Department ofFish and Game Natural Diversity DataBase (CNDDB) reports occurrences of known sensitive natural communities, plants, and animals in the State. A CNDDB search for the project site included the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, using the RareFind2 program (CDFG, August 2001). The program is updated by the CDFG quarterly to reflect the most recent reports from the field. Nesting Raptor Survey The Site was surveyed for nesting raptors in conjunction with the CRLF protocol survey. A large stick nest in the fork of a eucalyptus tree on the Site was monitored but appeared inactive. The size of the nest indicates that it was probably used at one time by either red-tailed hawks (Buteojamaicensis) or red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus). A single red-shouldered hawk was observed on the Site during the survey on the 11th of June, and red-tailed hawks were observed in the area during a previous habitat assessment (LFR 2002). The base of the eucalyptus tree containing the nest was inspected for evidence of recent raptor activity (i.e. wlrite wash, prey remains, feathers) but no evidence was found. No other raptors or nest structures were identified during the survey. A list of bird species observed or identified by call during the survey included black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), stellers jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American robin (Turdis migratorius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), pacific- slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) . California Red-legged Frog Species Account The CRLF is an endemic species that is listed as federally threatened and is a California species of special concern. The CRLF is primarily found in wetlands and streams in coastal drainages of central California, but appears to have been eliminated from over 70 percent of its historic range in the Central Val1ey hydrographic region (USFWS, 1996). The primary causes are believed to be anthropogenic, and include habitat alteration/destruction, introduction of non-native predatory fish and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), toxicants (especially pesticides), pathogens and parasites, and acid rain (Hayes and Jennings, 1986). CRLF inhabit freshwater ponds and slow-moving creek pools (Storer 1925; Stebbins 1995). They are a highly aquatic species and are unlikely to be found in areas where pools are reduced or dry completely (Storer 1925). They occur in freshwater marshes and streams usually associated with pools of water exceeding 0.5 meter in depth. CRLF habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby riparian vegetation affiliated with still or slowly moving water (Jennings and Hayes 1989; Stebbins 1995). Most suitable vegetation appears to be characterized by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), although cattail (Typha sp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus sp.) can also provide suitable Page3 PC1 -131 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-185 -~ • ;i i .. i -j "I . ! ; l -I ! . ! . J . . . A Attachment 9 ppena1x-o Motel Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Raptor Survey 7.0 habitat (Jennings 1988). Preferred habitat for juveniles appears to be open, shallow water with dense submergent vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1994.) CRLF lay their eggs in loose clusters during the winter from November to April. Tadpoles hatch after 1-2 weeks. The breeding period is short, often lasting less than two weeks (Nussbaum et al, 1983; Stebbins 1985). Results and Conclusions Suitable habitat requirements for CRLF (e.g., still or slow moving water, water depth of half a meter or more, emergent aquatic vegetation, and undercut banks/root systems providing cover) are present in a few locations near the Site. However, the majority of the Creek near the Site consists of shallow riffles with occasional small pools of not more than 18 inches in depth. The average water velocity is not well suited for CRLF. Slower moving water and deeper pools would be more likely to support CRLF, however these conditions are uncommon along the surveyed section ofthe Creek. Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla) were observed in both adult and tadpole stages of development. Crayfish were commonly observed, as were fish including speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and trout (Oncorhynchus my kiss). These species are believed to eat frog eggs including those ofCRLF. No bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) or southwestern pond turtles ( Clemmys marmorata pall ida) were observed during the survey . There were no active raptor nests identified during the survey. One adult red- shouldered hawk was observed on the Site but this individual did not exhibit behavior that would indicate breeding activity. A search ofthe CNDDB resulted in 15 recorded sightings ofCRLF in the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle including two sightings reported from tributaries to San Luis Obispo Creek in 1995 and 1996 within one half mile ofthe Site. CRLF were seen in Miossi Creek less than a mile from the Site in 1996 by the author of this report . The USFWS protocol level survey conducted in June 2003 by LFR Levine Fricke did not identify CRLF within San Luis Obispo Creek at the project Site. The survey area contained fair habitat for CRLF. However, the lack of deep pools and the presence of species that feed on amphibian eggs (fish, crayfish), including those of the CRLF, may prevent viability of the CRLF at this location. CRLF have been observed within a mile ofthe Site in tributaries of San Luis Obispo Creek. Furthermore stee)head trout, a federally threatened species, were observed in the Creek during the survey. Therefore, every effort should be employed to avoid impacting San Luis Obispo Creek and the associated riparian corridor . Page4 PC1-132 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-186 -! . ' -l i -i . 1 -J . ! ; -' I -' . ; . ; i A Attac.hment 9 ppencnx-o Motel Inn -Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USEWS Protocol Survey for CRLE & Nesting Raptor Survey 8.0 References Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky (eds.). 2000. Invasive plants of California's wildlands. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 360 pp. Department of Fish and Game, 200 1. State of California, The Resources Agency California Natural Diversity DataBase. Regional Map of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (October 2001 Data). Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline ofranid frog species in western North America: Are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20(4):490-509 Jennings, M. 1988. Natural history and decline of native ranids in California. Pages 61-72. In Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology. H.F. DeLisle, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B.M. McGurty, (eds). Southwestern Herpetologists Society Special Publication ( 4): l-143 Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1989. Final report of the status of the California red- legged frog in the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation under contract No. 4-823- 9018 with the California Academy of Sciences. 30 pp. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255pp. LFR Levine Fricke. 2002. Ecological Site Assessment Report. Prepared for King Ventures, 290 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. August 20, 2002 . Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Naturalist Books, Univ. Idaho Press, Moscow. 332 pp. Stebbins. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (2"d ed., rev.). Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Xiv+279 pp. Stebbins, R.C. and N.W. Cohen. 1995. A natural history of amphibians. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 316 pp. Storer. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 27: 1- 342. Page 5 PC1 -133 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-187 • i .. ' ! i -i -~ . i ' • j 4 • ! . I . i • I I ! I . ! A Attac.bment 9 ppenCflx-o Mote/Inn-Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USEWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Raptor Survey United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. Federal Register 61 (101): 25813-25833, May 23, 1996 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (Rana aurora draytonii). February 18. Page6 PC1-134 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-188 .I ' I .ill Motel Inn-Apple Farm Redevelopment Project USFWS Protocol SUrvQY for CRLF & Nesting Ra.ptor Survey ~ l . I .I . l ~ I . ! . r A Attachment 9 ppena1x-o LFR Levine Fricke FIGURES PROJECT LOCATION MAP CRLF SURVEY AREA Page 7 PC1 -135 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-189 . } ' 1 ; ~ " l ! • I A Attar.bmen't 9 ppenaoco liiLFR LEVINE•FRICKE FIGURE l SITE LOCATION MAP Project# 021-10061..00 PC1 -136 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-190 . ~ ! . ) . I ' . ! . l i . ; . ! ') . I . I • I A Attac.bment 9 ppenCflx-o Mote/Inn-Apple Farm Redevelopment Project LFR Levine Fricke USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF & Nesting Ra.ptor Survey APPENDIX PHOTOGRAPHS Page 8 PC1 -138 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-192 A Attachment 9 ppena1x E Significance In 1982, the Motel inn was recorded as Number 0138-03C as part of the historic resources inventory of the City of San Luis Obispo. At the time, only the restaurant/lobby building was considered, and it was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [City of San Luis Obispo 1983]. Further research conducted as part of a restoration and reconstruction project (slated to begin in 2003), assigned the property a State Historic Resources Number (P-40-041 013) and included the bungalow units behind the main building [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000]. On the basis of standard criteria for cultural resource significance [Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852], the Motel Inn is significant because it: 1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage. The Motel Inn was the first venue to combine the automotive convenience of the auto camps, courts, and cabins with amenities of the hotel, thus creating the concept of the motel. The Motel Inn was also the first to use the word motel, coined from mdor hotel. 2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Arthur Heineman, the Pasadena architect and developer of the Motel Inn, was a contemporary of Greene and Greene, and was well known for his Craftsman Style residences and as an early developer of the bungalow court concept. 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value. The Motel Inn combines classic features of a Spanish Colonial/Mission Revival Style with the bungalow court concept. Although not a sterling example of period architecture, it is distinctive, and it represents the beginning of the use of flamboyant and colorful architecture to attract the attention of the touring motorist. History For a general history of the Motel Inn property, including a discussion of the development of the motel concept, refer to the Historic Resource Inventory Report filed by Betsy and Ethan Bertrando on September 2000. Architectural History Charles Hamilton of the Hamilton Hotel chain originally hired Arthur and Alfred Heineman to design a new motor hotel based on the bungalow court concept. The development was financed by Harry Elliot, who partnered with Hamilton, the Heineman brothers, and attorney John H. Alvord to create the Milestone Interstate Corporation, which was to develop a series of motels in California [Krieger 1988]. The Milestone Mot-tel was designed by Arthur Heineman, in association with his brother Alfred Heineman. The Heineman brothers came to California from Chicago in 1894, and became involved in architecture primarily as developers. Although neither had any real training in architecture, they became designers and builders of housing in Southern California. Although Arthur became a registered architect, the unofficial designer was Alfred; the brothers became known as ArthurS. Heineman, architect, and Alfred Heineman, Associate. [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000: 12]. The draftsman of the project was Roy Sutherland, the engineer was Bill Morris [Henry 1957]. The General Contractor on the project was Maino Construction, plumbing was PC1 -143 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-197 A Attachment 9 ppentr1x E 2 by Union Hardware and Plumbing Company, electrical was by Valley Electric (15,000 feet of conduit was installed). Project landscaper was Shurragar, the "well-known firm of florists and landscapers" [Daily Telegram 1925]. At the time, AW. Shurragar had a florist shop at 1416 Monterey Street {Bertrando and Bertrando 2000: 14]. The Milestone Mo-Tel opened on December 12, 1925 at a construction cost of $80,000 [Jackson 1993]. but was not completely finished until fall of 1926 [Krieger 1988]. The Milestone Motel was the first and only motel built out of a proposed chain of eighteen, spaced along the California coast a day's drive apart. These motels were to be an entirely new form of accommodation, featuring the motoring convenience of the automobile camp with amenities of the hotel, including "free maid service, and restaurant and commissary," along with new amenities such as "laundry and dry yard, private garage for each car, "fix-it" garage and racks, and children's playgrounds" [Milestone Interstate Corporation 1925: 2] As originally built, the Milestone Mo-Tel consisted of a lobby and restaurant connected by a covered walkway . The lobby contained a large fireplace and a desk made of copper bound by wrought iron straps to simulate a Spanish chest [Daily Telegram 1925J. Between the main building and the creek, 15 bungalow units were clustered around a courtyard . The original courtyard was planted with grass and featured a palm frond-covered walkway connecting the restaurant and lobby with the bungalow nearest the creek (see photo Motel Inn Bungalow Court 1926}. Each bungalow consisted of 4 standard units that could be paired into a "sitting room apartment" for two couples (see Bungalow Plans 4 of 6). Each unit had a shower or bathtub, a toilet, a washbasin, a phone connected to a switchboard in the lobby, and central heat. The bungalows were constructed of 4" gypsum blocks (known as "key tfle") and plaster, with wood framing of flat roofs. The bungalows also featured clay tie trim, "little Spanish lanterns" by each door, and wood sash windows with iron grille work. Most bungalows also had one or two attached shed-roof garages {see attached 1926 Bungalow Court photos) [Sanborn 1926; Daily Telegram 1925]. Two "deluxe" apartments were situated on a second floor above the lobby and restaurant respectively. In back of the bungalows, along the creek, were a series of "hotel rooms" primarily for "motel aids and chauffeurs", now offices for the adjacent Apple Farm. The eastem end of the hotel unit building was occupied by laundry and linen storage, while further east was a repair garage, now used for storage. Two long garages for additional cars were located along the creek west of the "hotel rooms" {Sanborn 1926; Daily Telegram 1925]. To further cater to the motoring tourist, the Milestone Mo-Tel had its own gas station situated east of the restaurant in what is now a parking lot [Sanborn 1926]. Other amenities added in the 1920s included a miniature golf course along the creek east of the bungalows (see attached Miniature Golf photo ca. 1930) and a riding stable (Stephens 1985; Read 1988]. The restaurant was enlarged and bathrooms added [see Construction History Drawing]. In 1932, the Milestone Interstate Corporation made a large addition to the restaurant, expanding part of the ramada toward Monterey Street to create a lounge [see Construction History Drawing]. This addition was undoubtedly made to accommodate the growing popularity of the restaurant. Unfortunately. by August of that year, the Milestone Interstate Corporation was bankrupt, and the Milestone M~ Tel was lost to foreclosure. It remained closed unti11937 [Ceres 1999:9; Peters 1991]. In 1937, the property was purchased by the Motel Inn Corporation, and in 1938 the Motel Inn was listed as such, along with the Motel Service Station. at 2125 and 2145 Monterey PC1 -144 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-198 A Attachment 9 ppena1x E 3 Street respectively [Ceres 1999:9]. The Motellnnwas sold again in 1939 to Joseph and Lilyan Raphael, and in 1942 to Richard Guest and Violet Peck Guest [Peters 1991]. After the Guests purchased the property, they made some changes . They filled in the rest of the ramada between the main bu ilding wings to create a larger lounge and expanded restaurant, probably due to growing demand from Camp San Luis (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing). In 1944, the Motel Inn was sold to George H. Jovick, and in 1947 it was sold to John W. and Lurene Fisher, who kept the property until1955 [Peters 1991] .. Despite the continuous ownership during this period, an ad in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune in 1949 stated that the Motel Inn Dining Room would be closed for four days for redecoration and would open the next week under new management [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1949:5]. This may refer to the expansion of the restaurant area to include Bungalow K [Sanborn 1954]. In addition to this mystery, Polk's Business Directory of 1950 listed the Motel Inn at 2125 Monterey and "Tessyman's Motel Inn" at 2145 Monterey Street [Ceres 1999: 10]. In 1955, the Fisher's conveyed 2/3 interest of the property to Courtney and Eleanor Moore, and 1/3 to Volney P . Bell and Hope Bell. The following year, all interest in the property passed to the Moore's. During the Moore's ownership, rnany changes were made to the Motel Inn. The service station was torn down, the miniature gold course and riding stables were removed , and a swimming pool was added to the courtyard [Bertrando 2000:14; Peters 1991 ; Reed 1988:np]. By 1957, the apartment in the northwest comer of the property had been converted into a radio station for KVEC, and the restaurant building had absorbed Bungalow L as well as K to create conference, meeting, and banquet facilities (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing) [Ceres 1999:1 0; Bertrando 2000: 14}. It is also likely that the shed garages attached to some of the bungalows were taken down during this time, since a few (but not all) are shown on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1954. In 1959, the Moore's conveyed a portion of their interest in theMotellnn to Allen and Margaret Calkins [Peters 1991]. In the 1960s, the Calkins placed their stamp on the Motel Inn with addition of extensive signage, neon, (see Motel Inn 1960s