Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2022 PC Agenda Packet Planning Commission AGENDA Wednesday, August 10, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo has returned to in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported. For those attending in-person, City facilities will be at limited capacity and masks are strongly recommended. Planning Commission meetings can be viewed remotely on Channel 20 and the City’s YouTube Channel: http://youtube.slo.city INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting): Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting. Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. *All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received after the deadline will not be processed until the following day. Public Comment during the meeting: Meetings have returned to an in-person format. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present in the Council Chambers. Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy, Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation are encouraged to provide display-ready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100. Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Quincey will call the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order. 2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. 3.CONSENT Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non- controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Planning Commission to pull an item for discussion. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit. 3.a.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JUNE 22, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 Recommendation: To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2022. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes. 4.a.1531 MONTEREY ST. (DIR-0228-2022) REVIEW OF A REQUEST FOR A 50% PARKING REDUCTION FOR A SITE WITH A RESTAURANT (CAFÉ) AND A DWELLING UNIT 9 Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the Parking Reduction request, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 4.b.175 VENTURE DR. (ARCH-0084-2022) REVIEW OF THE R-1 PORTION (PHASE 5) OF THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 101 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS 25 Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the R-1 portion (Phase 5) of the Avila Ranch project based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 4.c.2223 MONTEREY ST. (ARCH-0327-2021) REVIEW OF A REVISED PROJECT DESIGN FOR THE MOTEL INN, AN 83-ROOM HOTEL WITH 29 BUNGALOW GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, FOUR SMALL OUTBUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS 241 Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the revised project design based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a.STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Brian Leveille. 6.ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for August 24, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired--see the Clerk The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Planning Commission meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and on the City's YouTube Channel: http://youtube.slo.city. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are available for public inspection on the City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and- city-council/agendas-and-minutes. 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2022, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners Present: Commissioner Emily Francis, Commissioner Bob Jorgensen, Commissioner Juan Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Steve Kahn, Chair Nick Quincey (one vacant seat) Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Michael Hopkins City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Assistant City Attorney Markie Kersten, Megan Wilbanks, Deputy City Clerk _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on June 22, 2022 at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Quincey. Chair Quincey read a letter of resignation from Commissioner Mike Wulkan. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Public Comment: None --End of Public Comment-- 3. CONSENT Motion By Commissioner Francis Second By Commissioner Munoz-Morris To approve the Consent Item. Ayes (5): Commissioner Francis, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Kahn, and Chair Quincey Absent (1): Commissioner Hopkins CARRIED (5 to 0) Page 5 of 349 2 3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JUNE 8, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 2022. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.a REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ASSOCIATED WITH ALLOWABLE INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDINGS (CODE-0286-2022) Sustainability Manager Chris Read presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries. Chair Quincey opened the Public Hearing Public Comments: None --End of Public Comment-- Chair Quincey closed the Public Hearing Motion By Commissioner Munoz-Morris Second By Commissioner Francis Adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council introduce and adopt an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code regarding temporary incentives for development standards with the provision of new all-electric buildings with a sunset date of December 31, 2025 and an amendment to the current definition of “all - electric building”. "A RESOLUTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCE AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM FOR NEW BUILDINGS (CODE-0299- 2022)" Ayes (5): Commissioner Francis, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair Kahn, and Chair Quincey Absent (1): Commissioner Hopkins CARRIED (5 to 0) Page 6 of 349 3 5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided the following updates:  On July 13, 2022, the Planning Commission will review the Use Permit for the Safe Parking Program at the Railroad Square, a 50% parking reduction request for a business located at 1531 Monterey Street, and review design of Phase 5 (R-1) of the Avila Ranch Development located at 175 Venture Drive.  Currently, no items are scheduled for the July 27, 2022 Planning Commission meeting so it may be cancelled. Commissioner Francis indicated that she would be absent on that date if a meeting is held. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for July 13, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. _________________________ APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2022 Page 7 of 349 Page 8 of 349 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: 1531 MONTEREY ST (DIR-0228-2022) REVIEW OF A REQUEST FOR A 50% PARKING REDUCTION FOR A SITE WITH A RESTAURANT (CAFÉ) AND A DWELLING UNIT BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166 Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org APPLICANT: Robin Covey REPRESENTATIVE: Dana Hunter RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the Parking Reduction request, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW As provided by Zoning Regulations § 17.72.050 (C), the Planning Commission may consider approval of a reduction in parking requirements for any use. 2.0 SUMMARY The applicant proposes to operate a Restaurant, in this case a café and bakery with approximately 1,175 square feet of restaurant area (see Project Plans, Attachment B), on the ground floor at 1531 Monterey. The property is on the south side of Monterey, between California and Grove Streets, in a Tourist-Commercial Zone. Businesses in the immediate vicinity include lodging, retail, commercial offices, restaurants, and dwellings. The site is a commercial parcel, about 6,500 square feet in area, developed in 1934 to house a branch office of the Farmer Brother’s Coffee Company, and most recently accommodating the Steynberg Gallery and then the 4 Cats Gallery, each having an accessory small coffee shop area. Also on the site, above the commercial space, is a two-bedroom dwelling. Meeting Date: 8/10/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 Minutes Figure 1: Subject Site (1531 Monterey) Page 9 of 349 Item 4a DIR-0228-2022 (1531 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 Further improvement of the site is constrained, with no space available for addition of more on-site vehicle parking spaces. In order to allow for operation of the proposed café and bakery at this site, the applicant requests consideration of a reduction of 50% in the vehicle parking space requirement for the uses on the site. As depicted in plans (Attachment B), seven parking spaces are proposed to be provided at the rear of the site, to serve the uses on the property. The applicant has also provided a Parking Demand Study (Attachment C), prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting (CCTC), in support of this Parking Reduction request. 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST 3.1 Parking Requirement and Demand Minimum vehicle parking requirements for various land uses are specified in Table 3 -4 of Zoning Regulations § 17.72.050. A café and bakery such as that proposed for this site is classified as a Restaurant (Eating and Drinking Establishment), which carries a requirement of one parking space per 100 square feet of “restaurant area.” In plans, the applicant depicts 1,174 square feet of restaurant area (see Overall Parking Plan, Sheet A0.0 of Project Plans, Attachment A). The total vehicle parking requirement for the site, then, is 13 parking spaces (see Table 1 below). Table 1: Parking Requirement1 Land Use Requirement Number Required (rounded) Restaurant (1,174 sq. ft.) 1 space per 100 sq. ft. 11.74 Dwelling (2 BR) 0.75 spaces per bedroom 1.50 Total Requirement (rounded) 13 The Parking Demand Study provided by the applicant (Attachment C) provides parking demand forecasts for “Coffee/Donut Shop with no Drive Through,” similar to the proposed use. As reported in the study, observed parking demand results in a forecast demand between four and twelve spaces for the proposed use (see Table 2). The study notes the mixed-use, “walkable” nature of the location, and compares the parking requirement to that which would be applied to a Downtown location (where the requirement would be half that applied in the rest of the City). It concludes that, with incorporation of certain recommendations (discussed below), the amount of parking proposed to be provided can accommodate the parking demand for residents and employees on the property (CCTC, pg. 2). The recommendations are:  Reserve one or two on-site parking spaces for the residential unit only.  Encourage employees to walk, bike, use transit, or carpool. Direct employees to park in the on-site lot. The project drive aisle is too narrow to accommodate two - way traffic so customer parking on the site should not be encouraged by signage. 1 The bicycle parking requirement for the coffee shop is eight spaces (six short -term, two long-term), which the applicant proposes to provide on-site. Page 10 of 349 Item 4a DIR-0228-2022 (1531 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022  Add signage near the trash location for exiting vehicles to yield to entering vehicles, to reduce the chance that vehicles will have to back out of the driveway on to Monterey Street.  Add time limit sign for green curbed area north of the project driveway to discourage long term parking by employees or adjacent uses Implementation of the recommendations by the property owner and business operator is feasible, by installation of signage in the access driveway area, provision of transit passes to employees, and communication with employees regarding u se of on-site parking. A “Green Curb” short-term limitation already exists in front of the property. Staff is recommending that these recommendations be incorporated into the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) as conditions of approval for this request. 3.2 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Regulations The subject property is located within a Tourist Commercial Area described in the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan, for uses that primarily serve the traveling public, such as hotels and motels, restaurants, and service stations (LUE Table 1). Integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses is encouraged, and visitor-serving uses are considered to be especially appropriate where such uses have already concentrated, including along the Upper Monterey area (LUE Policy 3.6.2). Emphasis is placed revitalization and enhancement of the Upper Monterey area, which has been designated as a Special Focus Area, with promotion of restaurant development in this area identified as a specific policy action (LUE Policy 8.2.2). The City's Zoning Regulations set minimum parking requirements, including the number of vehicle parking spaces required to serve particular land uses (Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.72). Among the purposes of these provisions is to offer flexible means of minimizing area devoted to vehicle parking by allowing reductions in the number of required spaces in situations expected to have lower vehicle parking demand, and encouraging bicycling, transit use, walking, carpooling, and other modes of transportation (Zoning § 17.72.010 (A)). Where substantiated by a Parking Demand Study, granting a reduced parking requirement may be considered (Zoning § 17.72.050 (C)). In this case, a Parking Demand Study has been provided by the applicant, demonstrating that the proposed café and bakery at this location is expected to have a lower vehicle parking demand than the full requirement set out in Zoning Regulations, and that the seven proposed on-site vehicle parking spaces will be adequate to serve the proposed café and the dwelling on the site. Where site constraints would otherwise preclude the addition of vehicle parking spaces to satisfy the Figure 2: 1531 Monterey (Street View) Page 11 of 349 Item 4a DIR-0228-2022 (1531 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 full parking requirement, a Parking Reduction will allow for operation of the café, a use that is encouraged to integrate with visitor-serving uses here where they are already concentrated, furthering the City’s goals and policies for promoting restaurants in the Upper Monterey Special Focus Area. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of a Parking Reduction is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as a minor alteration in a land use limitation, which does not result in any changes in land use or density, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Parking Reduction proposal has been reviewed by the Building & Safety, Engineering, and Transportation Divisions, a nd by the Fire Department. The Transportation Division concurs with the conclusion of the Parking Demand Study and with incorporation of the recommendations made in the Parking Demand Study into conditions of project approval, supports approval of the requ ested reduction. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of the proposal, with direction to staff and the applicant on pertinent issues. 2. Deny the requested Parking Reduction, based on findings citing the basis for denial and describing inconsistencies with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations, or other relevant policy documents. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Draft Resolution (DIR-0228-2022) B - Project Plans – Alma Café (Hunter Smith Architecture) C - Parking Demand Study (Central Coast Transportation Consultants) Page 12 of 349 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 50% PARKING REDUCTION FOR A RESTAURANT (CAFÉ AND BAKERY) AND DWELLING, REDUCING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO 7 SPACES WHERE 13 SPACES WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST 10, 2022 (1531 MONTEREY STREET; APPLICATION DIR-0228-2022) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on August 10, 2022 for the purpose of reviewing the Parking Reduction request, application DIR-0228-2022, Robin Covey, 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 evaluation by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission hereby approves the Parking Reduction request, based upon the following findings: 1. Granting the requested Parking Reduction is consistent with the policies and goals set out in the City’s General Plan applicable to development in a Tourist Commercial area. The reduction promotes the use of the site for a Restaurant in upper Monterey Street, an area in which visitor-serving uses are already concentrated (Land Use Element Policy 3.6.2), and in which restaurant development is promoted (LUE Policy 8.2.2). 2. As conditioned, approval of the requested Parking Reduction is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations regarding development in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) Zone. Restaurants are a permitted use within the Zone. Parking and Loading provisions (Zoning Ch. 17.72) allow for reduction of required parking where justified by special conditions, such as the nature of the proposed operation, proximity to transit service, transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site, and implementation of measures to reduce parking demand at the site, as substantiated by a Parking Demand Study (Zoning § 17.72.050 (C)). A Parking Demand Study has been provided with this application, demonstrating that the proposed number of parking spaces falls within the observed range of parking demand for similar small-scale land uses. The Study also recommends several measures to reduce parking demand at the site, which have been incorporated into conditions of approval 3 through 7. Page 13 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2 R _____ 3. As conditioned, parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a detrimental impact on the supply of on -street parking in the surrounding area. The Parking Demand Study provided by the applicant demonstrates that the proposed number of parking spaces provided on the site falls within the observed range of parking demand for similar small-scale land uses and is sufficient to serve the proposed uses for the site. A short-term (“Green Curb”) parking space in front of the site, as recommended by the Study, already exists. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Approval of a Parking Reduction is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as a minor alteration in a land use limitation, which does not result in any changes in land use or density, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval for a Parking Reduction at the subject site, subject to the following conditions: 1. Limited Approval. Approval of a Parking Reduction at this site is limited to the land uses described and depicted in the plans submitted with this application, for a two -bedroom dwelling and a Restaurant with approximately 1,175 square feet of restaurant area. Changes in use, or intensification of the proposed use which would increase the parking requirement for the site shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, as appropriate, to ensure that adequate on-site parking is provided. 2. Improvement Plans. Final plans for construction permits to complete improvements for the Restaurant use depicted and described with this application shall include a separate, full- size sheet that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed (as Sheet Number 2). Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Final plans shall also include a parking calculation for all uses on the site, demonstrating compliance with parking requirements, as modified by this Parking Reduction approval, and shall make reference by application number to this application approval. 3. Required Residential Parking. At least one required residential parking space shall be reserved and assigned for exclusive use of the dwelling on the site. Commercial parking must be made available for guests or overflow from the dwelling, consistent with Zoning Regulations § 17.72.050 (D). 4. Demand Reduction. The operator of the Restaurant shall actively encourage employees to walk, bike, use transit, or carpool by: posting information regarding available transit services; encouraging participation in SLO Rideshares Back ‘N’ Forth Club; and offering to provide a free 31-Day SLO Transit Pass for new employees starting employment within the first six months of business operation. 5. Entering and Exiting. Signage shall be installed within the parking area, visible to exiting vehicles, instructing vehicles exiting the parking area to yield to entering vehicles. Restaurant employees shall be actively directed to use caution when entering and exiting the driveway, due to its single-lane configuration. Page 14 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3 R _____ 6. Short-Term On-Street Parking. The property owner shall install, at the owner’s expense, signage and curb markings, to the satisfaction of the City Parking Manager and City Engineering, to designate one “Green Curb” on-street parking stall in front of the business, dedicated to short-term parking. 7. Bicycle Rack Design. All short-term bicycle parking spaces shall utilize bicycle racks designed in a manner consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan Design Guidelines, which recommend “hi-low style” racks, such as Peak Campus Racks, or approved equivalent, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2022. ____________________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Planning Commission Page 15 of 349 Page 16 of 349 REQUIRED PARKING SPACE CALCULATION PER 17.72.030(AREAS ARE BASED ON PROJECT AREAS)TOTAL FLOORS.F. PERTOTAL PARKING AREA PARKINGSPACERESTAURANT1,174 S.F.100 S.F.11.7411.74 SPACES2 BEDROOMPARKINGTOTAL PARKING SPACERESIDENTIAL UNIT2 S.F.1.501.501.50 SPACESREQUIRED PARKINGTOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES13.24 SPACES14 SPACESPROPOSED PARKINGTOTAL PROPOSED ON-SITE PARKING SPACES7 SPACESCOMPACT3 SPACESAVERAGE3 SPACESADA 1 SPACESPROPOSED BICYCLE PARKINGTOTAL PROPOSED BIKE PARKING (2 SPACES IN FRONT & 3 SPACES IN BACK)5 SPACES1531 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401NPARCEL SITEVICINITY MAPSTATEMENT OF COMPLIANCETHIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND MEETS THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTED CODE AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS AND I/WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CLARIFICATIONS DEEMED NECESSARY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES.ENCROACHMENT PERMITWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES A SEPARATE "ENCROACHMENT PERMIT" ISSUED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. WORK REQUIRING AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO DEMOLITIONS, UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICES LATERALS, CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, SIDEWALK UNDER-DRAINS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, STREET TREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURB RAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION OR CONSTRUCTION STAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY"RECORD" DRAWINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT PER CITY STANDARDS AND CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. THE RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTIONS APPROVALS AND/OR OCCUPANCY OF ANY BUILDING.MAINTENANCE STATEMENTTHIS PROJECT DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY SHORT OR LONG TERM MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MATERIALS, FINISHES, AND/OR SURFACES SPECIFIED, DETAILED AND INDICATED IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS TO EITHER PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION, OR PROVIDE THE NAMES AND RESOURCES FOR THIS ISSUE. FURTHERMORE, THESE PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED TO ADDRESS ANY PRIORITY, OR DETERMINATION, OF ANY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM OR PROCESS, OTHER THAN THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY OTHERS, THE OWNER AND THEIR AGENTS.COMMERCIAL USES OF THE SITE AND ON-GOING BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND LANDSCAPING SHALL AT ALL TIMES REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED PLANS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT. ANY CHANGE TO THE APPROVED DESIGN OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR, PLANNING COMMISSION AND OR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE.AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT AND/OR OWNER.PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION, AND THE GRANTING OF OCCUPANCY, THE CONTRACTOR / OWNER SHALL INSURE ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THESE PLANSARCHITECTURAL OBSERVATION AND PRE-FINAL / OCCUPANCY NOTE:OCCUPANCY CALCULATION PER CBCPROJECT DESCRIPTIONCOMMERCIAL "TENANT IMPROVEMENT" REMODEL IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING. NO ADDITIONAL BUILDING AREA IS BEING PROPOSED. ONLY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS IS TO REMOVE SPRIAL STAIRCASE IN THE PARKING LOT. NO WORK IS BEING PROPOSED TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE SECOND FLOOR.PROJECT STATISTICSPROJECT ADDRESS:1531 MONTEREY STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN#001-234-003LEGAL DESCRIPTION:LOT 3, BLOCK NUMBER 235, BOOK 001, PAGE 23, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ASSESSOR'S MAP, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. ZONE:C-T (TOURIST COMMERCIAL)LOT SIZE:6,528 S.F.BUILDING SUMMARYUSE:CAFE/ COMMERCIAL KITCHEN / OFFICEOCCUPANCY:B, S-2CONSTRUCTION:V-B (NOT SPRINKLERED)NUMBER OF STORIES:TWODEVELOPMENT STANDARDSBUILDING AREA (NO MODIFICATIONS):2,929 S.F.BUILDING HEIGHT (NO MODIFICATIONS):25'-0"TITLET-1.0 TITLE SHEETT-1.5 TRAFFIC AND PARKING ANALYSIST-1.6 SAN LUIS GARBAGE CO. WILL SERVE LETTERAS BUILTAB-1.0 AS-BUILT SITE AND FLOOR PLANARCHITECTURAL SITECA-1.0 SITE PLANARCHITECTURAL D-1.0 DEMOLITION LOWER FLOOR PLANA-0.0 OVERALL PARKING PLANA-1.0 DIMENSIONAL LOWER FLOOR PLANA-1.1 PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLANA-3.0 WINDOW AND DOOR SCHEDULEA-6.0 FINISH FLOOR LOWER PLANA-6.1 EQUIPMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULETOTAL: 12 SHEETSSHEET INDEXROOM NAMEAREA (SF)OCC FACTOROCCUPANT LOADEXITS REQUIREDINDOOR DINING469 (NET)15 (NET)312OFFICE147(GROSS)150(GROSS)11KITCHEN1,056(GROSS)200(GROSS)51STORAGE92(GROSS)500(GROSS)01EMPLOYEE ROOM40(GROSS)150(GROSS)01RESTROOM ADA63(GROSS)15(NET)41RESTROOM ALL GENDER57(GROSS)15(NET)41TOTAL MAX. OCCUPANCY482879 MORRO STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401800-781-7215CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AGENCIES & UTILITIES919 PALM STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-7180919 PALM STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-7172COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOPUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT2191 JOHNSON AVESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-5500COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.1585 KANSAS AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-4540UTILITIES DEPARTMENTCITY HALL990 PALM STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-7100PACIFIC GAS & ELEC.406 HIGUERA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401800-743-5000CAL FIRE SAN LUIS OBISPOCOUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT635 N. SANTA ROSA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-543-4244UTILITY TELEPHONE 994 MILL ST #200SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-546-7003THE SOCAL GAS COMPANY2240 EMILY STSAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401805-427-2200SPECTRUMCOMMUNICATIONS270 BRIDGE STSAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401866-874-2389CITY PUBLIC WORKS919 PALM STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-7200SAN LUIS OBISPOPOLICE DEPARTMENT1042 WALNUT STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805-781-7317CODE COMPLIANCECODES: ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CODES: -2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), BASED ON THE 2018 IBC-2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), BASED ON THE 2018 UMC-2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), BASED ON THE 2018 UPC-2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), BASED ON THE 2016 NEC-2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN)-2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE-2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), BASED ON THE 2018 IFC-2019 CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE (H&SC)-2019 CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE (B&PC)-NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATIONS STANDARDS (NFPA)-PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD CONDITIONS, MUNICIPAL CODES, AMENDMENTS AND SELECTED CODE REQUIREMENTS ON FILE AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING AND BUILDING DIVISION-ALL OTHER CODES AND ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECTPROJECT DIRECTORYROBIN COVEYUMA COISA NOIVASAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401OWNER: ROBIN COVEYPH: 805-235-7140EMAIL: robin@novorestaurant.comOWNER/APPLICANT895 NAPA AVE. SUITE A-6MORRO BAY, CA93442CONTACT: JOE FERNANDEZPH: 805-316-0101EMAIL: joe@transportationcc.comCENTRAL COAST TRANSPORTATION CONSULTINGARCHITECTHUNTER SMITH ARCHITECTURE860 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 'B'SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: DANA HUNTERPH: 805-544-3380FAX: 805-544-8625EMAIL: dana@huntersmitharchitecture.comCITY PLANNINGCITY BUILDINGDEFERRED & SEPARATE SUBMITTAL1. SIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY THROUGH A SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION. SIGNS ARE FOR "REFERENCE ONLY". TO BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED THROUGH A SEPARATE PERMIT2. CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE COMPLETED BY A QUALIFIED / LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR. SHALL COMPLY AND REDUCE WASTE BY A MINIMUM OF 70% REFER TO LINK FOR FORM: HTTPS://WWW.SLOCITY.ORG/HOME/SHOWDOCUMENT?ID=43903. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN TO BE COMPLETED BY A QUALIFIED / LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR.REFER TO LINK FOR FORM: HTTP://WWW.SLOCITY.ORG/HOME/SHOWDOCUMENT?ID=714SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE ALMA CAFE"NON STRUCTURAL, TENANT IMPROVEMENT TOCOMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR"029T-1.0TITLE SHEETROBIN COVEYUMA COISA NOIVASAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ALMA CAFETENANT IMPROVEMENT1531 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401These drawings are instrumentsof service and are the property ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE.All designs and other informationon the drawings are for use on thespecified project and shall not beused otherwise without theexpressed written permission ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE860 Walnut Street • Suite B • San Luis Obispo • CA 93401HUNTER SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.DBA HUNTER SMITH ARCHITECTURE © 202210-31-2023C-38575NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLANNING SUB.20 APR 2022FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONTHE TWO CLOSEST FIRE HYDRANTS FROM THE SITE IS LOCATED ON :-FIRE HYDRANT #1: 122 FEET FROM 1531 MONTEREY STREET -FIRE HYDRANT #2: 225 FEET FROM 1531 MONTEREY STREET -FIRE HYDRANT #3: 277 FEET FROM 1531 MONTEREY STREET FH #1FH #2FH #3REQUEST PARKING REDUCTION PER 17.72.050*PROVIDING 5 BIKE PARKING SPACES, THEREFORE 1 PARKINGSPACESONE CAR SPACE FOR EACH FIVE BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED INEXCESS OF REQUIRED PARKING. ALL BICYCLE PARKING THATEXCEEDS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES SHALL BEAPPORTIONED BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM BICYCLESPACES AS STIPULATED BY TABLE 3-6: REQUIRED BICYCLEPARKING. ANY ADDITIONAL BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED FORRESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE COVERED.PER CITY OF SLOMUNICIPAL CODE 17.72.050.C.3.AREQUIRED: 14 PARKING SPACESPROPOSED: 7 PARKING SPACESREQUESTING: *7 PARKING SPACE REDUCTION Page 17 of 349 (805) 316-0101 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442 MEMORANDUM Date: April 5, 2022 To: Logan Hunter, Hunter Smith Architecture From: Joe Fernandez, CCTC Subject: 1531 Monterey Street Parking Demand This memorandum summarizes the parking analysis conducted for the project proposed at 1531 Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project proposes the following uses: x First floor: a commercial kitchen and coffee shop/bakery counter with 29 seats. The gross first floor area totals 2,530 square feet (s.f.), of which 1,174 s.f. is considered restaurant area for the purpose of City code parking requirement calculation. x Second floor: a single residential unit currently exists on the second floor and would remain. The first floor was previously occupied by a café and gallery. The project proposes seven on-site vehicular parking spaces and five on-site bicycle parking spaces. Free on-street parallel parking exists along the project frontage on Monterey Street and on Grove Street approximately two hundred feet from the project site. The commercial kitchen would supply local restaurants with desserts and other prepared goods. Four employees would work at the site. One van would make one daily delivery from the site to local restaurants and another van would deliver produce to the site three times per week. Both vans would load and unload in the on-site parking lot and would be stored off-site. Parking Demand Rates The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition reports parking demand for a variety of similar uses, including fast casual restaurants and coffee/donut shops with and without drive-through windows. Table 1 summarizes the parking demand rates reported in these documents, along with the number of surveyed sites and the range of observed rates. Table 1: ITE Parking Demand Rates Table 1 shows a very large range of observed parking demand rates at the surveyed coffee shops. The proposed supply of seven spaces is within the range of observed rates at the surveyed coffee shop sites. Industry standard parking demand rates for restaurants and coffee shops are based on parking surveys of operating sites that provide dedicated parking, typically in suburban auto-centric locations. These demand rates form the basis of many municipal code minimum parking requirements. Locations without dedicated parking, Average Rate Lowest RateCasual Restaurant 4 9.93 8.57-11.03 12 10Coffee/Donut Shop no Drive Through 11 10.49 3.49-19.31 12 4Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through 11 5.22 2.86-12.59 6 3ITE Parking Demand Rates1. Land Use Code #930, Fast Casual; #937 Coffee With Drive-Through; #936 Coffee Without Drive-Through3. Based on 1,174 square feet.2. Parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Parking Demand2Observed Rates2Spaces Required3Category1# of Surveys 2 1531 Monterey Street Parking Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting April 5, 2022 or which share parking with other uses, are not captured in these surveys since parking demand counts are difficult to collect at these types of locations. This results in minimum parking standards that may not be appropriate for walkable urban environments. Section 17.72.030 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code requires one parking space per 100 s.f. of total restaurant area. The project is in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone. If it were in the Downtown Commercial zone (C-D, four blocks away) the restaurant requirement would be halved. Food preparation land uses require one parking space per 1,500 s.f. Recommendations The proposed on-site parking supply is within the range of observed rates for coffee shop sites surveyed by ITE. The project location in a mixed-use, walkable area, makes it likely that a significant portion of customers will walk to the site. We recommend the following measures: x Reserve one or two on-site parking spaces for the residential unit only. x Encourage employees to walk, bike, use transit, or carpool. Direct employees to park in the on-site lot. The project drive aisle is too narrow to accommodate two-way traffic so customer parking on the site should not be encouraged by signage. x Add signage near the trash location for exiting vehicles to yield to entering vehicles. This will reduce the chance that vehicles will have to back out of the driveway on to Monterey Street. x Add time limit sign for green curbed area north of the project driveway to discourage long term parking by employees or adjacent uses. The site has historically been a café and gallery and anecdotal observations show regular curbside parking availability near the project site. The provided parking can accommodate the residents, employees, and a disabled parking space. The anticipated parking supply shortage is unlikely to affect the surrounding neighborhood, which mostly consists of hotels with on-site parking lots, other restaurants, and businesses. 