brochure), and the development of a lunch patio by the pool, featuring a curvy fiberglass roof with tear-drop shaped edges [Giovanni 1987:17]. By 1970, both Courtney Moore and Allan Calkins had died, leaving the Motel Inn in the ownership of Margaret Calkins and Crocker-Citizen National Bank [Peters 1991J . By 1974, a storage shed had been built in the southwest corner of the property, the area in back of the lounge and lobby had been filled in to expand the lounge area (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing), and the KVEC radio station had relocated elsewhere [Bertrando 2000:14; Ceres 1999:11). Changes to the Motel Inn under the Calkins were the last major architectural changes made. In 1974, Margaret Calkins died and her interest was sold to Stanley A. Genest and V .E. Genest. In 1980, Crocker-Citizens Bank sold their interest to the Genests, and the following year the property was sold to Milton E. and Betty R. Grau, the last owners to actually operate the Motel Inn, which finally closed in 1990 [Bertrando 2000:14; Ceres 1999:12; Peters 1991]. Current Conditions The Motel Inn was built in a Spanish Coionial Style with Miss1on Revival elements, featuring plaster walls and red tile roof. The most dominant design attribute is a large tower with a copper dome . This tower, along with the a smaller "bell tower" and the short arcade in front of the lobby, recall the Miss ion Santa Barbara and other California missions . Design details included plaster scroll work on the towers, and at some of the windows and entrances. PC1 -145 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-199 A Attachment 9 ppena1x E The roof line of the main restaurant/lobby building is very complex, consisting of multiple gables and parapets generated by the somewhat organic growth of the building over time. 4 The associated bungalows have flat roofs with some tile mansard edges, and are built of an unusual building material called "key tile." Key tile consists of 4" cube blocks of gypsum, which were stacked like bricks to create the structural walls. No reinforcement was used, and in many cases no mortar was even used . The cubes were stacked not in a running bond like brick, but in simple linear columns. Although most of the wood and wrought iron work present during the historic period are long gone, a few of these original details remain. Remaining details include the wrought iron at the Manager's Apartment and some of the wooden brackets the bungalow entries. Unfortunately, almost all of the original wood-frame divided casement windows have been replaced by picture windows or jalousie windows. Although some of the existing shrubs and trees predate the 1950s, little if any of the original 1920s landscaping remains [Bertrando and Bertando 2000: 14; Foote 2000]. The earliest reports of the Motel Inn describe a "center park of lawn and shrubs" shown in the 1926 photos [Daily Telegram 1925). Later references mention citrus and kumquat trees [Dart 1978], but the exact dates of planting are unknown. The existing citrus tree all appear to be too small to have been planted in the 1920s or 1930s [Foote 2000}. Some newspaper stories about the Motel Inn in 1970s and 1980s mention arbors overgrown with ivy, while other describe the grounds as planted with oleander, hydrangeas, banana trees, oaks , citrus, and kumquats [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000:14]. Photographs of the poolside area in the 1960s show a decidedly tropical theme with ferns, banana trees, and papyrus (see attached photos 1960s). Structurally, the bungalows are in very poor condition, lacking reinforcement, ties to foundation or in some cases any foundation at all. The flat roofs have leaked, damaging the woods framing and causing the collapse of much interior plaster. Structural problems are also apparent at the lobby, with exposed decayed beams and bowed exterior walls . PC1 -146 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-200 A Attachment 9 ppena1x E References Cited and Consulted Anonymous 1925 "Guests Welcomed at Milestone Inn: Motel Opens for Service to the Motor Public." San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925, pp. 1,4. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Anonymous 1925 "Guests Welcomed at Milestone Inn: Motel Opens for Service to the Motor Public.· San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925, pp. 1,4 . Copy on file , King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Automobile Club of Southern California 5 1927 Auto Camps, Courts, and Camp Grounds of California. Automobile Club of Southern California, Los Angeles. Belasco, Warren James 1979 Americans on the Road from Autocamp to Motel, 1910-1945. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge. Bertrando, B. and E . Bertrando 2000a Historical Resource Inventory for 2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. The Motel Inn Complex (P-40-041 013) {Milestone Mot-tel). On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara. 2000b Primary Record P-40-041 013 On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara. Ceres Associates 1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Apple Farm Inn, :21015-2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California. On file , King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Dart, Louisiana Clayton 1978 Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, San Luis Obispo. Foote, David 2000 Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Trees at the Motel Inn Site. Report on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Giovanni, Joseph 1987 "The First Haven for Man and His Auto," New York Times , Home Section , July 9, 1987, p. 17 . Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Heineman, Arthur 1925 The Milestone Marks the End of a Perfect Day. Prospectus for the Milestone Interstate Corporation, National City Bank Building, Los Angeles. On file, B. Bertrando, San Luis Obispo. Henry, Bill 1957 "By the Way with Bill Henry." Los Angeles Times. June 11, 1957, np. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo . PC1 -147 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-201 A Attachment 9 ppentr1x E Jackson, Kristin 1993 "The World's First Motel Rests Upon Its Memories." The Seattle Times, April 25, 1993, pp . K1, K10. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Krieger. Dan 1988 "Times Past: Mot-Tel, San Luis Obispo's Motel Inn May Have Been First." The Telegram-Tribune, October 22, 1988, p. 23 (Focus Section). Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo . Milestone Interstate Corporation 1925 The Milestone Marks the End of a Perfect Day. Prospectus, Milestone Interstate Corporation, Los Angeles Patton, Phil 1986 "America's Home Away From Home is Still a Good Motel." Smithsonian, March 1988, pp. . Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Peters, Nick (Subdivision Manager, Cuesta Title) 6 1991 Chain of Title of the Motel Inn. On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Cuesta Title, San Luis Obispo. Reed, Christopher 1988 "Motoring Milestone." London-Manchester Guardian, January, 1988, np .. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo . Roth, Matthew W. 2000 "Roadside Dream: The World's First Motel Opened a New Chapter in California Car Culture." Westways, May/June, 2000, 16 .. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Sanborn Insurance Co. 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. On file, Bertrando and Bertrando, San Luis Obispo and King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. 1954 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. On file, Bertrando and Bertrando, San Luis Obispo and King Ventures. San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo, City of. 1983 Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey, Vols . 1,2, and 3. On file, Planning Department, City of San Luis Obispo, CA and Kennedy Library, California Polytechic, San Luis Obispo. Stephens, Dan 1985 "The First Motel Marks Sixtieth Year." The Telegram-Tribune, December 12, 1985, pp. A1, A3. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Warnack, James 1925 "Hostelry Chain for Motorists." Los Angeles Times, January 18, 1925, np Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. PC1 -148 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-202 Attachment 9 Appendix F (Archaeological Report) EXTENDED PHASE 1 TESTING FOR 2223 MONTEREY STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA THE MOTEL INN COMPLEX (P -40-401013) Prepared at the request of: Dave Watson AICP King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-544-4444 Prepared by : Betsy Bertrando, Historical Researcher Ethan Bertrando, Principal Investigator 267 Foothill Boulevard San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805 -543-78 3 1 January 2002 PC1 -149 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-203 INTRODUCTION Attachment 9 Appendix F (Archaeological Report) The field research carried out as part of this study was conducted by Ethan Bertrando and Luther Bertrando. The field work took place on August 28th and September 2nd , 2000. The parcel is depicted on the San Luis Obispo 7.5 ' USGS quadrangle topographic map and is situated in a newly annexed portion of the City of San Luis Obispo. The request for an extended Phase I cultural resource investigation of the Motel Inn property was made by Dave Watson, Director of Planning and Project Development for King Ventures . The Motel Inn is reputedly the first motel in the United States. Preliminary future concept plans for the parcel call for the restoration of the primary front building and reconstruction of the bungalow apartments that surround the garden area behind. New structures in the Spanish Colonial style would rep lace the bungalows following the historic theme of the original structures. Eventually new buildings as part of the Apple Farm expansion would go in the vacant space currently used as parking on the parcel on both sides of the Motel Inn. METHODS The methods developed for this project were devised in response to the aims of the project, to determine ifburied archaeological strata were present within the project area. Logistical limitations included existing historic structures, easements for stream bed habitat, underground services and utilities and vehicle transportation corridors. These concerns notwithstanding, an effort was made to give adequate coverage to the project area in an effort to accurately characterize the deposits in that area. Because no sites had been recorded in that area, a backhoe was used to expose long stratigraphic profiles. Beyond this approach's ability to expose potential archaeological deposits, it provided a means by which an understanding of the depositi onal and stratigraphic formation processes that have occurred. All trenches were oriented approximately east/west. While this facilitated mapping and standardized trench descriptions, it also favored the predominant slope descending into San Luis Obispo Creek on the east side of the project area. The exposures should then display evidence of the erosion, alluviation and ot her related depositional processes that would appear more clearly on a down slope setting. Each trench was monitored during excavation to assure that no sensitive features were affected. Each trench was excavated until B stratum soils were exposed . The trenches were measured, mapped and photographed. A sidewall was selected and profiled from each trench and each trench had a minimum of one 5 gallon bucket sample removed from the sidewall and water screened on site through 1/8 " screen. Screen residue was dried and sorted in the field. Any archaeological material was to be bagged and returned to the lab for processing. Upon completion of all the above activities the trenches were backfilled with the backhoe and compacted. 1 PC1 -150 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-204 RESULTS Attachment 9 Appendix F (Archaeological Report) Three distinct soil levels, or strata, occurred in all three of the trenches. These strata were designated as Plowzone, Stratum A and Stratum B. In addition a transitional stratum was identified separating strata A and B . This transitional layer varied in thickness, structure and development from trench to trench . Plowzone referred to all upper disturbed layers that had been affected by recent historic use including vehicle traffic, grading, deposition of fill and road base. It varied in depth but appeared to average just over 10 em in depth. The transition to intact stratum A was irregular with the exception of Trench 3 where road base (i.e. plowzone) had been deposited on top of levelly graded and truncated stratum A. Stratum A appeared as the first intact deposit encountered in the trenches. Based on its composition and contents it is believed to be a young stratum, dating to the middle to later half of the Holocene. It has developed through a combination of alluviation and argilliturbation to form a black clayey soil with rounded and sub-rounded larger constituents. The close proximity of the project area to serpentine bedrock explains the clayey or argillic nature ofthe soil. Similar soils are found throughout the San Luis Obispo, Los Osos and Chorro Valley watersheds. These soils have been found to have a dramatic affect on artifact preservation and placement. Preservation of organics in this matrix is very poor. After excavation of numerous sites in similar soils in the Chorro Valley the only one found to contain significant amounts of organic remains was very young, approximately 200 -300 years in age. Stone artifacts are not affected by preservation problems but the vertical movement of the items through the shrink-swell motions of the clayey soil does affect the context. Artifacts are either forced to the ground surface through soil swelling during saturation or to the bottom of the soil horizon by falling down the crevices created during seasonal dessication of the soils. These processes were considered when evaluating the content of the soils during this project. Stratum B was only partially exposed at the base of the trenches . While there was variability between the trenches some similarities can be summarized . The soil was silty clay with sand and gravel micro -bedding. The color ran from reddish brown to grayish brown. The variation in color can be accounted for with variable iron oxide or organic content. Its composition suggests that it was developed through ancient alluvial events and may represent past channels ofthe meandering San Luis Obispo Creek. An alternate explanation may view this deposit as being created through single or multiple episodes of inundation, probably overflow events when flooding of the nearby stream occur-red . The age of this deposit is unknown . It may represent Pleistocene gravel and clay layers or it could have been produced more recently, perhaps as early as the Middle Holocene. The transition between these levels was natural and gradual. This suggests that the A stratum developed slowly over time through natural processes over Stratum B. The development of both strata and the transitional layers between the two have been heavily influenced by the nearby stream and its sediments it carries. 2 PC1 -151 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-205 Attachment 9 Appendix F (Archaeological Report) Except for recent historic debris, no archaeo logical materials were identified in situ within the trench stratigraphic profi les. This is not felt to reflect preservation issues or problems of artifact disp lacement. Rather, it reflects the actual lack o f archaeological material in the locations test ed. CONCLUSION No archaeological deposits were identified during the extended phase I analysis . T esting was limited and the findings are no t considered to be conclusive. Because of the proximit y to existing structures and underground services much of the core area remained unexamined . Based on the amount of previous disturbance in these locations , the avoidance of these areas is not of as great concern as first appears . However , the results do indicate that the like lihood o f encountering buried cultural remains is slim. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development and renovation of the Motel Inn will result in some areas of significant ground disturbance. Because the area is located in an area of high like lihood o f containing arc haeological deposits archaeological monitoring is recommended during activities resulting in major earth movement or disturbance. The extended Phase I testi ng suggests that no archaeo logi cal deposits are pr esent so no evaluation study is currently recommended . The discovery of new archaeological remains while monitoring d uring construction would trigger an evaluation of the resource. If this happens then the overseeing archaeologist wi ll coordinate with the proper agencies and individuals to adequately address the cultural resources prio r to additional disturbances. 3 PC1 -152 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-206 MRD Enterprises, lnc. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Apple Farm Inn 2015 -2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, California Ceres Associates 5040 Commercial Circle, Suite F Concord. California 94520 (925 ) 825-4466/ Fax (925) 825-4441 Cefes Associates Project CA528-1 October 25, 1999 PC1 -155 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-209 · ... : i . '~<. . i.: i I ·~ ..... ..._. ______ ---- A Attacbment 9 ppendix G 1.0 SUM.1\1ARY, CONCLUSIONSt A.~D RECOMM:ENDATIONS At the request of1v1RD Enterprises, Inc., Ceres Associates completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for 2015-2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California (Property) (refer to Figure l-Property Location Map).· The Phase I ESA was conducted according to the guidelines of ASTM document E 1527. The research included a Property and adjacent sites survey, interviews with informed persons, reviews of public records, an envirorunental database search report , geology and hydrogeology, historical information, maps, and photographs . 1.1 SUMMARY The Property is approximately 6 . 97 acres in size and has been developed into three legal parcels. The Apple Farm Inn parcel and the Apple Farm Court parcel are located at the eastern and central portions of the Property, respectively, and contain a combined total of approximately 2.96 acres of space. The Motel Inn parcel is located on the northeastern portion of the Property and contains approximately 4 .01 acres of space. . The Apple Farm Inn was developed with one approximately 36,000 square-foot three-story hotel building constructed in 1987, one approximately 2,000 square-foot two-story restaurant/gift shop building constructed in 1950, one approximately 1,500 square-foot three-story mill house/gift shop building constructed in 1989 , and one swimming pool constructed in 1988 . The construction materials for the stmctures included w ood frawing , bri c k, roiied carpeting, hardwoor.l lloors, suspended ac o ustic ceiling ti les, resilient sheet flooring, adhered acoustic ceiling tiles, tar paper and composition roofing shingles, df')"Wall, tape and joint compound. The hotel building is serviced by a hydraulic elevator. The Apple Farm Court is located on the central portion of the Property and has been developed with one single-story motel/lobby/office building, one single-story motel building, one two-story motel building, and one single-story reception building. The structures were originally constructed in the 1950's and were renovated in 1988 . The construction materials included wood fra.T..ing, rolled carpeting, hardwood floors , suspended acoustic ceiling tiles, resilient sheet flooring, adhered acoustic ceiling tiles , tar paper and composition roofing shingles, drywall, tape and joint compound . . The Motel Inn is lo cated on the northeastern portion of the Property and has been developed with one receptio nli ounge/kitchen/office build ing, one swimming pool, t en bungalow buildings, and one rectangular motel building . The buildings were constructed in 1925. The swimming pool was constructed in the 1940's. The construction materials included wood framing, stucco, hardware cloth, hardwood floors, adhered acoustic ceiling t iles, tar paper and Spanish tile roofing materials , drywall, tape and joint compound . Two currently inactive groundwater supply wells were installed on the eastern portion of the Pro perty in 1992 (refer to Figure 2 . Property Map). Ceres Associa1e s MRD Emerprises. lnc. (.'\ppl< Farm Inn. San Lui s Ol>1 spo) Projea CA628-l October 2~. 1999 PC1 -158 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-212 A Attachment 9 ppendix G From 1925 until 1999, the Motel Inn parcel was occupied by the Motel Inn. From approximately 1925 until the late 1940's, the Motel Inn parcel was also occupied by the Motel Service Station. From 1961 until 1970, the Motel Inn parcel was also occupied by KVEC Radio. From 1950 umill985, the Apple Farm Inn parcel and the Apple Farm Court parcel were occupied by the Ritz Motor Hotel. From 1960 until 1970, the Apple Fann Inn parcel and the Apple Farm Court parcel were occupied by Pappy's Pancake House . From 1971 until 1977, the Apple Farm Inn parcel was occupied by Sam's Restaurant . From 1978 until 1985, the Apple Farm Inn parcel was occupied by the Apple Farm Restaurant. From 1985 untill999, the Apple Fann Inn parcel and the Apple Farm Coun parcel were occupied by the Apple Farm Inn and Restaurant. At the time of this report the southwestern portion of the Property is used as a hotel/motel/restaurant/gift shop by Apple Farm Inn and Restaurant and the Apple Farm Court. The northeastern portion of the Property is currently occupied by an inactive motel. The Apple Farm Inn recycles wash water discharged from two 50-pound washi.11g machines located in the hotel building by pumping the waterto two approximately 400-gallon wash water holding tanks located adjacent to the west of the restaurant building. The water is then chlorinated by a greywater recycling system and used for flushing toilets located in the restaurant building. HAZARDOUS S1.J.BSTA.t'-.JCES :~.1"'\TU STORAGE TA""'lXS .~. g:.~cline ~ervi(;e s!:=.ti0n ';vasloc~_ted on the Prop~rty and arlj<tcent to the northeast of the Mote1 Inn from approximately 1925 until the late 1940's. Expansion of the Motel Inn in the late 1940's resulted in the demolition of the former service station building. Two plastic gasoline containers were observed adjacent to the southeastern side ofthe Apple Farm lnn hotelbuildin£. The containers were in 2:ood condition and evidence ofieaks was not observed; ~ ~ however, Ceres Associates observed improper storage of the containers which included the use of rags in lieu of caps or other sealing devices. The containers were not stored using a secondary containment system According to Mark Davis, a secondary containment system has been ordered and the containers will be properly sealed . The Apple Farm Inn hotel building is serviced by a hydraulic elevator . The elevator is operated using an approximately 20-gallon hydraulic oil storage tank (HOST). The HOST was in good condition and evidence of leaks was not observed. Floor drains were not located in the vicinity of the HOST _ One five-gallon container of powdered chlorine was stored adjacent to the swimming pool pump and filter equipment. The container \vas in good condition and evidence ofleaks was not observed . Common household cleaners were observed at the Property . The materials were stored on housekeeping cans. The containers were in good condition and evidence ofleaks was not observed . Ceres Associates 2 MRD E.:n~ri=. ln.:. (Appl;: f'aml inn. ~an Luis Obispo! Project C A628-l o~"lol= zs , !999 PC1-159 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-213 .. ·'· ~-' .,.,...__ .. ,. ··-·-· .. A Attachment 9 ppendix G REGULATORY REVIEW Al~'D PREvlOUS REPORTS Ceres Associates contacted the San Luis Obispo County Envi ronmental Health Department (EHD), and the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) regarding previous or current environmental concerns at the Property. Information regarding the former service station at the Property was not found in HID or SLOFD files . Ceres Assoc iates revie wed a previous Phase I ESA prepared for 2015 Monterey Street by CERES Environmental, dated October 20 , l994. Recommenda tions included in the repon were to prepare an Operation and Maintenance (0 & M ) Plan regarding asbestos containing materials within building materials at the Property. Ceres i-\ssociates did not find an 0 & M Plan prepared for the Property. ASBESTOS Suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were noted during the Property survey. Based on the construction dates ranging from 1925 through 1989, there is a possibility that some of the construction materials in the building may contain asbestos fibers. The materials include adhered acoustic ceiling materialo drywall , tape and joint compound, suspended acoustic ceiling materia1, and tar paper roofing materiaL The materials were in good condition and non-friable. The 1994 CERES Environmental Phase I ESA reported red-colored resilient sheet flooring with mastic and gold mosaic resilient sheet flooring with mastic as containing asbestos fibers . Ceres Associates the ACM in the Apple Farm Inn Restaurant . SuKROI:.Ji"lTIING l-\REA SlJivL'vlAR Y A.l~U CO N CLUSIONS The environmemal database report prepared for this assessment lists 14 sites as having potential environmental co nc ern to the Property \-vithin the search paramet ers des1g_,"1 ated by ASTM El527. The sites listed include nine LUST sites, two CORTESE sites, and three UST/AST sites. Sites listed on the environmental database report appear to have a low potential to have impacted the environmental quality of the Property. 1.2 DISCUSSION During the 1920's until the late 1940's , a pon1on of the Property adjacent to the northwest of the Motel Inn was used by the Motel Serv·ice Station for automobile fueling and related activities. The service station building was demolished in the 1950's and an addition to the Motel Inn was erected on a portion of the former service station building's footprint . Ceres Associates did not observe visual evidence of past or present above-or underground storage tanks at the Property during the walking survey of the Property ACM was observed by Ceres Associates at the Propeny and ACM was reported in a 1994 Phase I ESA prepared by CERES Environmental for the Property . An 0 & M Plan was not found for the AC Ms iocated at the Property . Ceres Associates 3 MRD Emerpris"". :nc. (App i ~ Farm Inn. San Lu is Obill P<l ) Pmject CA.62 8-l OC1obe-r 2 5, l.9 99 PC1 -160 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-214 j ""l .l 'f 'J j A Attachment 9 ppendix G Two groundwater supply wells are located at the northeastern portion of the Property. The wells were not secured by locking devices . Unsecured wells may present a potential pathway for groundwater contamination. Wash water from washers at the Property is recycled for flushing restaurant toilets by pumping the water to two approximately 400-gallon wash water holding tanks. The wash water is then chlorinated prior to use. 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527 of 2015-2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Count:;:, California (APN 001-075-010), the Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognh:ed environmental conditions in connection with the Property except for the following: (ASTM £1527, Section 11.6) • Based on the use of a portion of the Property as a gasoline service station and the possibility that underground storage tanks may exist at/or adjacent to the location of the former service station, Ceres Associates recommends conducting a geophysical survey in the area of the former service stat1on using ground penetrating radar (GPR) technologies to assess if SlJbsurf;:w.P. fuel storage devices. previous excavations or fill materials exist. If the assessment indicates that a tank is present, then r..1rther investigations, including possible soil a..'1d groundwater testing, may be warranted. o Based on the presence of ACM in the construction materials of the buiidings, Ceres Associates recommends preparation of an Operations and Maintenance (0 & M) Plan for maintaining ACM located at the Property. • • Ceres Associates recommends properly securing the two wellheads observed at the Property to prevent unauthorized introduction of substances or materials into the weli, or properly abandon and remove the wellheads in accordance vvith local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to renovation or demolition, sampling should be conducted to assess if asbestos is contained in the construction materials of the building. The California Health and Safety Code requires owners of structures with ACM to notify tenants and employees that the building has ACM. 1.4 DEVIATIONSFROM ASTM El527 GUIDELINES o Because of the limited availability of historical sources, the Property mstory could not be documented to a time prior to development. Based on our historical research in the area of the Property, it is likely that prior to development, the Property was undeveloped . r n_ Ceres Associates ~ '-1-1 MRD En\erpris.:s.lnc. (Apple Farm Inn. San Luis Obispo) Project CA628-l October 25, 1999 PC1 -161 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-215 The summary, conciusions, and recommendations are subject to the limitations provided in section 5 .0 of this repon. Ceres Associo1es 5 !v!RD Emerpris.:s. Inc . (Apple Fann lnr~ San Luis Obispo) Project CA62S-I October 25, 1999 PC1 -162 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-216 j -, A Attacbment 9 ppenmx G 2.0 PROPERTI:' AND SlTRROUNDING AREA DESCRIPTIONS 2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A walking sur,.:ey of the Property was made on October 18 , 1999, by R. Scott Wood of Ceres Associates, accompanied by Mark Davis, fanner General Manager, Apple Farm Inn. The Property was observed for evidence of hazardous substances that may have an effect on the environmental quality of the Property Ceres Associates observed the Propeny for evidence of aboveground and underground storage tanks, surface staining , hazardous materials, and other indications of environmental concern. If conditions were observed that indicated potential environmental concerns, Ceres Associ ates marked their relative locations on a map drawn in the field (refer to Figure 2 - Property Map). The Property is located at 2015-2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo , San Luis Obispo County, California , and is legally described by its Assessor's Parcel Numbers 001-075-010 (Apple Farm Inn and Apple Farm Court), 001-081-0 11 ; and 001-081-012 (Motel Inn). TheAppie Farm Inn and Apple Farm Court portions of the Property contain approximately 2 .96 acres of space . The Motel Inn ponion of t he Property contains approximatel y 4 .01 acres of space. The Apple Fann Inn is located on the southwestern portion of the Property and has been developed with o!!e 69-room t hree-!>tory hotel building containi ng approximately 36,000 square-feet of space, one resmurant/gift shop two-story bu ilding contai ning approximately 2,000 square feet of space, one three-story mill house/gift shop building cont aining approximately 1,500 square feet of space, and one swimming pool. The hotel build ing was constructed in l987,the restaurant building was constructed in 1950, and the mill house building was constructed in 1989. The construction materials included wood framing, brick, rolled carpeting, har dwood floors, suspended acoustic ceiling tiles , resilient sheet flooring, adhered acoustic ceiling tiles, tar paper and composition roofing shingles, drywall, tape and joint compound . The hotel building is serviced by a hydraulic elevator. The Apple Fann Court is located on the central portion of the Property and has been developed with one single-story motel/lobby/office building, one single-story motel building, one two-story motel building: and one single-story reception building. The structures were constructed in the 1950's and were renovated in 1988. The construction materials included wood framing , rolled carpeting, hardwood floors, suspended acoustic ceiling tiles, resilient sheet flooring, adhered acoustic ceiling tiles, tar paper and composition roofmg shingles, drywali, tape and joint compound . The Motel Inn is located on the nonheastem portion ofthe Property and has been developed with one reception/lounge/lcitchen/office building, one swimming pool, ten bungalow buildings, and one rectangular motel building. The buildings were constructed in 1925 . The swimming pool was constructed in the 1940's. The construction materials included wood fra.mlng, stucco, hardware cloth, ·hardwood floors . adhered acoustic ceillng tiles , tar paper and Spanish tile roofing materials, drywall, tape and joint compound. Ceres Associates MRD Entt:rprises. Inc. (Apple F:w.n Inn. San L.uis Ob ispo ] 6 Project C A62 8-1 October 25. !999 PC1 -163 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-217 A Attachment 9 ppendix G Two g r oundwat er supply well s w er e instalied on th e eastern p o rtion of the Property in 1992 . According to Mark Davis, groundwater was encountered at approximately 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). :tvlr . Davis stat ed that the well s are not in use and were developed during a drought period as a supplementary water source . The well heads were capped with approximately six-inch PVC casings; however t he caps were not secured by locking devices . The areas of the Property not developed with buildings are paved with asphalt , except for the n o rtheastern portion which is covered with soil, sand and gravel. Landscaping located throughout the Property includes trees, bushes, and grass (refer to Photographs 1 -4 , located in the Appendix- Property Photographs). The southwestern portion of the Property is currently in use as a hotellmote11restaurantlgift shop by Apple Farm Inn . The northeastern portion of the Property is currently occupied by an unused motel. The Apple Farm Inn recycles wash water discharged fr o m two 50-pound wasPing machines located in the hotel building by pumping the water to two approximately 400-gal!on wash water holding tanks located adjacent to the west of the restaurant building . The water then is chlorinated by a greywater recycling system and used for flushing toilets located in the restaurant building . HAZARDOUSwL~TEruALSA~~STORAGET&~XS According to Mark Davis , review of a historic photograph, and review of Polk's Business Directories . a forme-r g~s ol i n~ ~e rvice !'.tati()n w as located adi ac ent to the main buildinQ: of the Motel . -~ ·.· I nn . Expansio n o f the building in the lat e 1940's appears to be located in t he vicinity o f the former service station . One fi v e-gallon and one thre e-gallon plastic ga soEne containers w ere observed adjacent to the southeastern side of the Appie f a rm Inn hotel build ing . The containers were in good condition and evidence ofleaks was not observ'ed; however, Ceres Associates observed improper storage ofthe containers which included the use of rags in lieu of cap s or other sealing devices. The containers were not stored using a secondary containment system . According to Mark Davis, a secondary containment system has been ordered and the containers will be properly sealed. The Apple Farm Inn hotel building is serviced by a hydraulic elevator. The elevator is operated using an approx.imately 20-gallon hydraulic oil storage tank (HOST). The HOST was in good condition and evidence o fl eaks was not observed . Floor drains were not observed in the vicinity of the HOST . One five-gaBon co ntainer of povvdered chlorine was stored adjacent to the swimming pool pump and filter equipment. The container was in good condition and evidence of leaks was not observed. Common household cleaners w ere observed at the Property. The materials were stored on housekeeping carts. The containers \Vere in go od condition and evidence ofleaks was not observed. Ceres Associales 7 MRD £nterpris~s. lnc . [Appie I' a rm inn. SaJI Ltli s O bispo) ProJect CA62S-i October25 , 1999 PC1 -164 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-218 J (~ A Attacbment 9 ppenmx G HEATING A...i',rD COOLING The source of heating and cooling energy is from natural gas and electricity piped to the P r operty from Pacific Gas and Eiectric (P .G.&E). POTABLE WATER Potable water is provided to the Property by the City o f San Luis Obispo . POLYCHLORINATED BIPHE"N"YLS (PCBs) One pad-mounted and two pole-mounted transformers are present on the Property. The transformers are owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E). PG & E has informed Ceres Associates that PCBs were removed from transformers during the late 1970's and 1980's . Leaks or stains were not observed on or around the transformers. ASBESTOS According to a Phase I ESA conducted by CERES Environmental for the Apple F~ dated October 20, 1994 , tw o samples of resili ent sheet flooring were reported to contain asbestos fibers . The material sampled was reported to be non-friable and in good condition. Ceres Associates observed the materials in the Apple Farm Restaur ant. '"S"""'"'"'rl ashat"tr.c-co nt<>;m· n c m<>u>n· ~ ls (A r-..11 nr.t<>..-l rh n-ing thP Prr.ne,....._, <:1urvev inchHif"ri ;;rlhPrF>a· VI..&. 1-'""'"""'-WU V.._.~_.,V .J •~l.r....a.o:. t ;;::;: ... ......_._..._. .__... "'_....._,!