029T-1.5TRAFFIC ANDPARKING ANALYSISROBIN COVEYUMA COISA NOIVASAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ALMA CAFETENANT IMPROVEMENT1531 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401These drawings are instrumentsof service and are the property ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE.All designs and other informationon the drawings are for use on thespecified project and shall not beused otherwise without theexpressed written permission ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE860 Walnut Street • Suite B • San Luis Obispo • CA 93401HUNTER SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.DBA HUNTER SMITH ARCHITECTURE © 202210-31-2023C-38575NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLANNING SUB.20 APR 2022Page 18 of 349 00029CA-1.0SITE PLANUMA COISA NOIVA, INC. ALMA 1531 MONTEREY ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401These drawings are instrumentsof service and are the property ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE.All designs and other informationon the drawings are for use on thespecified project and shall not beused otherwise without theexpressed written permission ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE860 Walnut Street • Suite B • San Luis Obispo • CA 93401HUNTER SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.DBA HUNTER SMITH ARCHITECTURE © 202210-31-2023C-38575NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLANNING SUB.20 APR 2022FLOORMIXERSSTORAGEEMPLOYEE LOCKERD -01D-08D-08D-05D-06D-024" STEPDND-03(E) ADA ALL GENDER R.R.ALL GENDERR.R.HAND SINKPIZZAPREPPREPSINKHAND SINKHAND SINKSEATINGBARSEATINGBARSEATING14'-0" EXHAUSTHOOD(E) ENTRYEXIT(E) ADAENTRYEXITELECPANELD-03D-07DISHWASHERWATERHTRMOPSINKSHELFD-04OFFICE/STORAGEWALK-IN10'X6'REFRIGERATORHIGH BARSEATING1,174 S.F. (NET)RESTAURANT USEFOODPREPAREAVOLLRATH CAYENNECHARBROILER40729233-3/4"DX 18"W XBAKE TABLE34"H X 36"D X 84"LGREASE TRAP.FREEZERFLOORMIXERSESPRESSOPASTRY SHELVING12'-0"POSCOFFEEPICK UP COUNTERBAKE TABLE2'-6"X 8'-0"HAND SINKPREP TABLE2'-6"X 4'-0"PREPSINKHAND SINKHAND SINKPREP TABLE2'-6"X 6'-0"PREP TABLE2'-6"X 6'-0"DISHWASHERWATERHTRWALK-IN10'X6'REFRIGERATORDISPLAYCASEESPRESSOSTORAGE2'-0"X 4'-0"DISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASE1TRASH & RECYCLINGLOCATIONSIDEWALKSTAIRS UPTO RESIDENTIALUNIT2-BIKERACKMONTEREY STREET9108SIDEWALKOFF-SITEPARKINGOFF-SITEPARKINGOFF-SITEPARKINGPROPERTY LINE2NO PARKING16'-0"123BIKE PARKING9'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY(E) CARPORT ABOVE(E) 16" DEEP HEADER24" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL24" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL67345COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT12" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-9 1/2"9'-0"18'-4"PROPERTY LINE9'-0"18'-4 3/4"(E) ASPHALTPARKING LOT(RE-STRIPE SPACES)STEPS6 3/4"RSTEPS6 3/4"RSTEPS6 3/4"RSSSSSSWWWGGGCURB1123369987954101112(E) PROPERTY LINE(E) ASPHALT PARKING AND DRIVEWAY PLPLSYMBOL LEGEND:5'-0" WIDE ADA/CBC ACCESS. PATH OF TRAVEL FROM ACCESS PARKING TO BUILDING ENTRANCEUTILITY GENERAL NOTES:1. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE SEWER LATERAL CLEANOUT @ THE BUILDING2. COORDINATE WORK AFFECTING SITE UTILITIES WITH ALL LOCAL AGENCIES AND UTILITY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES3. NO GAS PIPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN OR ON THE GROUND, UNDER ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. ALL EXPOSED GAS PIPING SHALL BE KEPT AT LEAST SIX INCHES ABOVE GRADE OR STRUCTURE. UPC 1211.34. PLACE NON-METALIC SEWER LATERAL PIPE A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET BELOW SURFACE SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC5. SLOPE SEWER LATERAL A MINIMUM OF 1/4 INCH PER FOOT (2%) TOWARD POINT OF DISPOSAL. UPC SECTION 708.06. PROVIDE APPROVED BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES AT HOSE BIBBS AND LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. UPC SECTION 603.07. SEWER BACK WATER VALVE REQUIRED ON THE SEWER LATERAL8. ALL ELECTRICAL TELECOMMUNICATION & OTHER UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND IN AN APPROVED METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. (VERIFY LOCATIONS AND POINTS OF CONNECTIONS)9. PROVIDE WATER PRESSURE REGULATOR AS REQUIRED - 80 PSI MAX10. VERIFY LOCATION OF PG&E, CATV, AND TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND SERVICE BOXES11. IF GAS METERS, ELECTRIC UTILITIES OR ANY PART OF THE FIRE PROTECTION WATER SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR DAMAGE, IMPACT PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDEDSITE GENERAL NOTES:1. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE COUNTY ORDINANCES. WHERE NO STANDARD OR SPECIFICATION EXISTS, THE STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SHALL GOVERN. THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER SHALL BE FINAL REGARDING THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT SHALL APPLY.2. REVISIONS REQUIRED BY UNFORESEEN SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO EXECUTION3. PROVIDE PLANTING TO PROTECT DISTURBED UNPAVED SURFACES FROM EROSION. PROVIDE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO ERROSION MITIGATION PLAN.4. MINIMUM CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE 2,500 PSI AT 28 DAYS FOR ALL FLAT WORK5. PRIOR TO EITHER ROOF NAIL OR FRAMING INSPECTION A LICENSED SURVEYOR IS REQUIRED TO MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AND SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CERTIFYING THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND COMPLIES WITH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.6. VERIFY LOCATION OF RESIDENCE, GARAGE AND ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS PER PLAN. NOTIFY ARCHITECT WITH DISCREPANCIES, PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION7. DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED PER THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS. DRIVEWAY SLOPES SHOULD CONFORM TO THE THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS FOR UPHILL/DOWNHILL DRIVEWAYS8. IT IS THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY LOT LINES. PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION, THE LOT CORNERS SHALL BE STAKED AND SETBACKS MARKED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONALREFERENCE NOTESSITE REFERENCE NOTES12345678ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING SPACE WITH ACCESSIBLE AISLE(E) BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN NO WORK IS BEING PROPOSEDWATER METER, VERIFY LOCATIONPATH OF TRAVEL SLOPE PER ADA REQMTS. REFER TO AD SHEETS FOR INFO.PARKING STALLS TO BE RE-STRIPPEDGAS METER, VERIFY LOCATION(N) ELECTRICAL METER WITH AN UNDERGROUND 5" CONDUIT LINE TO ADAJENCE POLE. VERIFY LOCATION FROM ELECTRICAL ENGINEER9(E) 6X6 STRUCTURAL POST TO REMAIN(E) BIKE RACK TO REMAIN10(E) RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN11(E) STEPS TO FRONT ENTRANCE TO REMAIN(N) COMPACT PARKING SPACES PER CITY OF SLO ENGINEER STANDARDS12(E) SEWER LATERAL MAIN TO REMAIN AND BE REUSED.133/16" = 1'-0"SITE PLANSCALE:Page 19 of 349 FLOORMIXERSSTORAGEEMPLOYEE LOCKERD -01D-08D-08D-05D-06D-024" STEPDND-03(E) ADA ALL GENDER R.R.ALL GENDERR.R.HAND SINKPIZZAPREPPREPSINKHAND SINKHAND SINKSEATINGBARSEATINGBARSEATING14'-0" EXHAUSTHOOD(E) ENTRYEXIT(E) ADAENTRYEXITELECPANELD-03D-07DISHWASHERWATERHTRMOPSINKSHELFD-04OFFICE/STORAGEWALK-IN10'X6'REFRIGERATORHIGH BARSEATING1,174 S.F. (NET)RESTAURANT USEFOODPREPAREAVOLLRATH CAYENNECHARBROILER40729233-3/4"DX 18"W XBAKE TABLE34"H X 36"D X 84"LGREASE TRAP.FREEZERFLOORMIXERSESPRESSOPASTRY SHELVING12'-0"POSCOFFEEPICK UP COUNTERBAKE TABLE2'-6"X 8'-0"HAND SINKPREP TABLE2'-6"X 4'-0"PREPSINKHAND SINKHAND SINKPREP TABLE2'-6"X 6'-0"PREP TABLE2'-6"X 6'-0"DISHWASHERWATERHTRWALK-IN10'X6'REFRIGERATORDISPLAYCASEESPRESSOSTORAGE2'-0"X 4'-0"DISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASED -01D-08D-08D-06ATAAINSEAAGBBRR(E)ENTRYRREXITD-07SSSEEENNNNNGG1,174S.F.(NET)RESTATTURANTUSEGREASETRAP.PPFLOORMIXERSOSHANDSINKKKHANDSINKKKHANDSINKKKGGAASSSSSEESEAAAAAAAABBBBBBBRRRRRRRAAAASSGGNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEESSESSEEESS1TRASH & RECYCLINGLOCATIONSIDEWALKSTAIRS UPTO RESIDENTIALUNIT2-BIKERACKMONTEREY STREET9108SIDEWALKOFF-SITEPARKINGOFF-SITEPARKINGOFF-SITEPARKINGPROPERTY LINE2NO PARKING16'-0"123BIKE PARKING9'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY(E) CARPORT ABOVE(E) 16" DEEP HEADER24" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL24" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL67345COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT12" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-9 1/2"9'-0"18'-4"PROPERTY LINE9'-0"18'-4 3/4"(E) ASPHALTPARKING LOT(RE-STRIPE SPACES)STEPS6 3/4"RSTEPS6 3/4"RSTEPS6 3/4"RCURBREQUEST PARKING REDUCTION OF 3 SPOTS PER 17.72.050*PROVIDING 5 BIKE PARKING SPACES, THEREFORE 1 PARKING SPACESONE CAR SPACE FOR EACH FIVE BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF REQUIREDPARKING. ALL BICYCLE PARKING THAT EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACESSHALL BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM BICYCLE SPACES ASSTIPULATED BY TABLE 3-6: REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING. ANY ADDITIONAL BICYCLEPARKING PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES SHALL BE COVERED.PER CITY OF SLOMUNICIPAL CODE 17.72.050.C.3.AREQUIRED: 14 PARKING SPACESPROPOSED: 7 PARKING SPACESREQUESTING: *7 PARKING SPACE REDUCTION 00029A-0.0OVERALL PARKINGPLANUMA COISA NOIVA, INC. ALMA 1531 MONTEREY ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401These drawings are instrumentsof service and are the property ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE.All designs and other informationon the drawings are for use on thespecified project and shall not beused otherwise without theexpressed written permission ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE860 Walnut Street • Suite B • San Luis Obispo • CA 93401HUNTER SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.DBA HUNTER SMITH ARCHITECTURE © 202210-31-2023C-38575NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLANNING SUB.20 APR 20223/16" = 1'-0"OVERALL PARKING PLANSCALE:REQUIRED PARKING SPACE CALCULATION PER 17.72.030(AREAS ARE BASED ON PROJECT AREAS)TOTAL FLOORS.F. PERTOTAL PARKING AREA PARKINGSPACERESTAURANT1,174 S.F.100 S.F.11.7411.74 SPACES2 BEDROOMPARKINGTOTAL PARKING SPACERESIDENTIAL UNIT2 S.F.1.501.501.50 SPACESREQUIRED PARKINGTOTAL REQUIRED PARKING SPACES13.24 SPACES14 SPACESPROPOSED PARKINGTOTAL PROPOSED ON-SITE PARKING SPACES14 SPACESCOMPACT3 SPACESAVERAGE3 SPACESADA 1 SPACESPROPOSED BICYCLE PARKINGTOTAL PROPOSED BIKE PARKING (2 SPACES IN FRONT & 3 SPACES IN BACK)5 SPACESPage 20 of 349 00029CA-1.1BIKE PARKING PLANUMA COISA NOIVA, INC. ALMA 1531 MONTEREY ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401These drawings are instrumentsof service and are the property ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE.All designs and other informationon the drawings are for use on thespecified project and shall not beused otherwise without theexpressed written permission ofHUNTER SMITHARCHITECTURE860 Walnut Street • Suite B • San Luis Obispo • CA 93401HUNTER SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.DBA HUNTER SMITH ARCHITECTURE © 202210-31-2023C-38575NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLANNING SUB.20 APR 2022FLOORMIXERSSTORAGEEMPLOYEE LOCKERD-01D-08D-08D-05D-06D-024" STEPDND-03(E) ADA ALL GENDER R.R.ALL GENDERR.R.HAND SINKPIZZAPREPPREPSINKHAND SINKHAND SINKSEATINGBARSEATINGBARSEATING14'-0" EXHAUSTHOOD(E) ENTRYEXIT(E) ADAENTRYEXITELECPANELD-03D-07DISHWASHERWATERHTRMOPSINKSHELFD-04OFFICE/STORAGEWALK-IN10'X6'REFRIGERATORHIGH BARSEATING1,174 S.F. (NET)RESTAURANT USEFOODPREPAREAVOLLRATH CAYENNECHARBROILER40729233-3/4"DX 18"W XBAKE TABLE34"H X 36"D X 84"LGREASE TRAP.FREEZERFLOORMIXERSESPRESSOPASTRY SHELVING12'-0"POSCOFFEEPICK UP COUNTERBAKE TABLE2'-6"X 8'-0"HAND SINKPREP TABLE2'-6"X 4'-0"PREPSINKHAND SINKHAND SINKPREP TABLE2'-6"X 6'-0"PREP TABLE2'-6"X 6'-0"DISHWASHERWATERHTRWALK-IN10'X6'REFRIGERATORDISPLAYCASEESPRESSOSTORAGE2'-0"X 4'-0"DISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASEDISPLAYCASE1TRASH & RECYCLINGLOCATIONSIDEWALKSTAIRS UPTO RESIDENTIALUNIT4-BIKERACKMONTEREY STREET9108SIDEWALKOFF-SITEPARKINGOFF-SITEPARKINGOFF-SITEPARKINGPROPERTY LINE2NO PARKING16'-0"BIKE PARKING9'-0"(E) DRIVEWAY(E) CARPORT ABOVE(E) 16" DEEP HEADER24" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL24" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL67345COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT12" H RETAINING WALL W/ 2X6 PROPERTY LINE WALL8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-9 1/2"9'-0"18'-4"PROPERTY LINE9'-0"18'-4 3/4"(E) ASPHALTPARKING LOT(RE-STRIPE SPACES)STEPS6 3/4"RSTEPS6 3/4"RSTEPS6 3/4"RCURBSTORAGEEMPLOYEELOCKERD-01D-08D-08D-05D-064"STEPDND-03(E)ADAALLGENDERR.R.ALLGENDERR.R.PIZZAAPREPPSEATAAINGBARSEATAAINGBARSEATAAING14'-0"EXHAUSTTHOOD(E)ENTRYYREXIT(E)ADAAENTRYYREXITELECPAPPNELD-03D-07MOPSINKSHELFD-04OFFICE/STORAGEHIGHBARSEATAAING1,174S.F.(NET)RESTATTURANTUSEFOODPREPPAREAAHOODVOOLEEEEEEAAEETHCCAAYXXEXXNXXNNXXECHHOOHAHHHHHHRHHO4I44L44E44R44OO07AA2AA9AA2AAOO3-3AAUU/AAUU4AAUU"D00XDD18UUUUWUUX00BAKETABLE34"HX36"DX84"LGREASETRAP.PPFREEZERFFFFFFFFFLLLLLLOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMIIIIIXXXEERRRRRSSSSESPRESSOPAPPSTRYSHELVLLING12'-0"POSCOFFEEPICKUPCOUNTERBAKETATTBLE2'-6"X8'-0"HHAANNDDSSIINNKKKKPREPTATTBLE2'-6"X4'-0"PPRREEPPSSIINNKKKKHHAANNDDSSIINNKKHHAANNDDSSIINNKKKKPREPTATTBLE2'-6"X6'-0"PREPTATTBLE2'-6"X6'-0"DDDIIISSSHHHWWWAAAWWWWWWSSHHEERRWATAAERHTRWWAAWWWWLLKK--IINN1100''XX66''RREEFFRRIIGGEERRAARRRRTTAAAAOORRRRESPRESSOSTORAGE2'-0"X4'-0"DISPLAYAACASEDISPLAYAACASEDISPLAYAACASEDDIISSPPLLAAYYAAAACCAASSEEDISPLAYAACASEPS(E) 4 SHORTTERM BIKEPARKING(N) 2 SHORT TERMBIKE PARKING DETAIL B(N) 2 LONG TERMBIKE PARKINGDETAIL 'A'3/16" = 1'-0"BIKE PARKING PLANSCALE:LONG TERM BIKE PARK.N.T.S.ASHORT TERM BIKE PARKINGN.T.S.BOR AN APPROVED EQUAL. VERIFY WITH ARCHITECT & OWNERREQUIRED BIKE PARKING SPACES2 LONG TERM BIKE SPACES6 SHORT TERM BIKE SPACES (4 SPACES IN FRONT AND 2 SPACES IN BACK)Page 21 of 349 Page 22 of 349 Page 23 of 349 Page 24 of 349 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE R-1 PORTION (PHASE 5) OF THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 101 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 610-1109 Phone Number: 805-781-7166 Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com Email: bleveille@slocity.org APPLICANT: Wathen Castanos Homes REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Florence RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the R-1 portion (Phase 5) of the Avila Ranch project based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role is to consider approval of the proposed R-1 portion (Phase 5) of the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan, informed by the recommendations of the Architectural Review Commission on design criteria. In arriving at a decision, the Planning Commission should consider the proposal’s consistency with the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), Avila Ranch Development Plan (ARDP), Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and other applicable City development standards. 