\ J '"-"".,......._. --• .._..._.., __ ............. ., • '>.Jt" 4 ~>_.T v .._ ) .... __ .....,""' _____ ,_.. ... ._. acoustic cei ling material , drywall , tape andjoim compound, suspended acoustic ceiling material, and tar paper roofing material. Based on the construction date of the Motel Inn in 1925 , the Apple Farm Inn Restaurant in 1950, there is a possibility that some of the construction materials in the building may contain as bestos fibers The materials were in good condition , non-friable, and did not appear to present a human health risk at the time of this assessment. ENVIRONlvfENT AL LIENS Environmental liens were not found for the Property. 2.2 SURROUNDING AREA DESCRIPTION The Property is bound to the northwest by Monterey Street, to the north by U.S. Highway 1 01, and to the south by San Luis Obispo Creek. La Cuesta Inn is located adjacent to the north of the Property, across Monterey Street. Peach Tree Inn is located adjacent to the southwest of the Property . Residential structures are located adjacent to the south of the Property, across San Luis Obispo Creek. A Ch~vron gasoline service station reported on the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) list and is 1ocated in a cross-gradient groundwater flow direction approximately 200 feet west ofthe Property . Hazardous materials were not observed on adjacent sites. Ceres 1'-.ssocic tes ~IRD Enterpnses, Inc . (Apple Farm Inn . San Luis Obispo ) Project CA6 28-1 Octob.rr 25, !999 PC1 -165 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-219 j . . A Attachment 9 ppendix G 3.0 INTERVIEWS, RECORDS, AND HISTORICAL REVIEW 3.1 INTERVIEWS AND REGULATORY CONTACTS • Ceres Associates inter-.riewed Mark Davis, former General Manager, Apple Farm Inn, for information regarding past uses of the Property and the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials on the Property. According to Mr. Davis, a gasoiine service station was located on the Property adjacent to the east ofMotel Inn from approximately 1925 until the 1950's. Mr. Davis stated that the Apple Tree Coun buildings were renovated Vlith new building materials in 1988 . • Ceres Associates contacted the City of San Luis Qbispo Fire Department (SLOFD), Lead USTtHazardous Materials Agency, with a request to review files for the Property. According to Spencer Meyer, information was not found regarding the Property addresse~. • Ceres Associates contacted the City of San Luis Obispo Building Department (SLOBD) with a request to review files for the Property. According to the agency, infonnation for the Property address included building permits for construction of a restaurant in 1960, and building permits for additions and alterations to existing buildings dated between 1962 and 1997 (refer to Appendix B-Regulatory Documents and Other Reports). • Ceres Associates contacted the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department (EHD), with a request to review files for the Property. According to Jol1n Schultz, SLOFD is the lead UST /hazardous materials agency for the Property. 3.2 CHRONOLOGY OF PROPERTY USE The following historical Property use summarvwas compiled using the historical data 12:athered during ~ ~ . ~ -~ ~ the various activities of this assessment as referenced in Section 3 .4. 1925 1933- Based on a personal interview with Mark Davis, former General Manager, Apple Farm Inn and Restaurant, the Motel Inn was constructed in 1925. 1934 According to an A to Z Directory Publication business directory, the Property addresses were not 1isted. 1938 According to a California Directories business directory, Motel Inn was located at 2125 Monterey Street, ai"1d Motel Service Station was located at 2145 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed. Ceres Associa1es 9 MRD £ntaprises. lnc (..l.pple Farm Inn_ San Luis Obispo) Project CA628-l October 25, 1999 PC1 -166 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-220 ' "'j ,_,3 A_-'i ~ A Attachment 9 ppendix G 1942 Accordi ng to a Pacific Directory Company business directory, Motel Inn was located at 2 125 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed . 1946- 1947 According to a Polk 's Business Directory, Motel Inn was located at 2 111 and 2125 Monterey Street . Other Property addresses were not listed . 1950 1953 1957 According to a Polk's Business Directory, Ritz Motel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, Motel Inn was located at 2125 Monterey Street, and T esseyman' s Motel Inn was located at 2145 Monterey Street . Other Property addresses were not listed . According to aPolk 's Business Directory, Ritz Motel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and Motel Inn was listed at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed. According to a Polk's Business Directory, R..itz Motor Hotel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and KVEC Radio and Motel Inn were located at 2223 Monterey ·Street. Other Property addresses were not listed . 1960 A building permit was issued by SLOBD to Lloyd R. McKean for construction of a new Ritz Motel Pancake House. The permit listed the building as containing approximately 3,690 square feet constructed on a slab foundat ion w ith a stucco exterior and built-up roof 1961 According to a Polk 's Business Directory, Pappy 's Pancake House was located at 2015 Monterey Street, Ritz Motor Hotel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and KVEC Radio and Motel In..r1. were located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed . 1964 1966 According to a Polk 's Business Directory, Pappy's Pancake House was located at 2015 Monterey Street, Ritz Motor Hotel was listed at2121 Monterey Street, andKVECRadio and Motel Inn were located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed . Based on a review of stereoscopic aerial photographs, the northwestern portion of the Property was developed with a restaurant building, and two motel structures were dev eloped to the northeast and southeast of the restaurant building. Th.ree motel structures were developed on the central portion of the Property. A motel, several bungalows, and a swimming pool were developed at the eastern-central portion of the Property. The eastern portion of the Property was undev eloped. The Property was bound to the north by Monterey Street. U.S . Highway 101 was developed to the north of the eastern portion of the Property. San Luis Obispo Creek was located adjacent to the east and south of the Property. Motel structures were developed adjacent to the north and w est of the Propeny . Residential structures were developed adjacent to the south Ceres Associoles 10 MRD Enlerpri ses . Inc . (Apple F~rm Inn, San Luis Obispo ) Project CA628-l o~ober 25, 1999 PC1-167 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-221 .J ; ,j •fl ' ' :u 9 ~ . r _j A Attacbment 9 ppenmx G and east o f the Property, across San Luis Obi s po Creek . 1967 According to a Polk's Business Directory, Pappy's Pancake House was located at 2015 Monterey Street , Ritz Motor Hotel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and KVEC Radio and Motel Inn were located at 2223 M o nterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed. 1971 19i2 1974 According to a Polk's Business Directory, Pappy's Pancake House was located at 2015 Monterey Street, Ritz Motor Hotel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and KVEC Radio and Motel Inn were located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed. Based on a review of stereoscopic aerial photographs, the Property and surrounding area were developed as in the 1966 aerial photographs . According to a Polk's Busin ess Directory, Pappy's Pancake House was located at 2015 Monterey Street, Ritz Motor Hotel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and Motel Inn wer,e located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed . 1979 A building permit w as issued by SLOBD to Apple Farm Restaurant for installation of an approximately 800 square-foot storage refrigerator. 1980 According ro a Polk's Busin e ss Direcrory:, Ritz Motor Hotel was listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and Motel Inn were located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not list ed. 1982 1984- 1985 1985 A building pennit was issued by SLOBD to Richard D . Beller for an approximately 2,395 square-foot addition to the Apple Farm Restaurant The Property owner was listed as Murphy & Wi1lett Investments, Inc . According to a Polk 's Busij1ess Directory, Apple Farm Inn and Restaurant was located at 2015 Monterey Street, Franciscan Motel and Ritz Motor Hotel were . listed at 2121 Monterey Street, and Motel Inn were located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed . Based on a review of stereoscopic aerial photographs, the northwestern portion of the Property was developed with a restaurant building. The locations adjacent to the northeast and southeast of the restaurant building were graded of previous motel structures. Three motel structures were developed on the central portion of the Property .. A motel, several bungalows, and a swimming pool were developed at the eastern-central portion of the Property. The eastern portion of the Property was undeveloped . The Property was bound to the north by Monterey Street. U.S Highway 101 was developed to the north of the eastern portion of the Property. San Luis Obispo Creek was located Ceres Associates 11 MRD Enlorprise&. Inc . (Appl e Farm Inn. San Luis Obi spo) Project CA628-l Oclober 2 ~, 1999 PC1 -168 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-222 i J j 1986 1989 1991 1992 1993 1997 A Attacbment 9 ppendix G adjacent to the east and south of the Property . Motel structures were developed adjacent to the nonh and west of the Property. Residential structures were developed adjacent to the south and east of the Property, across San Luis Obispo Creek. A building permit was issued by SLOBD to J.B. 's Restaurants for dining room additions. Building permits were issued by SLOBD to Bunnell Construction, Inc . to add four two- story motel units to the Property, retail additions to a restaurant/store, demolition of two motel building, parking lot grading, and construction of an approximately 144 foot long retaining walL The Property owner was listed as J.B . 's Restaurants. According to a Polk's Business Directory, Apple Fann Inn andRestaurant was located at 2015 Monterey Street, 2121 Monterey Street was listed as "Under Construction," and Motel Inn were located at 2223 Monterey Street. Other Property addresses were not listed. · A building permit was issued by SLOBD to Robert and Kathleen Davis for installation of a laundry water recovery system for a motel. Based on a review of stereoscopic aerial photographs, the northwestern portion of the Property was developed with a restaurant building. One hotel structure, one swimming pool, and one mill house were developed at the southwestern and south-central portions of the Property . Three motel buildings were developed on the central portion of the PiOpen:y. One motel stmcture, several bungalows, and a swimming pool were developed at the eastern-central portion of the Property. The eastern portion of the Property was undeveloped. The Property was bound to the north by Monterey Street. U.S. Highway 101 was developed to the north of the eastern portion ofLl-:!e Property . Sa..r1 Luis Obispo Creek was located adjacent to the east and south ofthe Property. Motel structures were developed adjacent to the north and west ofthe Property. Residential structures were developed adjacent to the south and east of the Property, across San Luis Obispo Creek. A building permit was issued by SLOBD to Peter Keith Construction for replacement of a structurally damaged carport beam. The Property was identified as the Apple Farm Restaurant and the owners were listed as Robert and Kathleen Davis. According to a Polk 's Business Direcrory, Apple farm Inn and Restaurant was located at 2015 and 2121 Monterey Street, and 2223 Monterey Street was listed as "Vacant." Other Property addresses were not listed. A building permit was issued by SLOBD to AF Partners to remodel and repair the Apple Fann Gift Shop kitchen. According to a Polk's Business Directory, Apple Fann Inn and Restau~ant was located at 2015 and :2121 Monterev Street, and Motel Inn was located at 2223 Monterev Street. . . . Other Propeny addresses were not listed . Ceres Associo!es 12 MRD Ent~rpris~. ln<:. (.-";>pi~ FilTT!llnn. San Luis ObiSpo) Proja."' CA628-J Ooober 2 5. 1999 PC1 -169 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-223 ~ . . A Attachment 9 ppendix G 1999 According to a Polk's Business Directory , Apple Farm Irm and Restaurant w as located at 2015 M o nterey Str eet, and Mote l lnn was located at 2223 Monterey Street . Other Property addresses were not listed. 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE REPORT Vista Information Solutions, Inc, provided a list of sites within designated distances of the Property that are listed by regulatory agencies . Vista has also provided a map of these sites , which can be found in Appendix C ~Environmental Database Report. The environmental database report lists 14 sites as having potential environmental concern to the Property. One LUST site , and one UST I AST site are reported within one-eighth of a mile of the Property. Two UST / AST sites are reported within one-eighth to one~quarter of a mile of the Property. E ight LUST sites , and two CORTESE sites are reported within one-quarter to one-half of a mile of the Property . Nl>L, CORRACTS, and SPL sites are not listed vvithin one rn.lle of the Property. RCRA sites are not listed adjacent to the Property. The following si t e is within l /8 rn.lle of the Property : 1 Chevron Station #9~2265 was observed by Ceres A..ssociates personnel as being located approximat ely 200 feet west of the Property at 2000 Monterey Street. The site is reported on the State UST list as ha ving one approxiJnately 1,000-gallon oil underground storage tank (UST ), and two approximately l 0 , ooo~gaiion unieaded gas USTs. The site is repurteu uH the State LUST list as having a leaking underground storage tank . The substa..r:1ces reported are TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbons), and BETX (benzene, ethylene, toluene , xylene), the remediation status is reported as "further site assessment underway," and the media affected is reported as "other ground water." This site appears to be located in a cross-gradient groundwater flow direction from the Property . Sites listed on the environmental database report appear to have a low potential to have impacted the eri~vT iron.~.rnenta! quality of the Property . 3.4 SOURCES OF DATA · Ceres Associates contacted regulatory agencies and other potentiall y k..11owledgeab!e persons and infonnation sources concerning the Property. Copies of maps, pennits, and other documents, if available, are in Appendix B -Regulatory Documents and Other Reports. The following are the infonnation sources contacted by Ceres Associates for this report : Information Sources • City of San Luis Obispo Department of Building Inspection, October 18, 1999, counter staff • City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. October 13 , 1999 , Spencer Meyer Ceres Associales 13 MRD Emerprises. Inc. (Appie Farm Inn. San Lu1 s Obispo) P.:-oject CA628-l October 25 . 1999 PC1 ~ 170 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-224 A Attachment 9 ppena1x-H b. Measured Noise I .eyels and Adjustments for Traffic Conditions Noise levels were measured at the site on December 26, 2000 and January 15, 2001. The locations of noise measurements are shown on Map 1 , and adjustments of these measurements to various levels of traffic are summarized in Table 1 below. The procedure used in this analys is is to make a continuous measurement for a fixed period, usually 5 minutes, and count the traffic during the period of the measurement. With this data , the measured noise levels can be adjusted to any particular condition for which the traffic is defined. The conditions most often referenced are "existing" and "future" peak-hour traffic. "Existing" was the peak-hour traffic volume at the time of preparation of the Noise Element (about 1990), and "future" was the peak-hour traffic volume for the year 2010 as projected at that time. The maximum and minimum !-second noise levels are recorded by the meter and are included in the table for informational purposes. Only the average levels (Leq) are used in the analysis of impacts of transportation noise. Table 1 SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND ADJUSTED NOISE LEVELS Traffi~ Yoluwe Adjusted Noise LeYels Period ofl Noise Levels (dB~) During Measurement "Existing" "Future" I.,ocatian Measurement l4q. Max. Min. Nuwber2 Yeh/Hr (dB~)3 (dB~)4 1 3.45 min 66 .8 78.3 57.5 100 3,478 66.6 69.9 2 3.80 min 68.8 80.1 57.4 100 3,158 69.2 72.5 3 3.22 min 70.2 80.1 59.7 100 3,727 69.7 73.0 4 12:54-12:59 pm 56.6 62.1 50.9 126 3,024 57.0 60.3 5 1 :02-1 :07 pm 57.0 65.1 48.1 nc 57.4 60.7 6 1:12-1:17 pm 66.9 73 .8 56.0 108 2,592 67.9 71.2 7 1 :22 -1 :27 pm 70.5 75.7 59 .1 113 2,712 71.4 74.7 7 1:28-1:33 pm 70.9 78.3 58.1 133 3,192 71.0 74.3 8 2:00-2:05 pm 66.2 77.6 56.6 121 2,904 66.8 70.1 9 2:08-2:13 pm 80.4 94.2 63.1 134 3,216 80.5 83.8 10 2:17-2:22 pm 65.3 78.0 56 .3 nc 65.6 68.9 11 2:24-2:29 pm 64.7 70.6 59.3 nc 65.0 68.3 12 2:30-2:35 pm 63.2 70.6 53 .8 nc 63.5 66.8 13 2:36-2:41 pm 63.8 71.6 53.9 nc 64.1 67.4 14 2:43-2:48 pm 62.9 70.1 57.7 nc 63 .2 66.5 Measurements at locations 1-3 were for the period in which 100 vehicles on Highway 101 passed the location . 2. Vehicles were not counted for reasons as described in text. 3 The "existing" traffic volume is defined in Appendix A of the Technical Reference Document of the Noise Element (Segment 7 1) as an ADT of 33,000. The "existing" noise level is for peak-hour traffic of 3,300 vph which equates to Ldn. 4 The "future" traffic volume is defined in Appendix A of th e Technical Reference Document of the Noise Element (Segment 72) as an ADT of 69,900. The "future" noise level is for peak-hour traffic of 6,990 vph (3 .3 dB above "existing") which equates to Ldn. 2 PC1-175 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-229 A Attachment 9 ppencflx-H Several of the measurements were made to test specific conditions rather than the noise at a specific location on the site. These measurements and the results of the tests are as follows: Measurements 1 2 and 3 were paired with measurements at points inside the existing structure to test noise reductions through the large, fixed-pane windows. The noise drop from Location 1 into the lobby was 25.6 dBA, that from Location 2 into the bar was 27.3 dBA, and that from Location 3 into the easterly end of the structure was 18.8 dBA. Measurement 4 was located behind the existing structure previously used as a lobby and bar to test the banier capability of this structure. Based on measurements, adjusted to "existing" traffic, of about 69.2 dBA at the front of the structure, 67.9 dBA on top of this structure, and 57.0 behind the structure, the barrier effect is estimated at approximately 9-10 dBA. Measurement 6 was located on top of (5 feet above) the flat-roofed portion of the existing structure at an elevation approximately equivalent to persons located on a second story of a fumre stmcmre at this location and about flat with respect to the adjacent portion of Highway 10 1. The measured noise level, adjusted to "existing" peak-hour traffic volume was 67.9 dBA at a distance of approximately 150 feet from the center of the divider of Highway 101. Measurement 7 was located on top of (5 feet above) the westerly peak of the existing structure at an elevation approximately equivalent to persons located on a third story of a fumre strncmre at this location and about one story above the adjacent portion of Highway 101. The average of the two measured noise levels, adjusted to "existing" peak-hour traffic volume was 71.2 dBA at a distance of approximately 170 feet from the center of the divider of Highway· 101. Measurements 8 and 9 were located at the bottom and top of the embankment along the northerly boundary of the site. Making allowance for the lateral distance between the two locations, the barrier effect of the embankment, which is 10 feet at this location, is 10-11 dB A. c. Design Traffic volume and Future Noise Levels Traffic volumes to be used in the determination of "existing" and "future" noise levels are specified in Appendix A of the Technical Reference Document of the Noise Element, Segments 259-260, which indicate an "existing" ADT of 33,000 and the future ADT of 69,900 for the adjacent section of Highway 101. Assuming the usual relationship that the peak-hour volume is 10% of the ADT, then the "existing" and "future" peak-hour volumes would be 3,300 and 6,990 vehicles per hour, respectively. The individual measurements are corrected to the "existing" peak-hour traffic condition based on the traffic counted during the measurement, and "existing" was corrected to "future" by adding 3.3 dB. Ground Level· "Future" noise levels that are projected to be experienced by persons at ground level at the site are shown on Map 1. Noise on the easterly half of the site would be substantially reduced by the effects of the site being lower than Highway 101. "Future" noise in this area is projected to be relatively constant in the range of 66-68 dBA. However, this area is proposed to be used for parking, and noise is not an issue. "Future" noise on the westerly half of the site is projected to be in the range of 70-73 dBA along the front of the existing structure closest to Highway 101, and at or just above 60 dB A in the outside area to the south of this structure. Second-Story Level· "Future" noise levels that are projected to be experienced by persons at the 2nd-story level of structures proposed at the site are shown on Map 2. This map has been constructed by maintaining the 85 dB A at the same location as on Map 1 ( 10 feet off the edge of 3 PC1-176 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-230 A Attachment 9 ppena1x-H pavement of the near travel lane), and attenuating the noise level away from the freeway at a rate that fits the adjusted "future" noise level measured on the roof of the existing structure above the bar. Since the freeway level is a few feet higher with respect to the proposed structures at the easterly end of the site, noise levels are reduced slightly in that area. Third-Story Level· "Furore" noise levels that are projected to be experienced by persons at the 3rd- story level of structures proposed at the site are shown on Map 3 . This map has been constructed in the same way as Map 2 except that the rate of attenuation is based on the measurements at location 7 at the top of the westerly end of the existing structure. 3. Mitigation Measures a. Exterior Areas The Noise Element requires that proposed development be designed such that "existing" and "furore" noise levels not exceed 60 dBA (Ldn) in outdoor activity areas . Outdoor activity areas identified in the design of the Motel Inn expansion are as follows: 1. The proposed patio area behind the existing structure (Location #4) is projected to be 60 dBA or slightly above (Map 1) with the roof line in its present configuration. This noise level is "on the line", and even a small increase in the height of the roof will lower the noise levels to below the 60 dBA standard. 2. The proposed pool area on the ground level near the center of the site (west of Location 11) is projected to have free field "future" noise levels of 67-68 dB A (Map 1). This area will be protected by 2 to 3-story structures on the north, south and west, and an 8-foot wall covering most of the opening to the east. This combination, and the guest rooms to the east, should lower the noise levels in the pool area by about 10 dB to below 60 dB A. 3. The proposed roof garden on· the second story of the guest rooms on the east side of the site is projected to have a free field "future" noise level of about 70 dBA (Map 2). However, this area will be surrounded on the north, east and west by continuous structure 2 stories high, and on part of the south by structure 1-story high. This combination should provide 12-15 dB of noise reduction which would reduce noise levels in this area to below the 60 dBA standard. 4. The proposed roof garden on the second story of the spa building on the west side of the site is projected to have a free field "future" noise level of about 63 dB A (Map 2). However, this area will be surrounded on the north and south by structures 1 story high, on the west by a wall between these structures, and on the east by a non-connected structure. This combination should provide about 10 dB of noise reduction which would reduce noise levels in this area to below the 60 dBA standard. b. Interior Spaces The Noise Element requires that proposed development be designed such that "existing" and "future" noise levels not exceed 45 dBA (Ldn) in interior spaces . This objective can probably be met using normal construction techniques in most of the expansion. However, "future" exterior noise levels are projected to reach approximately 79 dBA on the upper level of the easterly structure. and special treatment may be required in the construction of some parts of the more exposed elements of the expansion to reduce interior noise levels to below the maximum 45 elBA of the applicable standard. 4 PC1 -177 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-231 A Attac11ment 9 ppencnx-H "Future" exterior noise levels for the three levels of proposed structures are shown on Maps 1 , 2 and 3. These levels apply to exterior walls facing Highway 10 1. Exterior walls oriented at right angles to the highway will experience only half the contoured noise level (down 3 dB) once the structure has been built, and exterior walls facing away from the highway will be reduced by about 10 dB. These relationships can be applied to determine the noise level at the exterior wall of any particular section of the motel expansion. The "future'' interior noise levels will depend on the design of the facility, and estimation of the interior levels is an architectural detennination. Should you have any questions on these mitigation measures, please call me at 805/528-2187. Sincerely, 0t4CJG/~ Donald 0. Asquith 5 PC1-178 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-232 AIT ACHtYIENT A INSTRUMENTATION AND TERMINOLOGY FOR NOISE INVESTIGATIONS INSTRI IMENTATION A Attachment 9 ppena1x-H The subject noise investigation has been conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2230 precision integrating sound level meter calibrated externally at the beginning and end of each period of measurement using a B & K Model4230 acoustic calibrator. In combination, these instruments yield sound level measurements accurate to within 0.1 decibel (dB). The Model 2230 fulfills standards of relevant sections of IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 651 and ANSI (American National Standard) S 1.4.1971 for Type 1 (precision) integrating sound level meters. The microprocessor of the Model 2230 computes and stores/displays the following measurements: The sound pressure level (SPL) is updated once each second on the digital display at a resolution of 0.1 dB, and 64 times per second on the analog display at a resolution of 2 dB. The mechanism of averaging levels during the display interval may be "fast" or" slow". The setting is normally ''fast", as this is required for Leq and SEL discussed below. · The sound equivalent level (Leq) is the average sound pressure level for the period of measurement based on equal energy. The meter internally computes a new Leq from the SPL (RMS) and updates the digital display once each second. The measu~ement period is limited only by battery life which is approximately 8 hours. This parameter is used primarily to describe environmental noise. The sound exposure !eye! (SEL) is the constant level which if maintained for one second would have the same acoustic energy as the total noise for the period of measurement. This parameter is used primarily in determining the noise exposure in unusually noisy working environments or for measuring specific events such as an individual aircraft flyover or a train passage . . The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) sound pressure levels during the period of measurement are updated once each second from the RMS average sound pressure level. For periods of measurement in the range of 1 to 10 minutes, these values are reasonable approximations of the sound pressure level exceeded l% of the time and 99% of the time, respectively. All of the above can be measured using frequency weightings of the "A" or "C' scales in accordance with IEC 651, or a "linear'' (20 Hz to 20 kHz) or "all pass" (1 0 Hz to 50 kHz) filter settings. The "A" scale is weighted to most closely approximate the response of an average human ear, and is the setting most used in conducting measurements of environmental noise. A-1 PC1 -179 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-233 A Attachment 9 ppena1x-H TERMJNQI .OGY Noise, as used herein, is defined as unwanted sound. However, because the instruments that detect the small changes in atmospheric pressure that are perceived as sound cannot distinguish between that which is wanted (e.g., birds singing, waves on a beach, etc .) and that which is not (e.g ., traffic noise), measurements of "noise" are more accurately described as measurements of sound pressure. Changes in sound pressure normally experienced in the human environment extend across a very large range. The sound pressures in an average room are in the range 1 ,000 times the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing, and the sound pressure of a large truck is about 100,000 times that threshold. Because of this large range, it is convenient to describe sound in terms of its energy le.Ycl. with respect to that of the threshold of hearing. This method of description is called the decibel scale (dB). In mathematical terms, the sound pressure le.Ycl. SPL = 10 Log (p/p0 )2 dB, where p 0 is the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing (20 microPascals). In practical terms, it is adequate to note that the decibel scale is logarithmic (like the Richter scale for earthquakes), that it conveniently compresses the numbers involved from a range of 20-200,000,000 to a range of 0- 130, and that it is oriented to human response in that an increase of about 10 dB is normally perceived as a doubling of the sound level. In recent years, various methods and "scales" have been devised to describe noise in the human environment. These methods have had two basic objectives: 1) to represent a physical condition that is constantly changing over a wide range of values by a single numerical descriptor; and 2), to adjust that descriptor in a way that most reasonably reflects the degree of annoyance of the varying noise levels. 1 . Statistical Descriptors Statistical descriptors most often used to describe variations in noise level include: L9o The level exceeded 90% of the time during a specified period, usually 1 hour, 24 hours, or during the day or the night. In some instances, this value may be considered the background level. Lso The level exceeded 50% of the time during a specified period as noted above. This value has sometimes been considered the average or median noise level. Lro The level exceeded 10% of the time during a specified period as noted above. For traffic noise, this value has been considered the peak period level. L1 The level exceeded 1% of the time during a specified period as noted above . This value may be considered the peak noise' level. The most significant drawback to the use of these descriptors, particularly Lso as representing an average, is that they do not take into account the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale and the relatively higher energy content of higher decibel levels. That is, the average energy content of 50 dB and 60 dB for equal periods of time is not 55 dB, but rather 57.4 dB (i.e., the log of the average of the antilogs). A -2 PC1 -180 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-234 A Attachment 9 ppena1x-H A parameter that more acurately describes average noise is the Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq), which is the continuous sound level having the same energy content as the varying level for the period of measurement. Prior to the availablity of microprocessors at reasonable cost, the hand-computation of Leq from a series of individual measurements was a tedious task. However, meters are now available that internally compute Leq, continuously as with the Model 223 0 discussed above, or for a specified period usually one minute. Because of this technical advance, measurements of Leq for various periods of time have become the basic parameter in evaluating environmental noise. 2. Weighted Nojse Levels Because the same level of noise is more annoying to people if it occurs at night, scales have been devised that weight nighttime noise at a higher level than daytime noise. The scales most commonly in use are: CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level weights evening noise (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) by a factor of 5, and nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by a factor of 10. Mathematically, evening levels are increased by 5 dB, and nightime levels are increased by 10 dB in computing a 24-hour geometric average. Ldn Day-Night Equivalent Level is similar to CNEL but it does not include a weighting factor for evening noise levels. Of the above, CNEL came into use first, and it is the standard in regulating noise levels in the vicinity of airports. Ldn is a simplification of CNEL, and is more commonly used in regulating land use where traffic noise is a potential problem. These levels apply for a minimum period of 24 hours, but may be applied for periods as long as one year. The difference may be significant where noise levels are near regulatory limits, and where there are seasonal or weekly variations in a noise source of concern. 3. Practical Applications From a practical standpoint, the Ldn noise level is essentially equivalent to the peak-hour noise level for most situations involving noise from vehicular traffic, and the peak-hour Leq can be used as the Ldn level, avoiding the costs of 24 hours of measurement. A-3 PC1 -181 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-235 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 This memorandum summarizes an evaluation which includes a review of available sight distance, vehicle speeds, collision history, traffic volumes, traffic operations and the existing and proposed geometry of the street, US 101 ramps, and driveways near the project entrance. II. Background Due to the anticipated increase in traffic volumes generated by the proposed use and an existing access at a location with limited sight distance, the City of San Luis Obispo (approving agency) and Caltrans (reviewing agency) have initiated this study to evaluate the existing access and make recommendations for the proposed access to meet current road design standards. Prior to the latest submittal, a meeting between Caltrans, the City, the applicant and the applicant's engineer Hatch Mott MacDonald was held on June 10, 2014. A second meeting was held on October 30, 2015 at the Caltrans District 5 Office to review prior work on the project, refine the design issues and criteria regarding the access for the Motel Inn project. The purpose of the meeting was to reach consensus on key issues and review draft design concepts prepared by Omni-Means, while keeping in mind the overall multi-modal safety for Monterey Street and U.S. 101. Between the two meetings, the following were identified as key issues requiring analysis: • Lane and shoulder widths • Bicycle facilities (Class Ill on Monterey Stand on 101 from Monterey St to Hwy 58) • Sight distance • Design vehicle, turning templates (RVs) • Collision history During the analysis of the above, the following design considerations were identified to be evaluated in this report for Motel Inn's project access: • Relocate the Motel Inn access on Monterey Street as far as practical from the ramps; • Provide right-in, left-out only access to/from Monterey Street due to the limited sight distance along the NB offramp and short length of the NB onramp; • Provide a raised median on Monterey Street and protected left turn refuge for vehicles exiting the project site; • Construct curb and gutter to narrow the width of Monterey Street approaching and at the project driveway, matching the width of Monterey Street to the south (8 foot shoulders) and evaluate other potential traffic calming measures such as textured concrete surfacing, bulb-outs, etc.; and • Evaluate the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street for all-way stop control warrants. 2 PC1 -186 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-240 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 Ill. Existing Conditions Monterey Street is a two-lane road with center two-way left turn lane, generally 45-feet in width measured from curb to curb and classified as a minor arterial in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street , except the sidewalk on the west side of the street terminates just north of the La Quinta Hotel driveway prior to reaching the NB offramp. at the On-street parking is generally permitted along the south side of Monterey Street north of Buena Vista Avenue. Monterey Street is designated as a Class Ill bike route in the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. US Route 101 is also a Class Ill bike route from Monterey Street north to the Hwy 58 interchange in Santa Margarita. Class Ill bike routes are not striped and bicycles share the road with vehicles. Collision Data Collision data was obtained for the preceding five-year period from the City's online collision database (Crash Magic) for areas near the proposed project driveway : Monterey Street between Buena Vista Avenue and the 101 NB ramps . Copies of the collision data are included in the Appendix. No collisions were reported at Monterey Street and the 101 NB ramps. There were two collisions reported at the intersection of Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue: 1. November 2013: Collision between two vehicles during the day resulting in "complaint of pain ." 