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND In September 2017, the City Council approved the Avila Ranch project, which envisioned phased development of up to 720 homes and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial uses on a 150-acre site on three parcels in the southern portion of the City of San Luis Obispo, generally northeast of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane (APNs 053-259- 004, -005 and -006). The project as approved was determined to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan (as amended), and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. It was also determined to be consistent with the County’s Airport Land Use Plan. The following entitlements were included as part of original project approval to facilitate development:  Resolution 1832 (2017 Series) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, amending both the Airport Area Specific Plan and General Plan, and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089. Meeting Date: 8/10/2022 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 60 Minutes Page 25 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022  Resolution 1638 (2017 Series) rezoning property at 175 Venture Drive (the Project) from Business Park/Specific Plan Area (BP -SP) and Conservation /Open Space/Specific Plan Area (C/OS/SP) to be consistent with the Project’s Development Plan and with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan, as amended to enable development of 720 residential units and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial on a 150-acre site. The Project also includes 18 acres of parks and 53 acres of designated open space.  Ordinance 1639 (2017 Series) approving the Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Avila Ranch LLC. The Project was subsequ ently sold to Wathen Castanos Homes, and with it, the rights and obligations associated with the DA. The DA ensures phased and orderly development of the Project and includes provisions for reimbursement for public infrastructure and improvements beyond project requirements. In addition, several other subsequent entitlements related to the Avila Ranch have already been approved or are currently under City review, including both onsite and offsite improvements related to the originally approved project. The se include the recordation of the Phase 1 Final Map, various public improvements related to Phases 1 -3, approval of the design of the R-2 product, and a variety of resource regulatory permits. A complete list is included on Page P1.1 of project plans (Attachment B). The applicant now requests that the Planning Commission approve the proposed design and layout for the Low Density Residential (R-1) component of the project. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY The proposed project includes 101 single-family residential units, two parks, and various accompanying infrastructure, all of which were anticipated in the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan. At this time, the applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval of the project design, and whether that design is consistent with relevant City regulations, including the Airport Area Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Development Plan and Community Design Guidelines. General Location: Generally north of Buckley Road and east of Vachell Lane. Site Area: 150 acres for the Avila Ranch project (current application includes 12.8 acres within the R- 1-SP zone and 2.6 acres PF-SP for parks) Present Use: Vacant land Zoning: R-1-SP and PF-SP within the Airport Area Specific Plan General Plan: Low Density Residential; Parks Figure 1. Avila Ranch Project Site Page 26 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 Surrounding Uses (outside the Avila Ranch Planning Area): East: County jurisdiction; Agriculture zoning West: M-SP (Manufacturing); C-S (Service Commercial) further west across Vachell Lane North: M (Manufacturing); BP-SP (Business Park); warehousing & industrial uses South: County jurisdiction; Agriculture zoning Zoning surrounding the R-1-SP zoned land includes PF-SP, CN-SP and C/OS-SP (refer to Figure 1, Avila Ranch Project Site). The proposed application is for the Planning Commission concerning the design of the R- 1 component of the Avila Ranch project, which would be constructed as Phase 5 of the project1. If approved, the R-1 product as envisioned would be developed in the framework of existing project entitlements, subject to the policies of the General Plan, AASP, and requirements of the Avila Ranch Development Plan. Figure 2 shows the phasing within Avila Ranch, highlighting the R-1 area covered by the current application.2 1 Pursuant to a September 2021 Memorandum Agreement, executed between the City and applicant in accordance with the approved Development Agreement, the project phasing can be executed out of sequence. 2 What is shown on this figure as “Phase 1” also includes Phases 2 and 3. They are combined because the Planning Commission previously approved the R-2 development that would occur in all three phases. Figure 2. Project Location within the Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 27 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 In all, Phase 5 of the project would accommodate 101 dwelling units, consistent with what is allowed under the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan. Phase 5 also includes Park “H” and Park “I”, which were anticipated in the Development Plan. While Phase 5 is moving ahead in the phasing sequence, the Applicant is also proposing to construct various sequenced infrastructure improvements that would have otherwise been required in earlier phases, including wet/dry utilities and circulation/roadways, as defined in a recently approved Memorandum of Agreement, and noted here for reference. These improvements are summarized on Page P1.0 of project plans (Attachment B). Proposed Design. As prescribed in the ARDP, the proposed project includes three approved architectural styles, Spanish (Mission), Farmhouse (Agrarian), and Craftsman. The proposed development includes a variety of building designs, including six (6) different plan types with three (3) different elevation s for each plan. These include a mixture of both front loaded and alley loaded units. The floor plans range from 2,126 to 2,496 square feet, with 3 to 5 bedrooms. The largest front -loaded plan includes an optional junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). Additional details of the proposed project design are included in the ARC Agenda Report of June 20, 2022 (Attachment C). Table 1 summarizes the proposed floor plans within the R-1 zone, including key features and the applicability of the various architectural styles. The location of each is shown on Sheet SP2.0 of project plans (Attachment B), and in Figure 3 below. Although Figure 3 is difficult to read at this scale, it is possible to see the relative locations of the Alley Loaded units (in blue) and the Front -Loaded units (in brown). It is also possible to see the variability in setbacks among the various unit types. To more easily read the details related to the location of the different unit types within this area, please refer to project plans (Attachment B). Figure 3. Location of Unit Types Showing Setbacks Page 28 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 Table 1. Summary of Proposed R-1 Development (Phase 5) Cluster Units Plan # Size Stories Bedroom / Baths Garage Architectural Styles # of Units Alley-Loaded Units 1 2,126 SF 1 3BR / 2.5BA 2 car A, B, C 12 2 2,495 SF 2 4BR / 2.5BA 2 car + optional garage A, B, C 10 TOTAL 22 Front-Loaded Units 1 1,944 SF 1 2BR / 2.5BA 2 car A, B, C 13 2 2,309 SF 2 4BR / 2.5BA + loft 2 car A, B, C 15 3 2,456 SF 2 4BR / 2.5BA + office 3 car A, B, C 19 4 2,496 SF 2 5BR / 3.5BA + JADU * 3 car A, B, C 32 TOTAL 79 All Phase 5 101 Architectural Style Key: A – Spanish (Mission) B – Farmhouse C – Craftsman * “JADU” is a junior accessory dwelling unit, per Municipal Code Section 17.156.022— no more than 500 SF and contained entirely within a single-family residence. 4.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW As described in Section 2.0 of this report, the City Council approved the overall Avila Ranch project in September 2017. This included a Development Agreement, Development Plan, VTTM 3089, and a certified Final EIR that addressed the entire development, including the R-1 portion of the project. The approved entitlements had been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Airport Land Use Commission, all of which informed the City Council’s decision. Subsequent specific development plans for each phase of the project were required to receive Architectural Review and Planning Commission approval. 4.1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION The ARC reviewed the current Phase 5 proposal on June 20, 2022 and recommended the Planning Commission find the project consistent with design policies and guidelines of the ARDP, AASP, and Community Design Guidelines and the motion included a recommendation to look at options to enhance safety and connections for crossing the street to the bridge at Wright Bros. Way and Earhart Way (Figure 4, below) and to further evaluate the size and functionality of the porch areas (Minutes, Attachment C). Page 29 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 Both the applicant team and City Public Works Transportation staff are supportive of exploring an appropriate design solution to facilitate safe pedestrian access at this location and part of Public Improvement Plans (PIPs). Staff has added a condition of approval (condition #6) to the draft resolution, requiring final design and implementation of the safety measures at the Public Improvement (PIP) stage (draft resolution, Attachment A). The applicant’s preliminary responses to both items also included below: Porch Depths – While the porch/deck depths are designed wider than the ARC noted 3 - feet, the applicant is analyzing each of the six (6) unique floorplans and will provide a more detailed description of private opens space during their presentation to the Planning Commission. Pedestrian Crossing to Pedestrian Bridge – The project includes a pedestrian bridge that traverses Tank Farm Creek and connects Phases 4 -6 to Phases 1-3. While the design of the public improvement plans for Phases 4 & 5 are near completion, the applicant will analyze the most appropriate and safe crossing to delineate access more clearly to the pedestrian bridge. Working with City Public Works, Engineering and Traffic staff, the applicant will be available to provide additional information to the Planning Commission. Figure 4. Corner of Wright Bros. Way and Earhart Way Page 30 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, AASP, Development Agreement, ARDP, and Community Design Guidelines. Notably, upon its approval, the project (including the Development Agreement and ARDP) was found to be consistent with the General Plan and AASP and is directly referenced in the AASP. On June 20, 2022, the ARC found the project consistent with the design-related provisions of the ARDP and CDG. Therefore, consistency with the Development Agreement and the ARDP are the key considerations with respect to this project, and these are the focus of the analysis that follows. This discu ssion also considers project consistency with the City’s zoning regulations. The Development Agreement (DA) and ARDP were intended to work together to provide direction for the project, with the City’s Zoning Regulations used to determine development parameters where the ARDP is either silent or open to interpretation. The DA in particular is the overarching guidance document, which specifies the required approach to a number of topics, including infrastructure, affordable housing, energy use and others. As such, it is useful for determining the intent of the ARDP when provisions of that document require interpretation, especially as the ARDP was put together without the benefit of a detailed project design and did not always anticipate situations that arise through the design review process. For this reason, the analysis that follows is often framed in terms of whether the project application meets the intent of the ARDP, rather than necessarily follows all of the specific provisions described in that do cument, some of which may no longer be applicable or appropriate based on updated citywide regulations (notably some of the provisions related to energy use). Other aspects of the ARDP may be more practically achieved through the applicant’s proposal, not ably with regard to certain site design considerations. As noted above, the ARC found the project consistent with the intent of the ARDP with respect to design issues. 5.1 Development Agreement Flexibility With respect to project design within the R-1 Zone, the Development Agreement includes several relevant provisions, the most important of which is Section 8.06, which recognizes a need for flexibility during project implementation, and the need to potentia lly allow for minor deviations from the Development Plan, if the project is consistent with the intent of the Development Plan. Specifically, it states: “…Implementation of the project may require minor modifications of the details of the Development Plan and affect the performance of the Parties to this Development Agreement. The anticipated refinements of the Project and the development of the Property may require that appropriate clarifications and refinements are made to this Development Agreement and Entitlements with respect to the details of the performance of the City and the Developer. The Parties desire a certain degree of flexibility with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development Agreement.” Page 31 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 In short, the Development Agreement recognized that in order to make a project implementable, some flexibility in interpreting the intent of certain aspects of the Development Plan might be necessary. It is notable that when the Planning Commission considered the R-2 aspect (Phases 1-3) of the ARDP in September 2021, it found that project consistent with the intent of the ARDP, allowing for flexibility and minor deviations from certain aspects of the DA. Energy Use Another key section of the DA concerns energy use, which could potentially affect the project design. Section 7.07 of the Development Agreement addresses energy requirements for the project. Specifically, Section 7.07 requires that the project “shall provide for accelerated compliance with its the City’s Energy Co nservation Goals and its Climate Action Plan by implementing energy conservation measures significantly above City standards and norms.” At the time the DA was adopted in 2017, the project was evaluated and approved in the context of the 2016 building code s, which provided for energy conservation measures that were significantly greater than what was in place before that time. The intent of the standards and guidelines as written below was to go beyond that and anticipate what was to be required in the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the City’s Clean Energy Choice Program, which were not yet adopted at that time. The overall intent of the Development Plan was to improve energy conservation measures in R-1 and R-2 buildings by at least 15% over the 2016 Title 24 standards, and at least 10% for the R-3, R-4, NC and other uses. That was also the performance standard set forth in Section 7.07 of the DA. Section 7.07 of The DA also requires that the project shall provide sustainability features including: (i) Housing that meets the 2019 net zero building and energy codes, or if the 2019 building and energy codes are not yet adopted upon building permit application, the equivalent to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, (ii) implementing any future city-wide policy regarding carbon emissions reduction, (iii) solar electric panels, (iv) integrated power outlets for electric vehicles and electric bicycles, (v) building design that maximizes grey water usage, and (vi) work-at-home options with high-speed internet connectivity. Thus, in order to comply with the DA, and meet the intent of the Development Plan, the R-1 project must demonstrate energy conservation in excess of 15% over the 2016 Title 24 standards, and it must include sustainability features consistent with 2019 energy codes to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. It is important to note that at the time the Development Agreement and Development Plan were approved, the City expected the 2019 energy code to provide “net zero energy” requirements. However, the California Energy Commission did not provide net zero energy requirements in the 2019 code, and instead made a pivot to value greenhouse gas emissions as a top priority and made changes to the energy code that allowed for all - electric new development. Page 32 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 This pivot occurred in parallel with the City’s commitments to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, prioritizing the reduction in fossil fuels (including natural gas), and supporting the transition to all-electric buildings.3 The Development Agreement provides the list shown above, but ultimately leaves it to the Community Development Director to determine whether the proposed energy design is sufficient to meet requirements. Given the shift in state code and City policy towards operational greenhouse gas emissions instead of net zero energy, the proposed project achieves the City’s policy objectives and is aligned with the intent of the Development Agreement and Development Plan. First, the project is committed to all-electric units. This is a key commitment that ensures that as the electricity grid continues to be rapidly decarbonized, buildings in the project will achieve operational carbon neutrality. The applicant intends to work closely with City staff to implement these requirements. As was the case with the recently approved R-2 portion of the Avila Ranch project, the R-1 project design will be informed by the following sustainability commitments:  LEED – ND - Compliance with the U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED- ND) focuses on the following areas  Green Point Rated  Advanced framing systems  Quality insulation inspections  Energy Star rated appliances  Dual zone high efficiency heat pumps for HVAC systems  High efficiency tanked heat pumps for hot water heating systems including programmable “smart” systems to match heating with onsite solar production and low-cost grid energy  EPA water-sense fixtures  Bicycle storage area in garages  Voucher for $750 toward an e-bike  Dedicated circuit for EV charger pre-wire  Negotiating with ZipCar for rideshare services Housing Size and Affordability Section 7.05 of the DA addresses the projects requirements wit h respect to providing its share of affordable and workforce housing. By reference, it bases its requirements on Appendix G of that document, which describes the intent of development within each zone, both in terms of housing size and affordability. 