2. December 2013 : Collis ion between a vehicle and a pedestrian . A vehicle struck a pedestrian using the crosswalk at night, causing "complaint of pain." During the same period, there was 1 collision along Monterey Street between Buena Vista Avenue and the 101 NB Ramps: 1. A broadside collision between a motorcycle turning left from the Apple Farm Inn and a vehicle northeast-bound on Monterey Street. Severity of accident involved a "complaint of pain". City staff also reviewed crash reports from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the time period of January 1, 2012 to December 31 , 2014 . There were 6 accidents reported on NB 101 within the City limits; none of these were within the weaving section near the Monterey Street ramps or on the ramps themselves. Existing Condition Traffic Operations Traffic volumes were obtained from City staff for peak hour turning movements on Monterey Street and the hotel driveways near the ramps, and from the City's online GIS traffic website for the street segments of Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Hourly counts are presented in Table 3. The average daily traffic during 2012 (the most recent data ava ilable) on the NB offramp to Monterey Street was 644 veh/day as reported by Caltrans. The average daily traffic on the NB onramp for 2012 was 3,429 veh/day. Specific quantitative traffic analyses have been conducted as part of this assessment utilizing Syncho/Sim-Traffic 8.0 computer software, which is consistent with the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The traffic analysis evaluated two intersections for operating conditions with/without the proposed Hotei/RV Park. The intersections closest to the 3 PC1 -187 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-241 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 The study identified that the observed critical speed (85th percentile) was 40 mph in the northeast-bound direction and 29 mph in the southwest-bound direction. Based on field observation, the speeds are higher in the eastbound direction as vehicles accelerate prior to reaching the northbound on-ramp. Many of the vehicles were observed to deviate from the marked lane and drive within the median prior to the ramp to maintain speed. Sight Distance The critical speed of 30 mph for westbound Monterey Street results in a required stopping sight distance of 200 feet (Caltrans HOM Table 201.1 ). In Figure 3, the sight triangle labeled as "1" is the available stopping sight distance to the middle lane (145 feet). Since the available s ight distance is below the required stopping sight distance, a raised median is recommended as depicted in Figures 3 through 6. The raised median would: 1. Prohibit left turns into the project driveway where insufficient sight distance is available along the ramp itself, and 2. Provide a left-turn refuge and extend the merge point of vehicles exiting the project driveway to a point where adequate sight distance is provided. Based on a typical right-side mirror view angle of 20 degrees, the sight distance from merging vehicles from the center lane should be provided the same 200 feet of sight distance to the centerline of the off-ramp behind. This is represented by sight triangle 2 on Figure 3 . Although corner sight distance requirements are not applied to urban driveways (Caltrans HOM 405.1.2.d and 205.3), the available corner sight distance between left-turning vehicles out of the project driveway and the northeast-bound vehicles on Monterey Street was nonetheless evaluated as part of this study. The available sight distance was measured to be approximately 350' (sight triangle number "3"). The sight distance is limited by the profile of Monterey Street, with a crest vertical curve located at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue. 350 feet provides corner sight distance for a speed of approximately 37 mph. Driveways located south of the project driveway have less sight distance since they are located closer to the crest of the curve. 5 PC1 -189 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-243 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 Multi-Way Stop Control Analysis This report also summarizes the evaluation of the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street for all-way stop control. Evaluation Criteria Guidance provided in the publication California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD, 2014 Edition), Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications was used as the basis for conducting this multi-way stop control installation engineering study for the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street. According to the MUTCD, the following criteria should be considered when determining if the installation of multi-way stop control is warranted at an intersection: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 8S 1h-percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Item 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1 and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Analysis A. Traffic Signal Warrants Applicable traffic signal warrants provided in the MUTCD, CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES, Section 4C.02 through Section 4C.1 0 were reviewed for the study intersection. Based on the provided warrants and data, traffic signals are not currently warranted at the study intersection. Therefore, the installation of a multi-way stop would not represent an interim measure . B. Accident History A review of the recent available 5-year accident information indicates that there were two reported accidents at the Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street intersection. Since the minimum number of accidents required to meet this warrant is five within a 12 month period, the installation of a multi-way stop would not be warranted. 7 PC1-191 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-245 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 C. Minimum Volume and Delay The data presented in Table 3 indicates that the AM peak 1-hour occurred between 8:00-9:00 AM with the PM peak 1-hour between 5:00-6:00 PM. Table 2 also shows the hourly totals along Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street a comparison of them to the respective minimum vehicular volumes. The minimum vehicular volume is 300 vehicles per hour on the combined major street approaches (Monterey Street) and 200 veh/hr on the combined minor street approaches (Buena Vista Avenue). TABLE 2 MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT ANALYSIS Major Street Minor Street Monterey Street Buena Vista Avenue Hour of Traffic Minimum Traffic Minimum the Day Volumes Volume Volumes Volume Warrant Warrant (veh/hr) (veh/hr) (veh/hr) (veh/hr) 7:00AM 613 300 299 200 8:00AM 657 300 481 200 9:00AM 427 300 265 200 10:00 AM 427 300 204 200 11:00AM 432 300 245 200 12:00 PM 472 300 216 200 1:00PM 480 300 231 200 2:00PM 543 300 218 200 3:00PM 591 300 244 200 4:00PM 760 300 248 200 5:00PM 867 300 274 200 6:00PM 494 300 220 200 NB -Northbound, SB -Southbound, EB -Eastbound, WB -Westbound As shown above, the minimum vehicular volume condition is met for more than the required 8 hours. However, an analysis of the delay using HCS 2010 indicates that the minor street does not experience more than 30 seconds of delay during the peak hour therefore this warrant is not met. D. 80-Percent of the Minimum Values Criteria B and C.1 are not satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Therefore, the study intersection does not meet the guidance criteria for a multi-way stop control application at the Buena Vista/ Monterey Street intersection. Optional Criteria Section 2B .07 of the MUTCD includes four other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study to determine if the installation of multi-way stop control is warranted at an intersection: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; 8 PC1 -192 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-246 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collectors (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. Analysis A. Control Left-Tum Conflicts Left-turn conflicts are not a significant issue at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street. There were no collisions reported between a left-turning vehicle and another vehicle. B. Control Vehicle/ Pedestrian Conflicts The Buena Vista Avenue leg has high-visibility crosswalks and a pedestrian refuge island. There is an uncontrolled marked crosswalk across Monterey Street that is properly signed and marked. However, one of the collisions at this intersection was between a vehicle and a pedestrian in the crosswalk at nighttime. C. Sight Distance The grade of Monterey Street near Buena Vista Avenue is gradual with a crest vertical curve at Buena Vista Avenue. Adequate stopping sight distance is available on the approaches to the intersection. There are no major obstructions limiting the corner sight distance between Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue. The installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at this intersection is not warranted based on sight distance requirements. D. Intersection of Two Residential Collector Streets of Similar Design Based on the City's General Plan, Monterey Street is an arterial, and Buena Vista Avenue is a local street; therefore, this option did not apply. Multi-Way Stop Analysis Conclusion Based on the above warrant analysis, the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at Buena Vista Avenue is not warranted and the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at Buena Vista Avenue is not recommended. IV. Traffic Operations Analysis with Proposed Project Trip Generation The project proposes a 52-unit hotel with 25 RV parking spaces with hookups. Trip generation was calculated by City staff using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, gth Edition. The land uses selected were ITE Code 310 (Hotel) and ITE Code 416 (Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park), and the generation is based on total number of occupied rooms and campsites, respectively. The total trips expected to be generated by this project are summarized in Table 3. 9 PC1 -193 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-247 TABLE 3· WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Daily Trip AM Peak Hour Rate/Unit Land Use Category Unit Rate/Unit Total In% Out% Hotel [ITE Code : 310] Per Occ. 8.17 0.53 59% 41% Room Campground/RV Per Occ . 2.0 0.21 36% 64% Park [ITE Code: 416] Site Daily AM Peak Hour Trips Description Quantity Trips Total In Out Hotel [ITE Code: 52 Rooms 425 28 17 11 310] Campground/RV 25 Sites 50 5 2 3 Park [ITE Code: 416] Total Project Trips 475 33 19 14 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 PM Peak Hour Rate/Unit Total In% Out% 0.6 51% 49% 0 .27 65% 35% PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out 32 16 16 7 5 2 39 21 18 Notes: Daily Trip Rates for Campground/RV Park not available; assumed 2.0/unit. Errors due to rounding may occur. As shown in the table above, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 475 daily trips, including 33 ( 19 in and 13 out) AM peak hour trips and 39 (21 in and 18 out) PM peak hour trips. Existing Plus Project Traffic Operations Specific quantitative traffic analyses have been conducted as part of this assessment utilizing Syncho/Sim-Traffic 8.0 computer software, which is consistent with the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 201 0). The traffic analysis evaluated two intersections for operating conditions with/without the proposed Hotei/RV Park. The intersections closest to the project site include Monterey Street/US 101 NB On Ramp and the US 101 NB On Ramp and Apple Farm Driveways immediately to the south. Table 4 summarizes the PM peak hour delay and LOS at each intersection for the existing and existing plus project conditions. The "plus project" condition limits the access to right-in, left-out to the project/Trellis Court north combined driveway and the Trellis Court south driveway. TABLE 4: PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WITH PROPOSED MOTEL INN Control Existing Existing + Project # Intersection Type Delay LOS Delay LOS Monterey Street/US 101 NB Ramps/ Free/ 1 Project Driveway (Combined with Trellis owsc 6 .2 A 11 .0 B Court North Driveway) 2 Monterey Street/US 101 NB Off Ramp/ Free/ 12 .8 B 13 .1 B Trellis Court South Driveway owsc Note: Free =Free Flowing (No Control); OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled. As shown above, the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS B conditions or better, during the PM peak hour under Existing and Existing plus Project PM Peak Hour scenarios. The Synchro/ Sim-Traffic reports are attached in the Appendix. The multi-way stop warrant analysis for the Buena Vista Avenue/Monterey Street intersection was recalculated using existing plus project volumes. As discussed under the existing condition, the intersection meets volume warrants but not delay warrants. With the project, minor street 10 PC1 -194 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-248 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 delay is projected to remain below 30 seconds and therefore warrants are not me for multi-way stop control at this location. V. Geometric Analysis and Recommendations Omni-Means developed a design concept for the proposed Motel Inn project driveway based on the above analysis for Monterey Street and U.S. 101 which includes requirements and recommendations from Caltrans and City staff. The geometric design is primarily based on the design vehicle, sight distance requirements, and restricted turning movements. The recommended geometric concept is illustrated on Figure 4. Conflict Diagram A conflict diagram is shown on Figure 5 for the movements in the vicinity of the project driveway. With the proposed raised median and the prohibition of left-turns into two driveways, the number of crossing conflicts is reduced. Design Vehicle The project includes motor home hookups and parking/camping spaces; therefore, a motor home with attached trailer was selected as the design vehicle for the proposed improvements. The concept driveway and center left-turn refuge was analyzed for this vehicle's turning movements using Auto Turn software. Figure 6 displays the wheel path of an RV with trailer exiting the project driveway. Sight Distance As described in a previous section, the sight distance for vehicles on the NB off-ramp to the project driveway is restricted; therefore, a raised median recommended to provide a refuge for left-turning vehicles (and cyclists) from the project driveway before merging with southwest- bound traffic on Monterey Street. This median also prohibits left-turns into the site and nearby driveways on Monterey Street, in order to provide adequate stopping sight distance from the NB off-ramp to a vehicle which may be stopped in the through lane waiting to turn left. The median length is determined by the required stopping sight distance for a vehicle in the center lane to merge into the southwest-bound lane. Access Considerations Right turns from the project driveway onto the NB on-ramp are recommended to be prohibited as the distance from the driveway along the ramp to the merge point of mainline US 101 does not meet standards for freeway ramps. The addition of the proposed RV use by the project in particular would present a safety concern due to the slower acceleration of RVs. It is recommended to design the driveway flares to discourage right turns and align the driver toward the center left-turn lane. It is recommended to mark the driveway with a left-turn arrow and install signage prohibiting right turns from the driveway. Lane and Shoulder Widths The lane configuration in the existing and concept design condition is illustrated in the cross- section shown on Figure 4. The concept design provides an extension of the 8 foot shoulder on northeast-bound Monterey Street and continuing an 8-foot minimum shoulder on the onramp. The concept design curvature of northeast-bound Monterey Street is designed according to the 11 PC1 -195 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-249 Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 Caltrans Highway Design Manual for the existing vehicle speeds of 40 miles per hour. It is recommended to maintain the entry curve to the Northbound 101 on-ramp existing ramp curve radius and design speed. Alternative Concept An alternative concept design is also shown on Figure 4 as dashed lines. This alternative would provide extra width on the shoulder approaching the project driveway to provide room outside of the through lane for decelerating vehicles turning right into the project driveway. This configuration would also provide greater maneuverability for larger vehicles at the driveway due to the orientation of the driveway facing in the direction of entering and exiting vehicles on Monterey Street. However, during discussion with City and Caltrans staff is was agreed that maintaining the existing urban street cross section of Monterey Street up to the driveway would have the effect of calming traffic and therefore this alternative is not recommended but provided for consideration. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access The concept developed would maintain the existing sidewalk along the south side of Monterey Street to the Motel Inn project site in its current location. Pedestrian access would thereby be maintained to/from the project site. It is not recommended however to provide a sidewalk along the concept location of the curb and gutter as shown on Figure 4 since this would lead pedestrians to the onramp. Bicyclists travelling northeast on Monterey Street are provided an 8-foot shoulder where parking is prohibited, and this shoulder is provided up to and continuing on the NB onramp to the US 101 Class Ill Cuesta Grade Bike Route . Although adequate width exists for a Class II bike lane, it is not recommended to stripe the onramp as a bike lane but rather maintain the Class Ill bike route which exists on the approach from Monterey Street and continuing on NB US 101 . Experienced bicyclists leaving the project site may act as a vehicle and utilize the protected left and merge with southwest-bound Monterey Street traffic at the end of the raised median where sufficient sight distance is provided . Less-experienced cyclists can walk their bike along the sidewalk along the south side of Monterey Street to Buena Vista Avenue or a point where crossing as a vehicle is comfortable for them. Other Design Considerations The conceptual plans developed do not include considerations for drainage or runoff. Survey will also be required in order to determine the location of Caltrans and City rights of way and adjacent property boundaries. Specific details for signage are not provided in this report and should be developed by the project's engineer during design. It is finally recommended that the vegetation along the inside curve of the NB offramp continue to be managed to maintain adequate sight distance . 15 PC1 -199 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-253 Appendices A. Project Site Plan B. Hatch Mott MacDonald Memo dated 2014 C. Collision History & Data Sheets D. City Traffic Counts E. Speed Survey F . Synchro/ Sim-Traffic Output Reports Attachment 9 Appendix I November 6, 2015 16 PC1 -200 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-254 HICCINS SSOCIATlES (:~VHIL <liFMIF!FaC ~N~a!NI~~~~ 1335 First Street, Suite A, Gilroy, CA 95020 • 408 848-3122 • fax 408 848-2202 • e-mail info@kbhiggins.com A01-073 Report .wpd MOTEL INN REMODEL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Prepared For King Ventures 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Revised Apri123, 2002 Attachment 9 Appendix I PC1 -201 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-255 TABLE OF CONTENTS Attachment 9 Appendix I CHAPTER NO. DE SCRIPTION PAGE NO . I. INTRODUCTION 1 IT. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Existing Road Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................. 2 C. Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ill. PROJECT CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Project Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment ....................... 4 C . Project Condition Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D. Project Access and Internal Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 6 IV. CUMULATIVE CONDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Cumulative Projects Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. Cumulative Condition Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 V. SUMMARY OF :MITIGATION :MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A. Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 B. Existing Plus Project Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C. Cumulative Conditions Without Project Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 D . Cumulative Conditions With Project Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A01-073 Report.wpd PC1 -202 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-256 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXIDBIT NO . 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP 2. PROJECT SITE PLAN DESCRIPTION 3. EXISTING AM (PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 4. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 5. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 6. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 7. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 8. RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION MITIGATION :MEASURES 9. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMES (NO PROJECT TRIPS) Attachment 9 Appendix I 10. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLillvffiS (WITH PROJECT TRIPS) 11. MOTEL INN DRIVEWAY -OPTION 1 12. MOTEL INN DRIVEWAY-OPTION 2 13. MOTEL INN DRIVEWAY-OPTION 3 A01-073 Report.wpd PC1 -203 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-257 APPENDIX NO. LIST OF APPENDIXES TITLE A. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION B. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (STOP SIGN) C. SIGNALIZATION WARRANT WORKSHEETS D . INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS -Existing Conditions Attachment 9 Appendix I E. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS -Existing Plus Project Conditions F. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS-Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) G. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS -Cumulative Conditions (With Project) H. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS-Cumulative Conditions With Improvements A01-073 Report.wpd PC1 -204 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-258 L INTRODUCTION Attachment 9 Appendix I The following report evaluates the potential traffic impacts that may be associated with the proposed Motel Inn Remodel project located at the intersection of Monterey Street and Highway 101 northbound on-and off-ramps in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. The general location of the project site is shown on Exhibit 1 (Project Location Map). The project involves the remodel of the existing Motel Inn site as well as an expansion of the Apple Farm Inn motel located immediately to the south of the Motel Inn site. The Motel Inn site is currently developed with a motel that is currently non-operational. The Apple Farm Inn is an existing operating motel that consists of 69 motel rooms, a 9, 700 square foot restaurant (with full scale bakery) and a 2,000 square foot retail gift shop. The Apple Farm operation also includes the Trellis Court motel, which consists of35 motel rooms. The remodel of the Motel Inn includes 68 guest rooms, two small banquet rooms and a restaurant approximately 5,000 square feet in size. The project will retain its existing access driveway, located at the end of Monterey Street adjacent to the US 101 northbound on-ramp. The project site plan is shown on Exhibit 2. Secondary access will be provided via an inter-parcel connection with the Apple Farm Inn located immediately south ofthe project site. The Apple Farm expansion consists of 58 new motel rooms and a spa. The Apple Farm Inn expansion will be located on the Motel Inn site, immediately north of Trellis Court. As previously stated, this traffic analysis evaluates the potential traffic impacts that may be associated with the proposed project. Morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hour traffic conditions have been analyzed at the following intersections and roadway segments near the project site: · • Monterey Street/Northbound On-& Off-Ramps/Project Access Driveway • Monterey Street/Garfield Street • Monterey Street/Buena Vista Avenue • Buena Vista Avenue/Garfield Street • Buena Vista Avenue/Hwy. 101 Southbound Off-ramp • Monterey Street/ Apple Farm Inn & La Cuesta Inn Driveways Traffic conditions for the following development conditions were analyzed: • Existing Condition • Project Condition (existing plus project) • Cumulative Condition (without project trips) • Cumulative Condition (project condition plus cumulative development) A01-D73 Report.wpd 1 PC1 -205 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-259 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Attachment 9 Appendix I The following section presents a description of the existing road network serving the project site, a summary of existing traffic volumes and an analysis of existing operating conditions. A. Existing Road Network Access to the project site is provided via US 101 and Monterey Street. Other streets in the study area include Garfield Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Note that throughout this report, US 101 is considered to have a north-south alignment and Monterey Street is considered to have an east-west alignment. US 101 is a major highway providing statewide and regional circulation functions. It is four lanes wide in the vicinity of the project site. Access to the site from southbound US 101 is provided via a southbound off-ramp to Buena Vista Avenue. Southbound US 101 is accessed from the site via an on-ramp located at Grand Avenue . Access between the site and northbound US 101 is provided via on-and off-ramps hook ramps connecting to Monterey Street. Monterey Street is an east-west street providing local circulation functions. Monterey Street serves as a two-lane collector (with left tum lanes) within the city of San Luis Obispo. In the vicinity of the project site, Monterey Street has one travel lane in each direction and a two-way left tum lane in the center of the street. Garfield Street is a minor commercial street in the city of San Luis Obispo. Garfield Street serves as a connector street between Monterey Street and Grand Avenue. Buena Vista Avenue is a minor commercial street. Buena Vista Avenue crosses US 101 on an overpass and serves as a connector street between Monterey Street (on the east side of US 101) and Loomis Street (on the west side ofUS 101). All study intersections are not signalized at this time. B. Existing Traffic Volumes On April 4, 2001, AM and PM peak period turning movement counts were taken at the intersections of Monterey Street/US 101 Northbound On-& Off-Ramps/Project Access Driveway, Monterey Street/Garfield Street, Monterey Street/Buena Vista Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue/Garfield Street, Buena Vista Avenue/US 101 Southbound Off-ramp, and Monterey Street/ Apple Farm Inn & La Cuesta Inn Driveways. The counts were conducted between 7:00 AM and 9:00AM and between 4:00PM and 6:00PM in order to determine the peak morning and afternoon travel hours and volumes. The existing traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 3. A01 ~73 Report.wpd 2 PC1 -206 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-260 C. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Attachment 9 Appendix I Traffic operations are evaluated using the concept ofLevel of Service (LOS). Intersections are rated on an "A" to "F" scale with "A" representing excellent or free flow operations and "F" representing forced flow or congested conditions. A brief description of the various levels of service are presented in Appendix A. Intersection .operations were evaluated using technical procedures documented in the 2000 Hi ghway Capacity Manual (HCM). Intersection operations are based upon the average vehicular delay at the intersection. The average delay is then correlated to a level of service. Appendix B provides a description of the level of service methodology for two-way stop controlled intersections, all-way stop controlled intersections and signalized intersections. The TRAFFIX 7. 5 (Rl) software program was utilized to calculate intersection levels of service. For unsignalized intersections, the 2000 HCM level of service methodology calculates levels of service for individual movements subject to stop or yield control (i.e., movements on the minor street approach to the major street and left tum movements from the major street). The 2000 HCM methodology does not calculate an overall intersection level of service. The regrading of the vacant parcel will also require the removal of the existing concrete retaining wall along the southerly boundary of this lot due to its apparent structural instability. A new retaining wall would need to be constructed at a greater height than the existing wall, in order to accommodate the raising of the surface of the lot to match the existing driveway serving the north lot. The existing traffic volumes were reviewed to evaluate the need for intersection channelization and signalization. This evaluation indicated that no improvements were necessary under existing conditions at any of the study intersections. Copies of the signalization warrant worksheets are included in Appendix C. Intersection levels of service for existing conditions are shown on Exhibit 7, with a copy of the LOS worksheets included as Appendix D. During the AM and PM peak hours, all worst-case minor street approaches under stop control operate at LOS A or B. According to the City of San Luis Obispo Department ofPublic Works Traffic Impact Preparation Guidelines, a LOS D will be the peak hour design objective for all movements (outside the "Downtown" area) as defined in the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the study intersections currently operate within acceptable limits (LOS D or better). However, geometric and traffic control deficiencies were observed at two locations during a field visit to the project study area. The length of the existing US 101 northbound on-ramp from Monterey Street does not meet current Caltrans standards. The northbound Highway 101 on-ramp is approximately 750 feet in length from the beginning of the on-ramp to the merge taper and provides approximately 500 feet of acceleration length. The short ramp length results in ramp traffic speeds lower than desirable at the merge with northbound mainline A01-073 Report.wpd 3 PC1 -207 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-261 Attachment 9 Appendix I Highway 10 1. It also induces traffic to enter the ramp on northbound Monterey Street at higher than desirable travel speeds. Conflicts with driveway traffic between Buena Vista Road and the ramp are consequently exacerbated. It is recommended that the US 101 northbound on-ramp be lengthened to meet current Caltrans standards, which would require increasing the acceleration length from 500 feet to about 1, 100 feet or as long as possible, given the physical constraint of the existing box culvert at San Luis Obispo Creek. In addition, the horizontal curve radius at the on-ramp entrance should be reduced to reduce travel speeds along Monterey Street. At the intersection of Garfield Street and Buena Vista Avenue, the southbound Garfield Street approach and the eastbound Buena Vista A venue approach are not controlled by traffic control devices. It is recommended that the southbound Garfield Street be "stop" or "yield" controlled at its intersection with Buena Vista Avenue. No improvements are warranted at the study intersections based on the level of service operations analysis. However, it is recommended that the US 101 northbound on-ramp be lengthened to meet current Caltrans standards and that southbound Garfield Street be "stop" or "yield" controlled at its intersection with Buena Vista Avenue. ill. PROJECT CONDIDON This section describes conditions with the proposed project and provides a brief description of the project, an estimate for the project trip generation quantities, the distribution and assignment of project trips and an evaluation of the "Existing Plus Project" traffic conditions. A. Project Description As previously stated, the proposed project involves the remodeVreconstruction of the existing Motel Inn which includes 68 guest rooms, two banquet rooms and a restaurant and the expansion of the Apple Farm Inn consisting of 58 new motel rooms and a spa. The proposed direct access to the project site will be provided via an existing driveway entrance extending from Monterey Street at the US 101 northbound on-ramp intersection. Secondary access will also be provided via an inter-parcel connection to the Apple Farm Inn development located immediately south of the project site. B. Project Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment The project trip generation estimates were derived using trip generation rates contained in the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Traffic hnpact Preparation Guidelines (June 2000). The City of San Luis Obispo trip generation rates for the motel use are identical to the motel trip generation rates published by the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE). The ITE description of the motel land use indicates that motels provide sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. A01-073 Report.wpd 4 PC1 -208 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-262 Attachment 9 Appendix I Exhibit 4 shows a summary of the AM and PM peak hour trip generation quantities associated with the proposed project. The project is expected to generate 1,148 daily trips, with 29 trips in and 52 trips out during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips in and 35 trips out during the PM peak hour. The restaurant and spa included in the project were considered ancillary uses supporting the motel uses . Any new trip generation associated with the restaurant use is presumed to be included in the motel trip generation rates since the ITE database of motels includes motel with restaurants. The trips generated by the project are expected to be distributed on the road network in the same proportion as traffic in the vicinity of the project. Exhibit 5 shows the distribution and assignment of project trips onto the local road network used in this analy~is. The overall distribution is as follows: AM PM In Out In Out Monterey Street (east): 55% 55% 60% 60% US 101 (north): 15% 15% 10% 10% Buena Vista Ave. (west): 0% 10% 0% 10% Garfield Street (south): 5% 20% 0% 20% US 101 (south): 25% -30% ----- TOTAL: 100% 100% 100% 100% Approximately 632 Average Daily Trips (ADT) will be added to Monterey Street east ofBuena Vista Avenue, 57 ADT will be added to Buena Vista Avenue, 115 ADT will be added to Garfield Street, 172 ADT will be added to US 101 southbound off-ramp, 86 ADT will be added to US 101 northbound off-ramp and 86 ADT will be added to US 101 northbound on-ramp. The peak hour project trips illustrated on Exhibit 5 were combined with the existing volumes illustrated on Exhibit 3 to create the "existing plus project" volumes as shown on Exhibit 6. C. Project Condition Intersection Levels of Service Intersection operations were evaluated using technical procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The TRAFFIX 7.5 (R1) software program was utilized to calculate the "existing plus project" intersection levels of service. Intersection levels of service for the project condition (existing plus project) are shown on Exhibit 7, with copies ofthe LOS worksheets included as Appendix E. At the Monterey Street/Northbound US 101 ramps/project access intersection, Monterey Street/Buena Vista Avenue intersection and the Buena Vista Avenue/Garfield Street intersection, the worst-case minor street movements remain at the same LOS for "existing plus project" condition as for existing conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the other study intersections, the level of service on the minor street approach changes by one level of service category for either the AM peak hour, PM peak hour or both peak hours, but in each A01-073 Report.wpd 5 PC1 -209 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-263 Attachment 9 Appendix I case the minor street approaches operate at LOS Cor better. The locations with a level of service change associated with the project generated traffic are as follows: 1. US 101 Southbound Ramps/Buena Vista Avenue intersection-The worst case stop controlled approach on Buena Vista Avenue, operates at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour under project conditions versus LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS A during the PM peak hour under Existing Conditions. 2. Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection -The Garfield Street approach operates at LOS B under Existing Conditions and LOS C under Project Conditions during the PM peak hour. 3. Monterey Street/ Apple F arm!La Cuesta Inn driveway intersection -The worst case minor street approach operates at LOS B under Existing Conditions and LOS C under project conditions during the PM peak hour. The study intersections are projected to operate within acceptable limits (LOS D or better) for "Existing Plus Project" condition and the proposed project will not significantly impact traffic operations at the study locations. Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour volumes will not meet Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrant criteria. A copy of the signalization warrant worksheets are included in Appendix C. To minimize impacts to traffic exiting US 101 onto Monterey Street, it is recommended that an eastbound left-tum lane be added on the US 101 northbound off-ramp at its intersection with Monterey Street and the Project Driveway upon the addition of project generated traffic. A conceptual design of the proposed left turn lane is provided on Exhibit 11. The proposed left turn lane would include a 180 foot storage lane plus 120 foot bay taper. In summary, no improvements are warranted based on the level of service analysis for Existing Plus Project conditions and peak hour volume intersection signal warrants will not be met at the study intersections. To minimize impacts to traffic exiting northbound US 101 to Monterey Street, it is recommended that a left-tum lane be constructed at the intersection on the US 101 northbound off-ramp on the approach to the project dri vew ay . D. Project Access and Internal Circulation The project will be accessed by Monterey Street with secondary access provided via an inter- parcel connection to the Apple Farm Inn development located south of the project. The study analysis showed that the minor street approaches at the Monterey Street intersection with the project access driveway will operate at better than the LOS D standard under existing, project, and cumulative conditions. However, the project will increase conflicts with traffic entering the northbound Hig hway 101 on-ramps. As mentioned in the Existing Conditions section of this report, travel speeds at this point can be excessive because vehicles are accelerating to enter northbound Highway 101. A01-073 Report.wpd 6 PC1 -210 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-264 Attachment 9 Appendix I To further improve access conditions for the proposed project, it is recommended that the access driveway for the proposed project be consolidated with the adjacent driveway that serves Trellis Court. In conjunction with the consolidation of the two driveways, it is recommended that the curb of Monterey Street be realigned to improve the delineation of the northbound Monterey Street travel lane as it continues to the northbound US 101 on-ramp. Also, the project should contribute to the modification of the on-ramp as described under the Existing Conditions section of this report. Exhibit 11 shows a conceptual plan of these improvements. Two alternative configurations for ramp modifications were developed in addition to those described in the preceding paragraph. These do not provide all of the benefits achieved by the plan depicted on Exhibit 11. Exhibit 12 includes a similar lengthening ofthe northbound on- ramp and channelization of the northbound off-ramp. It also includes a consolidation ofTrellis Court Motel and Motel Inn driveways to a single location. However, it does not include the reduction of the on-ramp radius from 300 feet to 200 feet . Also, it does not accomplish the reduction in travel speed on northbound Monterey Street that would be accomplished by the reduced radius on the entrance to the northbound on-ramp . Exhibit 13 illustrates a third alternative which involves the construction of a roundabout at the junction of the northbound off-ramp and northbound on-ramp with the terminus of Monterey Street. This would require right-of-way acquisition and would create a confusing entrance to Monterey Street, especially for northbound off-ramp traffic. It could result in traffic going the wrong way on the roundabout. In addition, the roundabout is not located at a public street intersection. It is also located at the end of very tight radius with limited sight distance on the northbound off-ramp. Traffic stopped at the off-ramp attempting to comprehend the roundabout operation could result in rear end collisions on the off-ramp. The roundabout alternative is not recommended for this location. IV. CUMULATIVE CONDITION This section presents an analysis of cumulative traffic conditions, including a discussion of future trip generation, distribution and assignment and anticipated cumulative operating conditions. A. Cumulative Projects Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment Future traffic volume projections for the local street network were derived from the City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Demand Forecasting Model and represent buildout of the City's General Plan plus buildout of the proposed (not-yet approved) Airport Area Specific Plan. The traffic model projected an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of9,650 along Monterey Street east of Garfield Street, an ADT of510 along Garfield Street, an ADT of7,660 along Buena Vista Avenue, an ADT of980 on the US 101 northbound off-ramp, an ADT of7,750 on the US 101 northbound on-ramp, and an ADT of 8, 190 on the US 101 southbound off-ramp. Afternoon (PM) peak hour volumes were also projected by the traffic model. Growth factors between the existing PM peak hour volumes and cumulative PM peak hour volumes were established and used to compute cumulative AM peak hour volumes. The cumulative peak hour volumes (without and with project trips) are illustrated on Exhibits 9 and 10, respectively . A01-073 Report.wpd 7 PC1 -211 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-265 B. Cumulative Condition Intersection Levels of Service Attachment 9 Appendix I Intersection levels of service for the "cumulative" condition (without and with project trips) are shown on Exhibits 9 and I 0, respectively, with a copy of the LOS worksheets included as Appendix F (without project) and Appendix G (with project). Intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions are the same with or without the proposed project during both the AM and PM peak hours. Under cumulative conditions, the worst-case minor street approach operates at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with or without the project developed at the following intersections: 1. Monterey Street/Northbound On-& Off-Ramps/Project Access Driveway; 2. Monterey Street/Buena Vista Avenue; 3. Garfield Street/Buena Vista Avenue; 4. Monterey Street/Apple Fann/LaCuesta Inn Driveways Cumulative condition traffic volumes at the four intersections listed above will not meet Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant criteria. Therefore, no additional improvements are recommended at these locations other than the improvements described for the previous analysis conditions. The level of service analysis for the Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection indicates that the Garfield Street approach to Monterey Street will operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour with or without the project developed. The cumulative condition intersection volumes, however, will not meet Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrant criteria. Under these conditions, the decision to signalize the Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection should be based on actual traffic volumes and operating conditions at the intersection, including accident history. It is recommended that the Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection be monitored for possible signalization or, as an alternative, modified to all-way stop control as cumulative projects develop. With all-way stop control, the Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection would operate at LOS A during the cumulative condition AM peak hour and LOS D during the cumulative condition PM peak hour without or with the project trips included in the intersection volumes. With signalization, the intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. Intersection level of service calculation worksheets with the modified traffic control are included in Appendix H. Under cumulative conditions, the worst case Buena Vista Avenue approach to the southbound US 101 off-ramp intersection operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour with or without the project. The worst-case Buena Vista Avenue approach operates at LOSE during the PM peak hour without the project developed and LOS F during the PM peak hour with the project developed under cumulative conditions. The Buena Vista Avenue approaches at the intersection with the southbound US 101 off-ramp are stop controlled and the southbound off- A01-073 Report.wpd 8 PC1 -212 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-266 Attachment 9 Appendix I ramp approach is not controlled . The level of service analysis indicates that with cumulative traffic added to the road network, delays to vehicles on the Buena Vista A venue approaches to the southbound ramps will increase to relatively high levels. However, the Caltrans peak hour signal warrants will not be met under cumulative conditions at the Buena Vista Avenue/southbound US 101 off-ramp intersection. As with the Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection, it is recommended that the Buena Vista Avenue/southbound US 101 off-ramp intersection be monitored for possible signalization as cumulative projects develop. With all- way stop control, the intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. With signalization, the intersection would operate at LOS B under cumulative conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. It should also be noted that a left tum volume of798 vehicles is projected during the cumulative condition AM peak hour for the left tum movement from the southbound US 101 off-ramp to Buena Vista Avenue. At signalized intersections, Caltrans recommends that dual left turn lanes be provided when left tum volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour, which in this case would require providing a second eastbound lane on the Buena Vista A venue bridge over US 101. Potentially, signalizationoftheBuena Vista Avenue/Southbound US 10I off-ramp intersection could trigger the need to provide a second eastbound through lane on Buena Vista Avenue over US 10 I or, as an alternative, the need to provide additional capacity at another location for left tum movements from southbound US I 0 I to the east side of US I 0 I to allow the Buena Vista Avenue grade separation to remain two lanes in width. If signalized and maintained as a single left tum lane, the 'signal would need to be timed to provide a majority of the green time to the southbound US 10 I off-ramp during the AM peak hour. This would minimize the potential for the vehicle queue on the off-ramp to extend to the Highway IOI through lanes. V. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES Recommended mitigation measures are presented below. A. Existing Conditions The following improvements are recommended to correct existing deficiencies: 1. Lengthen the US 10 1 northbound on-ramp at Monterey Street to meet current Caltrans standards. This is depicted on Exhibit II. 2. Add "Yield" or "Stop" control on southbound Garfield Street at the Buena Vista Avenue intersection. B. Existing Plus Project Conditions In addition to improvements recommended for existing conditions, the following improvements are recommended under existing plus project conditions: A01-073 Report.wpd 9 PC1 -213 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-267 Attachment 9 Appendix I 1. Construct a left tum lane on the US 10 1 northbound off-ramp at the Project Driveway intersection. Exhibit 11 shows a conceptual plan of this improvement. 2 . Reconstruct the entrance driveway to the Motel Inn site to consolidate it with the adjacent driveway serving Trellis Court and to relocate the curb on the Monterey Street to improve the delineation of Monterey Street as it approaches the northbound US 101 on-ramp. Exhibit 11 shows a conceptual plan of this improvement. 3. Contribute to the lengthening of the US 101 northbound ramp at Monterey Street to meet current Caltrans standards as listed under Improvements Warranted for Existing Conditions. The prorata contribution could involve the reduction of the radius on the northbound on-ramp near its entrance from Monterey Street. This is because the project will only add about 10 morning peak hour trips and 4 evening peak hour trips to the approximately 150 existing morning peak hour trips and 488 evening peak hour trips utilizing this ramp. The project's percentage contributions are less than 10%. C. Cumulative Conditions Without Project Trips In addition to improvements recommended for existing conditions and existing plus project conditions, the following improvements are recommended under cumulative conditions: 1. Monitor the Monterey Street/Garfield Street intersection for signalization or all-way stop control. 2. Monitor the Buena Vista Avenue/US 101 southbound off-ramp intersection for signalization. D. Cumulative Conditions With Project Trips No additional improvements beyond those recommend for the Cumulative Conditions Without Project Trips are recommended under Cumulative Conditions With Project Trips. A01-073 Report.wpd 10 PC1 -214 ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-268 -u () ....>. 1\.) ....>. ....., ::z: a ca i Cll f n I n n~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ::j ~ TISPG PROJECT LAND USE SIZE TRIP GENERATION RATES (vehicle trips per room) MOTEL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION MOTEL INN REMODEL MOTEL 68 ROOMS APPLE FARM INN EXPANSION 58 ROOMS T OTAL I I 126 Notes: 1. Trip generation rates published by the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines (TISPG), June 2000. DAILY TRIPS 9.11 619 528 1,148 A01 -073 TG .xls-Project Trip Gen AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TOTAL % TOTAL % PEAK OF PEAK OF HOUR ADT IN OUT HOUR ADT IN OUT 0 .64 7% 0.36 0.64 0.58 6% 0.53 .J 44 7% 16 28 40 6% 21 19 37 7% 13 24 34 6% 18 16 81 29 52 1 74 39 35 )> "0 "0 CD )> :::J .-+ Cl.. .-+ O.l :;:;:· (") -::; 3 CD :::J .-+ c.o ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-271 :z: ij' CD Existing Existing Existing Conditions ;· Cll • Cll Cll 0 n iii ; Cll Lane N-5 I E·W Configuration Street Street 1 NB us 101 I Monterey NB On-and Off-Street SB 1-LIR Ramps EB 1-T & Project we 1-T Access 2 Garfield I Monterey NB 1-LfT Street Street SB EB H .1-T/R WB 1-L, 1-T/R 3 Buena Vista I Monterey NB 1-R Avenue Street SB EB 1-T WB 1-T 4 Garfield I Buena Vista NB 1-LfT/R Street Avenue SB 1-LfT/R EB 1-LfT/R WB 5 SB US 1 01 'Buena Vista NB Off-Ramp Avenue SB 1-L, 1-R EB 1-T WB 1-T 6 Apple Farm/ I Monterey NB 1-trr/R La Cuesta Inn Street SB 1-LfT/R Driveways EB 1-L, 1-T/R WB 1-L, 1-T/R Notes: 1. L,T,R =Left, Through, Right Intersection LOS LOS Control Standard Location AM Peak Hr Delay LOS (sec) Uncontrolled D WM 10.1 B WM Direction SB-L "T'' Stop D W M 10.7 B WM Direction NB-t TR 4-Wav Stoo Signal Yield D WM 11.5 B WM Direction NB-LTR Uncontrolled D WM 11 .9 B WM Direction NB-LTR 'T' Stop D WM 11.1 B WM Di re ction SB-tR 4-Way Stop Signal Uncontrolled D WM 10.6 B WM Direction SB-LTR t""ztli ~tri~ ~~=:i ~~-J 2. NB, SB, EB, WB , WM = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound, Worse Movement C/.)0 ~z < (S tTl 3. Level of service ca lculated using 2000 Highway Capacity Manua l methods 4. Levels of service for intersection no 1 use recommended improvements shown on Exhibit 8 PM Peak Hr Delay LOS (seci 12.5 B SB-L 14.3 B NB-LTR 9.6 A NB-LTR 10.4 B NB-LTR 9.9 A SB-LR 14.2 B SB-LTR Existing + Project Conditions AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Delay LOS Delay LOS (seci (sec) 10.6 B 13.6 B SB-L SB-L 11.3 B 15.4 c NB-LTR NB-LTR 12.0 B 9.7 A NB-LTR NB-LTR 12.1 B 10.6 B NB-LTR NB-LTR 22.3 c 12.8 B WB-T WB-T 11 .2 B 15.3 c SB-LTR SB-LTR A01-073 HCM 2000.xls ·LOS -Intersections Cumulative Conditions Without Project Trips With Project Trips AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS (sec) . (sec) lsecl (sec) 12.0 B 17.9 c 12.6 B 20.6 c SB-L SB-L SB-t SB ·L 16.1 c 111.7 F 17.3 c 145.5 F NB-LTR NB-tTR NB -LTR NB-LTR 9.5 A 27'.4 0 10.0 A 33.8 D ; 15.8 B 17.3 B 15.3 B 17.8 B I 28.8 D 11.5 B 34.1 D 11.8 B NB-LTR NB-LTR NB-LTR NB -LTR 23 .2 c 18.0 c 25 .2 D 19.8 c NB-tTR NB-LTR NB-LTR NB-LTR 310.0 F 47.8 E 323.1 F 52.1 F SB-LR SB-LR EB-T EB -T 85.4 F 15.2 c 88.6 F 15.8 c 10.1 B 14.3 B 10.2 B 14.3 B 13.0 B 21.9 c 13.9 B 23.5 c SB-LTR SB-LTR SB-LTR SB-LTR )> -o ~ )> :::J ::+ a.. Q) -· (') X :::r 3 CD :::J ....... c.o ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-274 ; ca ca ;· • ( i' i ~~tr:l a>~~ ~~~ ~r 1~ til~ tr:l g ~ Existing Existing Existing Existing + Project Cumulative Conditions N-S I E-W Lane Intersection Conditions Conditions Without ProJect Trips With ProJect Trips Street Street Configuration Control 1 NB us 101 I Monterey NB Uncontrolled 1. Lengthen US 101 NB On-Ramp 1. Add a left turn lane on the US 101 I No Additional Required No Additional Required On -& Off-Ramp Street SB 1-UR to current Caltrans Standards NB off-ramp at the Motel Inn driveway & Project EB 1-T Access WB 1-T 2 Garfield I Monterey NB 1-UT 'T' Stop Street Street SB None Required None Required 1. Monitor for signal or 4-way stop No Additional Required EB 1-L, 1-T/R WB 1-L, 1-T/R 3 Buena Vista I Monterey NB 1-R Yield Avenue Street SB None Required None Required None Required None Required EB 1-T WB 1-T 4 Garfield I Buena Vista NB 1-L/T/R Uncontrolled Street Avenue SB 1-UT/R 1. Add aYield or Stop Sign on No Additional Required No Additional Required No Additional Required EB 1-UT/R SB Garfield Street approach to WB Buena Vista Ave 5 SB US 101 I Buena Vista NB "T" Stop Off-Ramp Avenue SB 1-L, 1-R None Required None Required 1. Monitor for signal or 4-way stop No Additional Required EB 1-T WB 1-T 6 Apple Farm/ I Monterey NB 1-UT/R Uncontrolled La Cuesta Inn Street SB 1-UT/R None Required None Required None Required None Required Driveways EB 1-L, 1-T/R WB 1-L, 1-T/R Notes : 1. L, T, R = Left, Through , Right 2. NB, SB , EB , WB =Northbound , Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound A01-073 HCM 2000.xls-Intersection Mitigations )> "0 ~ )> :::J ::+ a.. Q) -· (") X :::r 3 CD :::J ....... c.o ATTACHMENT 4 PC2-275 Attachment 3 PC1 - 33 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2-283 Attachment 3 PC1 - 34 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2-284 Attachment 3 PC1 - 35 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2-285 Attachment 3 PC1 - 36 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2-286 Attachment 3 PC1 - 37 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2-287 Attachment 3 PC1 - 38 ATTACHMENT 5 PC2-288