3 For example, in 2020 Council 1) joined Central Coast Community Energy (formerly Monterey Bay Community Energy) to access clean electricity; 2) approved Resolution 11159 (2020 Series) committing to a carbon neutral community by 2035 and a goal of no new operational emissions from onsite energy consumption by 2020; and 3) adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which includes Resolution 11133 (2020 Series), that states, “it is the Policy of the City that new building should be all - electric.” Page 33 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 The R-1 portion of the Avila Ranch project includes the largest lots within the development. Table 3 shows what the DA and Development Plan specify for the R -1 zone, and compares those to what is currently proposed: Table 2. Comparison of Housing Requirements in the DA and ARDP to Proposed Zoning Unit Type Square Footage DA (range) DA (avg size) ARDP (range) Proposed R-1 Alley Loaded Not specified 2,250 SF 1,650-2,500 SF 2,126-2,495 SF R-1 Front Loaded Not specified 2,250 SF 1,650-2,500 SF 1,944-2,496 SF The comparison of the DA and the Development Plan is important, because while they are similar, they do not completely agree. But while there are minor differences, the intent of each is to provide a range of housing sizes, generally between 1,650 and 2,500 SF for all units, with an average size of about 2,250 SF. Conceptually, the intent of the regulatory framework is to allow for moderately sized market rate single family homes. While the proposed unit mix does not match either the DA or Development Plan precisely, the mix addresses general the intent of the housing size provisions of each document. Notably, the applicant has worked closely with City staff to develop the housing product sizes that are proposed, balancing housing size with functionality, lot configurations, and outdoor open space requirements. The average size of the 22 alley loaded units is 2,294 SF, and the 79 front loaded units about 2,360 SF. Overall, the average size of all units is 2,346 SF. While this is about 4% higher than envisioned in the DA, it is consistent with the intent of the DA and Development Plan with respect to the product type compared to other smaller more affordable units within the Avila Ranch development. The slightly larger sized homes also address the changing needs of recent single-family home buyers, who often seek space for a home office to provide flexibility in the work environment, especially in the wake of the recent pandemic. There are no inclusionary or workforce housing requirements related to affordability for the R-1 housing set forth in the DA, which focuses affordability requirements on the smaller lots within the higher density zones of the project. 5.2 Avila Ranch Development Plan The Avila Ranch Development Plan (ARDP) was approved by the City Council as one of the key project entitlements in 2017. In general, it provides the blueprint for future development in the Avila Ranch planning area, and provides the standards and guidelines for such development pursuant to that portion of the Airport Area Specific Plan, of which Avila Ranch is a part. The ARDP also works in conjunction with the Development Agreement, and in some cases, the City’s Zoning Regulations, for some project aspects that are not otherwise addressed in the ARDP. Page 34 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 At the time the ARDP was approved, it was recognized that some flexibility would be needed to implement certain aspects of the plan, since no detailed design had come forward at that time, and it was likely that some challenges might be presented to meet the multiple goals set forth in the plan. In this case, the applicant has proposed design parameters in addition to those included in the ARDP development standards for the R- 1 zone. These are shown on Sheet P1.5 within Attachment B. In staff’s view, these proposed standards are consistent with the adopted Development Plan standards, and in some cases clarify potential ambiguities in the standards; and the updates are consistent with flexibility provided in the development agreement to the applicant and decision makers to achieve the overall goals of the ARDP. In summary, the proposed design standards are as follows:  Added 15–20 foot setback standard for lots with side-on garages, where no standard previously existed;  Added 10-foot setback for rear porches, where no such standard previously existed; and  Clarified garage setback standards for non-front facing garages—3 feet for alley access lots to acknowledge the narrowness of the alley. Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consist ency with relevant provisions of the ARDP and CDG. Table 3 summarizes the applicable standards within these documents, and how the project responds to them. Table 3 discusses how the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the ARDP and Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Table 3. ARDP and CDG Policy Consistency Analysis Highlighted Sections Discussion Items Avila Ranch Development Plan – Design Framework ARDP Standard 1.1: Adherence to AASP Building Orientation and Setback Standards The ARDP builds on the streetscape and pedestrian orientation standards included in the AASP and follows the intent of setback requirements included in the Municipal Code related to the R-1 zone. The proposed design adheres to these standards and meets the intent of ARDP standards that relate to these issues. Attachment B shows the relevant standards for the R-1 zone within the ARDP. The proposed design adheres to these requirements related to setbacks. Also see above discussion. ARDP Standards 1.2, 1.6 and 1.7 and related guidelines: Building Height and Setback relationship; driveway orientation; open space orientation The intent of this standard is to avoid blocking distant views of the background topography through the relationship of setbacks to building height. As designed, the project would adhere to setback requirements of the R-1 zone as described in the ARDP (see Attachment B). Page 35 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 The project meets the intent of City requirements, including the municipal code and applicable ARDP standards. Also see previous discussion regarding setbacks. Notably, many one-story buildings are proposed to be located along the eastern and southern edges of the site, including many on the south side of proposed Hughes Lane, and also west of Jespersen Road. This design will allow for more open views to the south, and to the west for motorists travelling along Jespersen. The project as designed meets the intent of standards related to driveway and garage orientation away from major streets, and with its paseos and parks, meet the intent of open space orientation standards. These are also consistent with direction in the AASP and CDG. ARDP Standard 7.1.2: Required Architectural Styles This standard requires that development use one or more of these architectural styles: Farmhouse, California Bungalow, Contemporary, Craftsman, or Mission (Spanish). The project design uses three of those five styles, distributed throughout the project. ARDP Standard 7.1.3 and related guidelines: Distribution of Architectural Styles This standard includes a detailed approach to ensure that architectural styles are distributed throughout the planning area. The intent is to ensure visual variety and interest throughout, and to avoid large enclaves of overly uniform style and architecture. The design as envisioned includes 6 different floor plan types and 3 different elevations for each plan, with 3 architectural styles that could apply to any of those floor plans. The project based on the formulas included in the standard, although the project meets the intent of this by distributing the variety of floor plans (and associated architectural styles) throughout the project area. Sheets A1.0- A6.4b demonstrate the intent of the applicant, and show a variety of styles, colors and floor plans within a given street scene. In addition, porches are included in the project consistent with Guideline 7.1.3.E. (see Sheets A1.1, A2.1, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1 and A6.1) Page 36 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 ARDP Standards 7.2.3, 7.3.2, 7.3.5 and related guidelines: Scale and massing, including the relationship between building height and setbacks The ARDP builds on the streetscape and pedestrian orientation standards included in the AASP and follows the intent of setback requirements included in the Municipal Code related to the R-1 zone. The proposed design adheres to these standards and meets the intent of ARDP standards that relate to these issues. Attachment B shows the relevant standards for the R-1 zone within the ARDP. As described in the previous discussion, the proposed design and development standard updates adhere to the intent of these requirements related to setbacks and building heights. ARDP Standards 7.4.1 and 7.5.1: Architectural facades and treatment; colors and materials The intent of this standard to ensure that visually prominent design details are compatible with the overall architectural style, and that compatible colors and materials are chosen. Key features include entries, windows, doors, and garages. Sheet A7.0 reflects this standard, showing details related to each of these features, which are consistent with the applicable architectural theme. Colors and materials proposed are shown on Sheets A7.1 through A7.3. These reflect a variety of color and material choices within compatible parameters. Colors range from muted grays, whites and browns augmented by a variety of color choices. Materials differ depending on architectural style. ARDP Standards 8.1.1-8.1.4: Landscaping The proposed project responds to these standards with a landscape plan that enhances and complements the architectural design, as shown on several project sheets, notably Sheets L-1.0-L-1.6, and the renderings shown on Sheets AS1.1-1.3. ARDP Standards 9.3.2-9.3.8: Lighting The project has not yet established a formal lighting plan, although Sheets L.1.1-L-1.5 show potential lighting fixtures as they relate to open space areas and development. The project will be required to comply with the City’s night sky ordinance; however, the ARC may provide specific direction regarding exterior lighting for the project. ARDP Standard 12.1: Fencing The intent of this standard is to ensure that fencing design does not block views of open spaces or Tank Farm Creek. No fences would block views of the creek. Along paseos, the applicant proposed 4-6 foot wooden privacy fencing as shown on Sheet L-1.0. Page 37 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 CDG Chapter 5 – Residential Project Design Guidelines § Section 5.2: Subdivision Design and General Residential Design Principles This section of the CDG includes several key principles related to integrating open space into the design, project scale, and pedestrian orientation. More specifically related to architectural review, the section also calls for durable and low maintenance finishes, the use of a variety of materials, building articulation, and garage orientation. The project is consistent with the intent of these principles. Sheets A7.1-7.3 illustrate a variety of complementary colors and materials that would be applied to the varied design details shown on Sheets A1.0-A6.4b. § Section 5.5: Single-Family Housing Design The ARDP was previously found to be consistent with the CDG and reflects and expands on many of the same principles articulated in the CDG. Among the principles articulated in this section of the CDG include: 1. pedestrian orientation; 2. architectural variety, housing sizes and design details; 3. variable setbacks in compliance with the Municipal Code; 4. primary entrances facing a street, encouraging porches to transition between public and private spaces; and 5. garages subordinate to living spaces, preferably not facing the primary street entrance to the home. The project is consistent with these principles. Sheets L-1.1-L-1.5 shows how homes are integrated into and have access to pedestrian paseos. Also see the renderings in Figures 4 and 6 above. Consistent with the ARDP, three architectural styles are proposed throughout the project, with considerable design variation as described above. Many garages are oriented to the side along alleys, as shown in Sheets A1.1 and A2.1. Sign Regulations 15.40.485. Sign Programs The Sign Regulations Sign Programs section allows for flexibility and innovation of sign types proposed in coordination with the design review of a project. The conceptually proposed monument sign on plan set sheet L-1.0 appears to be compatible and complementary with the proposed development and suitable in scale. Page 38 of 349 Item 4b ARCH 0084-2022 Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 5.3 Zoning Regulations Although the DA and ARDP are the primary guidance documents for the proposed R -1 design, in some cases there are design provisions of the ARDP that would be difficult t o implement without sacrificing some of the density anticipated under the approved plan. This is particularly true with respect to the interaction of setbacks, building heights, and lot sizes. As proposed, the project is intended to comply with City zoning requirements for building heights and setbacks where such design challenges exist within the framework of the ARDP. The analysis of this issue is included above in Section 5.2 and Table 3 of this report. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Avila Ranch project and associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were respectively approved and certified by the City Council on September 19, 2017, pursuant to Resolution No. 10832 (2017 Series). The FEIR constitutes the complete environmen tal determination for the project, which included the Development Agreement, Development Plan and approved VTTM 3089. The proposed R-1 design complies with previously approved project documentation as described above. For that reason, it is in substantial conformance with the Final EIR and prior environmental determination. 7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, and Fire. While a number of code requirements will apply to the project review at the building permit stage, minimal comments were provided for project specific conditions of approval since the project is consistent with the previously approved ARDP and tract map which has included prior review for tract conditions and separate public improvements review which are not in the scope of this project review. 8.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue project. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Deny the project. Deny the proposed R-1 design by finding the project inconsistent with the General Plan, AASP, previously approved Avila Ranch Development Agreement, and/or the intent of the Development Plan when considered in the context of the Development Agreement and City Zoning regulations. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS A – Draft PC Resolution approving the project B – Project Plans (ARCH-0084-2022) C – ARC Agenda report and draft Minutes, June 20, 2022 D – Avila Ranch Development Agreement (relevant provisions) E – Avila Ranch Sustainability Features F – Avila Ranch Development Plan G – Proposed R-1 Standards for Development Page 39 of 349 Page 40 of 349 R _____ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING SITE DESIGN AND LAYOUT FOR 101 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE R-1 COMPONENT OF THE AVILA RANCH PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN PHASE 5 OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND FINDING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); AS REPRESENTED IN THE AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST 10, 2022, FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 175 VENTURE DRIVE (ARCH-0084- 2022) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approved the Avila Ranch Project on September 19, 2017, including a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Development Agreement, Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089 and certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on September 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo meeting was conducted at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, to consider the design of the R-1 portion of the Avila Ranch project on June 20, 2022, and made recommendations to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo meeting was conducted at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, to consider approval of the design of the R-1 portion of the Avila Ranch project on August 10, 2022; 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. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: Findings. Based on the recitals above and the evidence contained in the record, the Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. The proposed action is consistent with applicable City planning regulations, including the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines. 2. The proposed action is consistent with previously approved entitlements associated with the Avila Ranch project, including the Development Agreement, Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089; and Page 41 of 349 PC Resolution No. _________ (2022 Series) R ______ 3. The project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 6.1 and 7.4 because the project supports the development of more housing in accordance with the assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation and establishes a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient, and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods consistent with the Avila Ranch Development Plan; and 4. The proposed action will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working in the surrounding area. SECTION 2: Environmental Determination. Environmental Review. The project is consistent with the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for The Avila Ranch Project and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182(c) (Residential Projects Implementing Specific Plans). On September 17, 2017, the City Council certified the FEIR for the Avila Ranch Development Plan (ARDP) and approved the ARDP through Council Resolutions 1638 and 1832 (2017 Series). All mitigation measures adopted as part of the ARDP Certified FEIR that are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified. The project is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA under Government Code §65457 because the project consists of a residential development and is consistent with the ARDP. SECTION 3. Action. 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 the project. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commissio n (ARCH- 0084-2022). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed and include all conditions, mitigation measures, and development agreement provisions as noted in Condition #2. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The project shall comply and demonstrate full conformance with all mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project site, as established under previous development plan approvals from the September 19, 2017, Avila Ranch project approval (City Council Resolution No. 1832 (2017 Series) and 1638 (2017 Series) and Ordinance No 1639 (2017 Series). This includes all applicable requirements that relate to Phases 1 through 5 of the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan. 3. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. All fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.70.070 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges). Page 42 of 349 PC Resolution No. _________ (2022 Series) R ______ 4. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site landscaping plans and pertinent building plans. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Any back-flow preventers and double-check assemblies shall be located in the street yard and shall be screened using a combination of paint color, and landscaping, and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. 5. Prior to occupancy of the first production unit in Phase 5, a park development phasing plan must be submitted for review and approval by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Directors. 6. Public Improvement Plans for Phase 5 shall include design strategies to facilitate pedestrian crossings where the bridge over Tank Farm Creek connects with Wright Brothers Way. Final designs for this crossing shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and may include elements such as accessible curb ramps, pedestrian crossing warning signage, parking restrictions to maintain clear line of sight approaching crossing, and crosswalk markings. 7. Prior to occupancy, an overflight notification shall be recorded and appear with the property deed. The applicant shall also record a covenant with the City to ensure that disclosure is provided to all buyers and lessees at the subject property. Notice form and content shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and include the following language: NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as the airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. Page 43 of 349 PC Resolution No. _________ (2022 Series) R ______ Indemnification 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner _________, seconded by Commissioner _______, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ______ day of _____________ 2022. _______________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Planning Commission Page 44 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatTITLE SHEETT-1.0Applicant:Wathen Castanos Homes735 Tank Farm Road Ste 100San Luis Obispo, CA 93401BUCKLEY RD.VACHELL LN. HWY. 101Architectural Development Review T1.0 Title SheetP1.0 - P1.5 Project DescriptionSP1.0 Illustrative Site PlanL1.0 Overall Landscape PlanL1.1 Landscape Enlargement ‘A’L1.2 Landscape Enlargement ‘B’L1.3 Landscape Enlargement ‘C’L1.4 Landscape Enlargement ‘D’L1.5 Alley Load Front Yard Example L1.6 Proposed Plant MaterialAS1.0 Conceptual Street ScenesAS1.1 Architectural Rendering -Doolittle Dr. AS1.2 Typical Paseo & Architecture RenderingAS1.3 Typical Paseo Entry & Architecture RenderingSP2.0 Pre-Plot Plan + DetailsALLEY PLAN ELEVATIONS & FLOOR PLANSA1.0 Alley Plan 1 Front ElevationsA1.1 Alley Plan 1 A- Spanish Floor PlanA1.2a Alley Plan 1 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA1.2b Alley Plan 1 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA1.3a Alley Plan 1 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA1.3b Alley Plan 1 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA1.4a Alley Plan 1 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA1.4b Alley Plan 1 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA2.0 Alley Plan 2 Front ElevationsA2.1 Alley Plan 2 A- Spanish Floor PlanA2.2a Alley Plan 2 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA2.2b Alley Plan 2 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA2.3a Alley Plan 2 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA2.3b Alley Plan 2 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA2.4a Alley Plan 2 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA2.4b Alley Plan 2 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanFRONT LOAD ELEVATIONS & FLOOR PLANSA3.0 Front Load Plan 1 Front ElevationsA3.1 Front Load Plan 1 A- Spanish Floor PlansA3.2a Front Load Plan 1 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA3.2b Front Load Plan 1 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA3.3a Front Load Plan 1 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA3.3b Front Load Plan 1 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA3.4a Front Load Plan 1 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA3.4b Front Load Plan 1 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA4.0 Front Load Plan 2 Front Elevations A4.1 Front Load Plan 2 A- Spanish Floor PlansA4.2a Front Load Plan 2 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA4.2b Front Load Plan 2 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA4.3a Front Load Plan 2 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA4.3b Front Load Plan 2 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA4.4a Front Load Plan 2 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA4.4b Front Load Plan 2 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA5.0 Front Load Plan 3 Front Elevations A5.1 Front Load Plan 3 A- Spanish Floor PlansA5.2a Front Load Plan 3 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA5.2b Front Load Plan 3 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof Plan A5.3a Front Load Plan 3 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA5.3b Front Load Plan 3 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof Plan A5.4a Front Load Plan 3 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA5.4b Front Load Plan 3 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA6.0 Front Load Plan 4 Front Elevations A6.1 Front Load Plan 4 A- Spanish Floor PlansA6.2a Front Load Plan 4 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof PlanA6.2b Front Load Plan 4 A- Spanish Elevations & Roof Plan A6.3a Front Load Plan 4 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA6.3b Front Load Plan 4 B- Farmhouse Elevations & Roof PlanA6.4a Front Load Plan 4 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA6.4b Front Load Plan 4 C- Craftsman Elevations & Roof PlanA7.0 Architectural Images & Lighting ExamplesA7.1 A. Spanish - Color and Material MatrixA7.2 B. Farmhouse - Color and Material MatrixA7.3 C. Craftsman - Color and Material MatrixSHEET INDEXProjectSiteatPage 45 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatPROJECT DESCRIPTIONP1.0Supplement to the ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION for 'H2URat AVILA RANCH phase 5 – single family residential 14 February 2022, rev. 15 April 2022 I. PROJECT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Avila Ranch (Project) implements the City’s vision for the project site as guided by the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (LUCE). The LUCE specifically identifies the project site as a Special Focus Area that included planning and environmental design and analysis of the designation of an appropriate land use mix, the need for a variety of housing types and levels of affordability, provision of open space, parks and trails, restoration of Tank Farm Creek, protection and mitigation of impacts to agricultural resources, a circulation network and linkages to the surrounding community, and incorporation of utility and infrastructure. The Avila Ranch site encompasses three (3) adjacent parcels (APN 053-259-008, 014, and 015) totaling 150-acres. It is located at the northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane. The Phase 5 project site is currently undeveloped and has historically been used for agriculture. Tank Farm Creek, a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek, diagonally bisects the Project site from northeast to southwest and conveys storm water from the Chevron Tank Farm and adjacent properties to San Luis Creek. Prior to its annexation to the City in 2008, the Project site was zoned by the County of San Luis Obispo (County) for Business Park and Conservation/Open Space (COS) uses. The City’s 2005 AASP also designated the site for Business Park uses and the Project site remained zoned Business Park and COS since its annexation. However, the City’s 2014 Land Use Element of the General Plan rejected past Business Park land use designations in favor of new housing and designated the Project site as a Special Focus Area (SP-4) for provision of residential units and small-scale neighborhood commercial uses, with associated policies and performance standards that would guide future development. The following represents the entitlements received for the Project. xResolution No. 1832 (2017 Series) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, amending both the Airport Area Specific Plan and General Plan, and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089. xResolution No. 1638 (2017 Series) rezoning property at 175 Venture Drive (the Project) from Business Park/Specific Plan Area (BP-SP) and Conservation /Open Space/Specific Plan Area (C/OS/SP) to be consistent with the Project’s Development Plan and with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan, as amended to enable development of 720 residential units and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial on a 150-acres site. The Project also includes 18-acres of parks and 53-acres of designated open space. xOrdinance No. 1639 (2017 Series) approving the Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Avila Ranch LLC. The Project has subsequently been sold to Wathen Castanos Homes. In essence, the DA represents a negotiated agreement on important areas related to the phased and orderly development of the Project. It includes extended vesting of the development entitlements and reimbursement for public infrastructure and improvements beyond typical project requirements A. Applicant’s Request This application includes information for the Architectural Review Commission’s and Planning Commission’s review and approval of the Single-Family Residential Density (R-1) component of the project, noted as Phase 5 of the Avila Ranch development. Phase 5 also includes Park ‘H’ and Park ‘I’ . While Phase 5 is moving ahead in the phasing sequence, the Applicant is proposing to also forward later sequenced infrastructure improvements including wet/dry utilities and circulation/roadways, as defined in the recently approved Memorandum of Agreement, and noted here solely for reference. 1. Utilities a. 8-inch recycled water main along Venture Drive from Earthwood Lane to Jespersen Road, along Jespersen Road from the south end of Horizon Lane to Buckley Road, and along Buckley Road from Jespersen Road to the east boundary of the subdivision. (condition of approval (COA) #48) b. 12-inch potable water main extending along Jespersen Road from Huges lane to Buckley Road, and along Buckley Road from Jespersen Road to the east boundary of the subdivision. (COA #49). c. City utilities proposed for location/encroachment within the County portions of Buckley Road [to be completed with the Buckley Road widening improvements], Buckley Road extension [to be completed with the Buckley Road extension improvements], and Vachell Lane [to be completed with the Vachell Lane improvements]. (COA #54) d. Suburban Road, Horizon Lane, Buckley Road. Any widening of streets with existing overhead wire utilities shall include the undergrounding of the existing wiring and may include replacement of streetlight wood poles, as required by the City Engineer. (COA #62) 2. Transportation a. Project construction and infrastructure shall be completed in the sequential phase order as evaluated in the Avila Ranch Final EIR and Transportation Impact Study, or as agreed to between the City and Developer. (COA #98) b. Suburban Road improvements from Earthwood Horizon/Jespersen [to be completed prior to occupancy of 100th unit of Phase 4] (COA #102) c. South Higuera and Vachell improvements. [to be completed prior to Phase 2 occupancy] (COA #104) d. Buckley Road Bicycle Bridges at Tank Farm Creek. [to be constructed concurrently with the extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera, prior to Phase 2] (COA #109) e. Design and construction of pedestrian improvements between Los Osos Valley Road and the City Limit. [shall be completed prior to Phase 2 occupancy] (COA #111) 3. Interim Fire Station a. DA Section 7.10 – Interim Fire Station at Earthwood and Kitty Hawk to be constructed after build-out of the 361st dwelling unit. Note: Phase 1 = 179 units; Phase 4 = 197 units; Phase 5 = 101 units. Page 46 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatPROJECT DESCRIPTIONP1.1B. Previous Entitlements & Permits As noted above, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved amendments to the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map in addition to various Project-related documents. In addition, the following plans have been reviewed, approved, and/or permitted to date. xConformance Determination by the County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, Airport Land Use Commission, xGeneral Plan Parks & Recreation Element Consistency Determination, Parks & Recreation Commission for the proposed seven (7) parks totaling 18-acres, 04 January 2017. Issued Entitlement & Permits: xPhase 1 Final Map recorded 23 December 2021 xAvila Ranch Offsite Improvements - COA 114 - FMAP-1622-2018 - Tank Farm/South Higuera xAvila Ranch - Tract 3089 - Mass Grading Plans - FMAP-1844-2018 - Onsite early grading and walls. xSidewalk on Higuera between Los Osos Valley Road and Vachell Lane – FMAP-1537-2018 - Partial improvements along Vachell Lane regarding drainage management. xHiguera Street to South Street Right-turn Extension - FMAP-1538-2018 xAvila Ranch Phase 1 Tract 3089 Improvement Plans - FMAP-1563-2018 xArchitectural Review Commission review and Planning Commission approval of the Phase 1, 2 & 3 R-2 product – Resolution No. PC-1046-2021 xFEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) effective 23 December 2021 xMiscellaneous Permits: These permits authorize work within the regulatory jurisdiction of each entity. ƒLake &Streambed Alteration Agreement – CA Department of Fish & Wildlife ƒWaste Discharge Permit 34018WQ35 – Regional Water Quality Control Board ƒBuckley Road Extension – County of San Luis Obispo ENC 20200306 II. ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUBMITTAL A. Avila Ranch Development Plan The Avila Ranch Development Plan (Plan), dated May 2017, was prepared in collaboration with the original applicant’s design and environmental team, City staff, and City decision-makers. While not technically a Specific Plan, it nonetheless contains many of the requisite components – Land Use Plan & Framework, Design Framework, Circulation, and Infrastructure Framework. The focus of this application is the Design Framework This section of the Plan includes design standards and guidelines specific to the Project and are meant to work in conjunction with the adopted goals, policies, standards, and guidelines found in the Airport Area Specific Plan, the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the City’s Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) and related documents. The City’s intent is to ensure that development is consistent with the Development Agreement and, to accomplish this objective, it requires flexibility in addressing the Development Plan standards (e.g., building orientation, architectural styles, scale/massing, landscaping, lighting, and energy use). That inherent flexibility will enable staff and the decision-makers to determine that the overall project and individual project phases are consistent with the intent of the Development Agreement and zoning regulations. Standards define actions or requirements that must be fulfilled by the Project, while Guidelines refer to methods or approaches that may be used to achieve a stated goal, but allow for flexibility and interpretation given specific conditions. The applicant has utilized the design components in the Development Plan’s Design Framework section to inform and guide the design of the single-family residences. Those components include: Building Orientation & Setbacks Pedestrian Activity Areas Parking Outdoor Use Areas Screening Preservation of Views and Scenic Resources Architecture Landscape Architecture Buildings, Signs, & Lighting Drainage Energy Conservation B. Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval The Avila Ranch project was approved under a certified EIR. The EIR described potential impacts and related mitigation measures. While the majority of measures relate to the physical environment (e.g., transportation improvements, biological considerations, public services, etc.), there are measures that specifically address design aspects that are under the purview of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and the Planning Commission (PC). The project vesting tentative tract map was approved with a set of conditions of approval that were created by all City departments, reviewed by the various City advisory bodies, and ultimately approved by the City Council. Development of the project should be consistent with these conditions, which will allow for a detailed review of the development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. Again, while the majority of the conditions relate to major transportation and other improvements, there are conditions that specifically address design components that are under the purview of the ARC and PC. Those specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval are noted on the table below. Table 2. Mitigation Measure and Conditions of Approval Conformance MITIGATION MEASURE orCONDITION OF APPROVAL CONFORMANCECOMMENT 32. Private street lighting may be provided along the private streets/alleys/parking areas, pocket parks, and linear parks per City Engineering Standards and/or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals. Private lighting is depicted on sheets L-1.1 and L-1.2, L1.3. Shared driveway lighting consists of wall light fixtures, as shown on building elevations (See Architectural Sheets) Page 47 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatPROJECT DESCRIPTIONP1.2MITIGATION MEASURE orCONDITION OF APPROVAL CONFORMANCECOMMENT 44. The ARC plans and public improvement plans shall show the location of the proposed mail receptacles or mailbox units (MBU’s) to the satisfaction of the Postmaster and the City Engineer. The subdivider shall provide a mailbox unit or multiple units to serve all dwelling units within this development as required by the Postmaster. MBU’s shall not be located within the public right-of-way or public sidewalk area unless specifically approved by the City Engineer. Contact the Postmaster at 543-2605 to establish any recommendations regarding the number, size, location, and placement for any MBU’s to serve the several neighborhoods and occupancies. Mailbox locations are shown on sheet L-1.0. 45. Porous concrete, pavers, or other surface treatments as approved by the City Engineer shall be used for private parking areas, V-gutters, private curb and gutter, etc. to the extent feasible within the over-all drainage design for water quality treatment/retention in accordance with the specific plan and General Plan. Drainage design and plans are in compliance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, and post-construction stormwater requirements. NO-3a. R-1 and R-2 residential units planned in the area of the Project site within 300 feet of Buckley Road and R-4 units in the northwest corner of the Project site shall include noise mitigation for any potential indoor space and outdoor activity areas that are confirmed to be above 60 dBA as indicated in the Project’ s Sound Level Assessment. The following shall be implemented for residential units with noise levels exceeding 60 dBA: xOutdoor Activity Area Noise Mitigation. Where exterior sound levels exceed CNEL = 60 dBA, noise reduction measures shall be implemented, including but not limited to: xExterior living spaces of residential units such as yards and patios shall be oriented away from Project boundaries that are adjacent to noise-producing uses that exceed exterior noise levels of CNEL = 60 dBA, such as roadways and industrial/commercial activities. xConstruction of additional sound barriers/berms with noise-reducing features for affected residences. xExterior Glazing. Exterior window glazing for residential units exposed to potential noise above Ldn=60 dBA shall achieve a minimum Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) 24 / Sound Transmission Class (STC) 30. Glazing systems with dissimilar thickness panes shall be used. xExterior Doors Facing Noise Source. According to Section 1207.7 of the California Building Code, residential unit entry doors from interior spaces shall have a combined STC 28 rating for any door and frame assemblies. Any balcony and ground floor entry doors located at bedrooms shall have an STC 30 rating. Balconies shall be oriented away from the northwest property line. All homes that may be impacted by projected noise levels of 60 dBA or greater will be acoustically constructed utilizing Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated materials (e.g., sealing & weatherproofing, window, doors, walls, ceilings, flooring, ventilations, etc.), as noted. MITIGATION MEASURE orCONDITION OF APPROVAL CONFORMANCECOMMENT xExterior Walls. Construction of exterior walls shall consist of a stucco or engineered building skin system over sheathing, with 4-inch to 6-inch deep metal or wood studs, fiberglass batt insulation in the stud cavity, and one or two layers of 5/8-inch gypsum board on the interior face of the wall. If possible, electrical outlets shall not be installed in exterior walls exposed to noise. If not possible, outlet box pads shall be applied to all electrical boxes and sealed with non-hardening acoustical sealant. xSupplemental Ventilation. According to the California Building Code, supplemental ventilation adhering to OITC/STC recommendations shall be provided for residential units with habitable spaces facing noise levels exceeding Ldn=60 dBA, so that the opening of windows is not necessary to meet ventilation requirements. Supplemental ventilation can also be provided by passive or by fan-powered, ducted air inlets that extend from the building’s rooftop into the units. If installed, ducted air inlets shall be acoustically lined through the top-most 6 feet in length and incorporate one or more 90-degree bends between openings, so as not to compromise the noise insulating performance of the residential unit’s exterior envelope. xSound Walls. Sound walls shall be built on the north and east property lines of the Project in Phase 3 that adjoin Suburban Road. The barrier shall consist of mortared masonry. Further, proposed carports with solar canopies shall be installed around the western and northern perimeter of the R-4 units, and these units shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the property line. xLandscaping. Landscaping along the north and east Project site boundaries that adjoin Suburban Road shall include a line of closely space trees and shrubs with sufficient vegetative density to help reduce sound transmission. C. The Proposed Project – Architecture & Landscape Architecture Narratives To accompany the graphics in this submittal, the following narrative provides an overview of the design from an architectural and landscape architectural perspective for the proposed De Oro neighbor of R-1 homes. The Avila Ranch development includes a total of 101 R-1 units when fully built. 1. Architectural Design Concept The proposed architecture for Avila Ranch Phase 5 single-family residential project (De Oro) provides a mixture of both a front loaded, and alley loaded garage condition for a combination of six (6) different plan types with three (3) different elevations for each plan. The overall community has been designed to present a pedestrian friendly street façade and scale along the main circulation streets through the incorporation of connected paseos and neighborhood parks. The De Oro neighborhood presents a unique connection and transition of community design Page 48 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatPROJECT DESCRIPTIONP1.3with homes fronting a future commercial/mixed use parcel as well as the neighborhood park ‘H’. This transition between uses has been designed to use floor plans with alley loaded garages. With this orientation, the front doors along with the architectural design provide a backdrop to the community space through pedestrian interaction along the connecting pedestrian paseos at the both the edges and select crossing locations within neighborhood. The floor plans have been specifically designed to include a diversity of potential future homeowner’s needs from a 2,126 sq. ft. three-bedroom alley load plan up to a potential five- bedroom 2,496 sq. ft. front load plan with an optional junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). Each plan is designed with an open plan concept along with higher ceiling heights, allowing the interior spaces to feel and live larger with natural light provided by larger window patterns. Detailed attention was given to provide a variation of plan forms and elevation massing designs that include variations in the wall plane, in wall height, and rooflines at different levels to help create an inviting and identifiable sense of place within the community. The elevations styles designated in the Avila Ranch Development Plan reflect the agricultural heritage of San Luis Obispo, as well as architectural character typically found within the city. The proposed elevation styles include Spanish (Mission), Farmhouse (Agrarian), and Craftsman. The goal in the selection of architectural styles is to aid in defining a character that both engages and identifies itself amongst the surrounding properties to the northern and southern edges of the City while maintaining a familiar impression of the De Oro neighborhood within the Avila Ranch Community Master Plan. 2. Architectural Floor Plans The following tables represent the architectural style, unit types, square footage, and bedroom/bath counts for the R-1 units. Detailed design information is also depicted on the building elevations, related floor plans, and color/material matrix. Table 3.A Single-Family Units – Alley Load Units UNIT STYLE PLAN TYPESIZE (SF)/ STORIES BEDROOMS(BR)/BATHROOMS (BA)+GARAGESA - Spanish B - Farmhouse C - Craftsman Plan 1 2,126 SF/1-Stories 3 BR/2.5 BA +2-Car Garage A - C Plan 2 2,495 SF/2-Stories 4 BR/2.5 BA + 2-Car Garage + Optional Garage Table 3.B Single-Family Units – Front Load Units UNIT STYLE PLAN TYPESIZE (SF)/ STORIES BEDROOMS (BR)/BATHROOMS (BA)+GARAGESA - Spanish B - Bungalow C - Craftsman Plan 1 1,944 SF/1-Story 2 BR/2.5 BA +2-Car Garage A - C Plan 2 2,309 SF/2-Stories 4 BR/2.5 BA + Loft + 2-Car Garage A – C Plan 3 2,456 SF/2-Stories 4 BR/2.5 BA + Office + 3-Car Garage A – C Plan 4 2,496 SF/2-Stories 5 BR/3.5 BA + JADU** + 3-Car Garage **Municipal Code §17.156.022 defines a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), as follows. “A unit that is no more than five hundred square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. (Ord. 1679 § 5, 2020: Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018).” Municipal Code §17.86.020 and, specifically C. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units describes the general requirements, performance standards, and procedural requirements for accessory dwelling units. Specifically, this section speaks to its location – within the walls of a proposed primary dwelling unit; its size – five hundred (500) square feet; design standards – separate exterior entry, interior connection to the main living area may be maintained or removed, inclusion of an efficiency kitchen, and no additional parking required., no new utility connection of payment of impact fees; the process – ministerial review (building permit) without discretionary review; owner occupancy of either the primary residence or JADU; recordation of a Covenant Agreement; and prohibition of the JADU as a short-term rental unit. 3. Color and Material Boards - Attached, separately, are the physical color and material boards for the project. The project balances the use of traditional residential color and material palettes to a more present-day vernacular with color accents working in harmony with the architectural design. In the spirit of creating a unique and desirable neighborhood, each elevation design portrays a unique elevation appearance that provides variation, and yet uniformity throughout the overall community design. As shown on the color and material boards, there are four (4) different color schemes for each of the three (3) elevation styles, which will create additional variation between both the home elevations and also the exterior color. Each board contains photographs and samples of the materials and colors for the stucco body, painted blocking accents, front doors, and masonry elements. 4. Landscape Architectural Design Concept The overall landscape design concept is one that embraces connectivity and cohesiveness, that helps to encourage social interaction while providing a sense of community. The pedestrian-oriented paseos are at the heart of this community and provide access to the numerous trails that link to a wide array of parks and outdoor amenities. Page 49 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatPROJECT DESCRIPTIONP1.4Each pedestrian paseo is individually marked by a decorative entry patio with pilaster column, identifying each home’s address along the well-lit meandering paseo pathway. A low height semi-private decorative fence surrounds the perimeter of most homes’ front yards and offers a chance for social interaction between neighbors, with an entry gate allowing access into each front yard or porch. A taller, solid fence encloses the rear and side yards and provides further homeowner privacy. The pedestrian paseos, front yards and neighborhood streetscapes are planted with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, to provide shade during the summer months and solar access during the winter. Flowering shrubs and perennials, grasses, and groundcover provide an attractive, drought-tolerant mix of colors and textures to provide year-round interest while reducing water use. Within the paseos, swaths of decomposed granite weave in with the plant material to provide additional interest and water use reduction. Each of the neighborhood’s streets are identified with its own signature specimen canopy tree, adding a distinctive feel to each street. Each home’s lot showcases the drought-tolerant, Mediterranean-style plant palette along the vegetated streetscapes and alleys. The overall landscape design enacts low impact development (LID) and best management practices (BMPs) through energy conservation, soil regeneration, integrated pest management, mulching and species diversity. Additionally, the design of efficient automatic irrigation systems reflects the latest technology and are designed specifically for particular plant species water demand, soils and exposure. III.AFFORDABLE (INCLUSIONARY) HOUSING The Development Agreement describes the long-term housing affordability component of the Avila Ranch project, including design and development strategies to provide lower cost housing. These strategies include the design and construction of a range of housing sizes and types, while providing a greater number of inclusionary housing units than required by the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. A total of seventy-one (71) inclusionary units required for the overall development of the project. Sixty-seven (67) units are distributed among the R-2, R-3, and R-4 product types, with the remaining four (4) to be fulfilled via in-lieu fees at time of development of the commercial component of the project. Additionally, there are twenty-five (25) R-2 units provided as a Workforce Housing Incentive Program (“WHIP”) to provide housing within the Workforce Housing income category. IV.AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN During the land use entitlement and project approval process, the project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), as they are required to make a determination of consistency with the applicable Airport Land Use Plan policies. On December 21, 2016, the ALUC determined that the project was consistent with the ALUP, with conditions related to limiting the development to 720 dwelling units, non-residential density to 93 persons in the S-1b safety zone, FAA review of tall structures, appropriate noise mitigation, restrictions on uses that may interfere with airport operations, avigation easement, and appropriate disclosures for future residents. In March 2021, the ALUC approved the Amended and Restated San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. While the majority of the original ALUC conditions apply, the safety zone have dramatically changed. Where the project was originally in safety area S-1b, the majority of the project is currently within Zone 6 – Traffic Pattern Zone with a small portion in safety Zone 4 – the Outer Approach and Safety Zone. Zone 4 encompasses the part of Avila Ranch that will remain in open space/agriculture. Where S-1b previously restricted residential density, as noted above, there is no residential density limit in Zone 6, while Zone 4’s residential density was increased to 0.5 dwelling units/acre. Figure 1 Airport Land Use Plan Safety Zones Safety Zone 4 Safety Zone 3 Safety Zone 2 Safety Zone 1 Avila Ranch Page 50 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatLow Density Residential Lot and Building Standards (R-1)EXAMPLESThese sketches show basic lot layouts based on the standards listed in the text and in the table below. Not all features shown in the sketches are standards (for example, 2-car garages are not required).STANDARDS(Minimums) (A)STREET ACCESS (NO ALLEY)ALLEY ACCESS ONLYTYPICAL CORNER/WIDE LOT W/ SIDE-ON GARAGELot AreaLot WidthCorner Lot WidthLot DepthLot CoverageBuilding Height (B)5,000 sf50 ft55 ft90 ft40% Max.30 ft5,000 sf50 ft55 ft90 ft40% Max.30 ft5,000 sf50 ft55 ft90 ft45% Max.30 ft4,500 sf45 ft50 ft80 ft50% Max.30 ftNote: Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3089 includes developable R-1 parcels with lot area, width, and/or depth less than the minimum standards. Front SetbackHouseGarage, carportFront Porch15 ft20 ft10 ft15 ft15 ft10 ft15 ft15 ft to 20 ft (C)10 ft15 ftN/A 10 ftRear SetbackHouseGarage, carportRear Porch15 ftN/A10 ft15 ft5 ft10 ft15 ftN/A10 ft(from alley)15 ft3 ft10 ftSide SetbackHouseStreet (house/garage)Garage, carport5 ft10 ft5 ft5 ft10 ft5 ft5 ft10 ft5 ft5 ft10 ft5 ftA- Final Map(s) to include any parcel-specific encroachments into setback and/or easements based on map and lotting configurations beyond elements allowed per Zoning Regulation §17.70.170 (Allowed Projections into Setback Area). See Zoning Regulation for Assessory Dwelling Unit (ADU & JADU) development standards (Zoning Regulation §17.86.020). Second floor setbacks shall match ground floor setbacks.B- Building Height is measured from finished grade.C- Setback for garage side elevations facing streetfront is 15 feet. Setback for garages with openings facing street is 20 feet. Public StreetPublic StreetPublic Street or PaseoPublic StreetAlley Easementoptional. garagePublic StreetPublic StreetPROJECT DESCRIPTIONP1.5AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN JANUARY 20227KHDIRUHPHQWLRQHG/RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO/RWDQG%XLOGLQJ6WDQGDUGV 5 KDYHEHHQPRGL¿HGDQGUHÀHFWWKHLQWHQWRIWKHRULJLQDO'HYHORSPHQW3ODQVWDQGDUGVPage 51 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLANSP1.0BUCKLEY ROADWRIGHT BROS. WY.HUGHES LN.DOOLITTLE DR.VENTURE DRIVEVACHELL LANEJESPERSEN RD.YEAGER CT.EARHART WY.COLEMAN LN.JESPERSEN ROADPHASE 1/R-2 (APPROVED)FUTURE PHASE 4TLE DR.PHASE 5FUTURE PHASE 6FUTURE PH. 6312ABSCALE: 1”=300’0 150’ 300’ 450’LEGEND PH. 5 PROJECT AREA (R-1PRODUCT) FUTURE PHASES, N.A.P STREET SCENE ELEVATION, REFER TO SHEET AS1.0 PARK / ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING, SEE SHEET AS1.1 to AS1.4NOTE: DEVELOPMENT OF PHASES MAY BE NON-SEQUENTIAL1PARK ‘H’PARK ‘I’OPEN SPACEOPEN SPACELANDSCAPED BERM (PH. 1)PHASE 1/R-2 (APPROVED)APage 52 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLANL-1.0DRY FARMINGDRY FARMINGTANK FARM CREEKTANK FARM CREEKDOOLITTLE DR.PARK ‘H’PARK ‘I’PASEOPASEOPASEOPASEOPASEOOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACELANDSCAPED BERM (PH.1)HUGHES LN.WRIGHT BROS. WY.BUCKLEY ROADEARTHWOOD DR.EARHEART WY.YEAGER CT.JESPERSEN RD.SCALE: 1”=200’0 100’ 200’ 300’PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STREET TREESPistacia chinensis / CHINESE PISTACHESIZE: 24” BOX WUCOLS: L DECIDUOUS, FALL COLORUlmus parv. ‘Sempervirens’ / EVERGREEN ELM SIZE: 24” BOX WUCOLS: L EVERGREEN, BROAD CANOPYZelkova serrata / SAWLEAF ZELKOVASIZE: 15 GAL WUCOLS: L DECIDUOUS, BROAD CANOPYLophostemeon confertus / BRISBANE BOXSIZE: 15 GAL WUCOLS: L EVERGREEN, UPRIGHTMAILBOX KIOSKKiosks are equipped with up to 19 front loading tenant mail compartments, 2 parcel locker compartments, and 1 drop slot. There may be more than one unit at each location, depending on addresses served.Final mailbox kiosk locations shall be approved by the Postmaster and be ADA compliant.MMMMMMMLOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT MONUMENT SIGN, SEE EXAMPLE, LEFTPROPOSED ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGNMAXIMUM SIGN AREA ALLOWED: 24 SQ. FT. (EXCLUSIVE OF SUPPORT STRUCTURE). FINAL VERSION (COLORS, FONTS, MATERIALS) MAY VARY. RR.PPPARKPARKIIPASEOPASEOM))))))MMMMMMEARTHWOOD DR.EARTHWOOD DR.FUTUREPHASESCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALPARK ‘G’MULTI-FAMILY PHASES 1, 2 & 3PHASES 1, 2 & 3LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ‘A’,CORNER LOT CONDITION. SEE SHEET L-1.1LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ‘B’, STANDARD LOT CONDITION.SEE SHEET L-1.2LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ‘D’, REAR YARD SLOPE CONDITION.SEE SHEET L-1.4LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ‘C’, SEE SHEET L-1.3PED. BRIDGEPROPOSED FENCING TYPES4’ TALL SOLID- FRONT YARDS AND ALONG PASEOS (SEE SHEETS L-1.1 TO L-1.4 FOR LOCATIONS).4’ TALL SOLID WITH 2’ LATTICE- YARDS ALONG PARKS, CREEK, AND OPEN SPACE. (SEE PLAN, ABOVE, FOR LOCATIONS).6’ TALL SOLID- PRIVATE REAR AND SIDE YARDS (SEE SHEETS L-1.1 TO L-1.4 FOR LOCATIONS).Page 53 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ‘A’L-1.1883319191919331310101010101515161616161010101022181818189LIMITED DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT(S) PARKWAY LANDSCAPING, TYP.STREET TREES, TYP.TRAFFIC CALMING BULBOUTS, TYP.ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK, TYP.SIDEWALK ACCESS TO TOWN CENTERTRAFFIC CALMING BULBOUTS, TYP.999145666111112677776666EARHEART WY.YEAGER CT.WRIGHT BROTHERS WAY20’PEDESTRIANEASEMENT10’PEDESTRIANEASEMENTPRELIMINARY PASEO MAWA/ETWU CALC’SFOR DEVELOPER-INSTALLED LANDSCAPEEXAMPLE OF PASEO ENTRY PILASTER / ARBOR11FRONT LOAD PLAN 4FRONT LOAD PLAN 3FRONT LOAD PLAN 4ALLEY LOAD PLAN 2PHASE 6- COMMERCIALPHASE 6- COMMERCIALOPEN SPACEALLEY LOAD PLAN 2ALLEY LOAD PLAN 2ALLEY LOAD PLAN 1FRONT LOAD PLAN 31KEYNOTE LEGEND1 PASEO LANDSCAPING, EQUAL MIX OF LOW WATER-USE PLANTS WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE AS PART OF EACH LOT WITHIN PASEO EASEMENT2 FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING BY HOMEOWNER3 PRIVATE YARDS BY HOMEWONER4 NOT USED5 4’ TALL WOOD FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN6 6’ TALL WOOD FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN7 TRASH BIN LOCATION, TYP. 8 MEANDERING CONCRETE PASEO WALK9 6’ SQ. FRONT GATE ENTRY NODE10 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING AS PART OF PUBLIC IMPR. PLANS11 PASEO ENTRY PATIO WITH ADDRESSING PILASTER / ARBOR12 CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT, AT BACK OF SIDEWALK13 SHARED ALLEY14 ALLEY ACCENT SHRUBS, TYP. 15 PASEO TREE, TYP. 16 FRONT YARD TREE, TYP. 17 PASEO BOLLARD DIRECTIONAL LIGHT18 FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING BY DEVELOPER19 COVERED PORCH OPTION#NOTE: FENCING THAT BORDERS UNMANAGED BRUSH-COVERED LANDS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS.EXAMPLE OF PASEO BOLLARD LIGHTWITH ADJUSTABLE LED LIGHT DISTRIBUTION. (COMPLIES WITH NIGHT SKY PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 17.70.100)17M10’20’15’10’15’2510’15’2SETBACKS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL, PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSPage 54 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ‘B’L-1.2777774333331333331818215151515151515222225559911125141499666666666666EARHEART WY.20’ PEDESTRIANEASEMENT22E20’ PEDESTRIANEASEMENTFRONT LOAD PLAN 3FRONT LOAD PLAN 4FRONT LOAD PLAN 4PARK ‘H’ALLEY LOAD PLAN 1 ALLEY LOAD PLAN 2ALLEY LOAD PLAN 1ALLEY LOAD PLAN 2ALLEY LOAD PLAN 1ALLEY LOAD PLAN 2111010161018881119191919191911KEYNOTE LEGEND1 PASEO LANDSCAPING, EQUAL MIX OF LOW WATER-USE PLANTS WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE AS PART OF EACH LOT WITHIN PASEO EASEMENT2 FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING BY HOMEOWNER3 PRIVATE YARDS BY HOMEWONER4 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK5 4’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH ENTRY GATE, WHERE SHOWN6 6’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN7 TRASH BIN LOCATION, TYP. 8 MEANDERING CONCRETE PASEO WALK9 6’ SQ. FRONT GATE ENTRY NODE10 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING AS PART OF PUBLIC IMPR. PLANS11 PASEO ENTRY PATIO WITH ADDRESSING PILASTER / ARBOR12 CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT, AT BACK OF SIDEWALK13 SHARED ALLEY14 ALLEY ACCENT SHRUBS, TYP. 15 PASEO TREE, TYP. 16 FRONT YARD TREE, TYP. 17 PASEO BOLLARD DIRECTIONAL LIGHT18 FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING BY DEVELOPER 19 COVERED PORCH OPTION#M10’PEDESTRIANEASEMENT10’20’15’10’15’10’15’SETBACKS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL, PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS15Page 55 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022LANDSCAPEENLARGEMENT ‘C’L-1.3KEYNOTE LEGEND1 PASEO LANDSCAPING, EQUAL MIX OF LOW WATER-USE PLANTS WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE AS PART OF EACH LOT WITHIN PASEO EASEMENT2 FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING BY DEVELOPER3 PRIVATE YARDS BY HOMEWONER4 COVERED PORCH, TYP. 5 4’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH ENTRY GATE, WHERE SHOWN6 6’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN7 TRASH BIN LOCATION, TYP. 8 MEANDERING CONCRETE PASEO WALK9 6’ SQ. FRONT GATE ENTRY NODE10 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING AS PART OF PUBLIC IMPR. PLANS11 PASEO ENTRY PATIO WITH ADDRESSING PILASTER / ARBOR12 CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT, AT BACK OF SIDEWALK13 NOT USED14 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK15 PASEO TREE, TYP. 16 FRONT YARD TREE, TYP. 17 PASEO BOLLARD DIRECTIONAL LIGHT #DOOLITTLE DRIVE833333331010151516161622101051112777715’PEDESTRIANEASEMENTFRONT LOAD PLAN 4FRONT LOAD PLAN 3FRONT LOAD PLAN 2FRONT LOAD PLAN 4PARK ‘I’FRONT LOAD PLAN 31122MM12116666146110’20’15’10’20’15’SETBACKS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL, PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSPage 56 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022LANDSCAPEENLARGEMENT ‘D’L-1.4KEYNOTE LEGEND1 PASEO LANDSCAPING, EQUAL MIX OF LOW WATER-USE PLANTS WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE AS PART OF EACH LOT WITHIN PASEO EASEMENT2 FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING BY DEVELOPER3 PRIVATE YARDS BY HOMEWONER4 COVERED PORCH OR PATIO, TYP. 5 4’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH ENTRY GATE, WHERE SHOWN6 6’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN7 TRASH BIN LOCATION, TYP. 8 MEANDERING CONCRETE PASEO WALK9 NOT USED10 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING AS PART OF PUBLIC IMPR. PLANS11 PASEO ENTRY PATIO WITH ADDRESSING PILASTER / ARBOR12 CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT, AT BACK OF SIDEWALK13 LANDSCAPED BERM (PART OF PHASE 1)14 APPROX. 3’ TALL RETAINING WALL15 NOT USED16 FRONT YARD TREE, TYP. 17 PASEO BOLLARD DIRECTIONAL LIGHT #HUGHES LN.477443331313210161616161610101022251866141466661112M61FRONT LOAD PLAN 1FRONT LOAD PLAN 3FRONT LOAD PLAN 410’ 20’ 15’SETBACKS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL, PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSPage 57 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022ALLEY LOAD FRONT YARD EXAMPLEL-1.51189981121211111213333333344555566661 PASEO LANDSCAPING, AS PART OF EACH LOT, BY DEVELOPER2 NOT USED3 ALTERNATIVE PRIVATE YARD LANDSCAPE DESIGN SCENARIO, BY HOMEOWNER4 COVERED PORCH, TYP. 5 4’ TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN6 6’ TALL FENCE WITH GATE, WHERE SHOWN7 NOT USED8 MEANDERING CONCRETE PASEO WALK9 6’ SQ. FRONT GATE ENTRY NODE10 PASEO BOLLARD DIRECTIONAL LIGHT 11 FRONT YARD TREE, TYP. 12 PASEO TREE, TYP. #KEYNOTE LEGENDPage 58 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALL-1.6PROPOSED PLANT LIST - PASEOS AND LOTSEVERGREEN TREES ARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ / MARINA STRAWBERRY 24” BOX L LOW-BRANCH, FLOWERING MAGNOLIA GRAND. ‘LITTLE GEM’ / MAGNOLIA 15 GAL M WHITE BARK, UPRIGHT FORMOLEA EUROPAEA ‘SWAN HILL’ / FRUITLESS OLIVE 24” BOX L ROUNDED FORMDECIDUOUS TREESCERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD 24” BOX L LOW-BRANCH, FLOWERINGCOTINUS COGGYGRIA / SMOKEBUSH 24” BOX L SMALL COLOR ACCENTPYRUS CALLERYANA ‘CHANTICLEER’ / ORNAMENTAL PEAR 15 GAL M WHITE FLOWERSMEDIUM SHRUBSARCTOSTAPHYLOS ‘HOWARD MCMINN’ / MANZANITA 5 GAL L CA. NATIVE, PINK FLOWERSBERBERIS THUNB. ‘ROSE GLOW’ / JAPANESE BARBERRY 5 GAL L BURGUNDY FOLIAGE CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA / BUSH ANENOME 5 GAL L CA. NATIVE, WHITE FLOWERSLEUCADENDRON ‘SAFARI SUNSET’ / SAFARI CONEBUSH 5 GAL L RED NEW GROWTHOLEA ‘LITTLE OLLIE’ / DWARF OLIVE 5 GAL L ROUNDED FORMCOPROSMA REPENS ‘PICTURATA’ / MIRROR PLANT 5 GAL L VARIEGATED FOLIAGESMALL SHRUBSCISTUS ‘SUNSET’ / MAGENTA ROCKROSE 5 GAL L MAGENTA FLOWERSNANDINA DOMESTICA ‘GULFSTREAM’ / HEAVENLY BAMBOO L RED/ORANGE NEW GROWTHPOLYGALA FRUTIC. ‘PETITE BUTTERFLIES’/ SWEET PEA SHRUB L PURPLE FLOWERSROSA ‘FLOWER CARPET’ / FLOWER CARPET ROSE 5 GAL M FLOWERINGTEUCRIUM X LUCIDRYS / GERMANDER 5 GAL L LAVENDER FLOWERSWESTRINGIA FRUIT. ‘MORNING LIGHT’ / COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL L YELLOW/GREEN FOLIAGEPERENNIALSANIGOZANTHOS CTVS. / KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL L FLOWERINGKNIPHOFIA ‘SHINING SCEPTER’ / RED HOT POKER 1 GAL M ORANGE FLOWERSLAVANDULA SPS. / LAVENDER 1 GAL L PURPLE FLOWERSLIMONIUM PEREZII / SEA LAVENDER 1 GAL L PURPLE FLOWERSPENSTEMON CLTVS. / PENSTEMON 1 GAL L FLOWERINGSALVIA SPS. / SAGE 1 GAL L FLOWERINGACCENTSAGAVE ATTENUATA / FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL L SUCCULENTCORDYLINE ‘RED STAR’ / CABBAGE PALM 15 GAL L RED FOLIAGE, VERTICAL PHORMIUM CLTVS. / NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL L STRAP-SHAPED LEAVESYUCCA ‘COLOR GUARD’ / VARIEGATED ADAM’S NEEDLE 5 GAL L YELLOW/GREEN LEAVESORNAMENTAL GRASSESLOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘BREEZE’ / BLUE OAT GRASS 1 GAL L GREEN FOLIAGECAREX TESTACEA / ORANGE SEDGE 1 GAL L ORANGE FOLIAGEHELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS / BLUE OAT GRASS 1 GAL L BLUE FOLIAGE FOLIAGECALAMAGROSTIS ‘KARL FOERSTER’ / FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL L VERTICAL TAN STALKSMUHLENBERGIA LINDHEIMERI / LINDHEIMER’S MUHLY 1 GAL L STRAW COLORED STALKSGROUNDCOVERARCTOSTAPHYLOS ‘EMERALD CARPET’ / MANZANITA 1 GAL L WHITE FLOWERSCISTUS SALVIIFOLIUS / ROCKROSE 1 GAL L WHITE FLOWERSCOPROSMA KIRKII / KIRK’S COPROSMA 1 GAL L GREEN FOLIAGECORREA ‘DUSKY BELLS / AUSTRALIAN FUCHSIA 1 GAL L PINK FLOWERSROSMARINUS OFFIC. ‘PROSTRATUS’ / TRAILING ROSEMARY 1 GAL L BLUE FLOWERSSENECIO MANDRALISCAE / BLUE CHALKSTICKS 1 GAL L BLUE SUCCULENT*WUCOLS (WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES) IS A GUIDE TO HELP IDENTIFY IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF PLANT SPECIES. DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2000. FINAL PLANT MATERIAL SECECTION WILL INCLUDE FIRE-RESISTIVE TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SPECIES. ABCDEFGHYIJKLMNOPQRXSTUVW WUCOLS* NOTESWATER CONSERVATION STATEMENTTHE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, CONCURRENT WITH THE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLAN INSTALLATION, RELATED SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES, QUALIFIES THIS PROJECT AS ONE WHICH EMBRACES THE FOLLOWING CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY AND METHODOLOGIES: 1. UTILIZATION OF STATE OF THE ART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER(S) ALLOWING FOR PRECISION INCREMENTAL WATER SCHEDULING IN ALL HYDROZONES. 2. USE OF DRIP-TYPE AND/OR MICROSPRAY SYSTEMS ONLY. 3. INTEGRATED PLANT DESIGN. PLANT PALETTES HAVE BEEN FORMED TO REFLECT PARALLEL WATERING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN EACH HYDROZONE GROUP. 4. PLANTS INSTALLED WITH MOISTURE RETENTIVE SOIL AMENDMENTS, ENABLING STRONG ROOT AND PLANT GROWTH, WITH THE USE OF LESS WATER. 5. 3” DEEP MULCHING OF ALL PLANT BASINS AND PLANTING AREAS, INHIBITING EVAPORATION. 6. USE OF LOW WATER USE PLANTS. CONCEPT NOTES1. PLANT MATERIAL WAS CHOSEN FOR ITS COMPATABILITY WITH THE MACRO/MICROCLIMATIC CONDITIONS OF THE REGION AND SITE; TOLERANCE OF WIND; TOLERANCE OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS; LONGEVITY; SCREENING CAPABILITIES; AND OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM WATER EFFICIENCY AND SHALL INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER, BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, AND LOW-GALLONAGE HEADS FOR TURF AND LARGE GROUND COVER AREAS. A DRIP-TYPE SYSTEM SHALL BE USED WHERE APPROPRIATE. TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE BUBBLER SYSTEMS. 3. PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, NARRATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, SITE DETAILS, AND MATERIAL DEFINITIONS WILL BE DETERMINED AND NOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. PROPOSED PLANT PHOTOSAGMSBHNTCIOUDJPVEKQWFLRXYPage 59 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatCONCEPTUAL STREET SCENESAS1.0AELEVATIONS FRONTING PARK ‘I’ PASEOELEVATIONS ALONG HUGHES LANEBAPage 60 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatARCHITECTURAL RENDERING DOOLITTLE DR.AS1.11RENDERING KEYPage 61 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatTYPICAL PASEO & ARCHITECTURE RENDERINGAS1.22RENDERING KEYPage 62 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatTYPICAL PASEO ENTRY & ARCHITECTURE RENDERINGAS1.33RENDERING KEYPage 63 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatPRE-PLOT PLAN + DETAILSSP2.0A. EXAMPLE OF SETBACK VARIATION BETWEEN LOTS FRONT EDGE OF HOUSE, PORCH OR GARAGEHUGHES LANEBUCKLEY ROADEXISTING LANDSCAPED BERMSEE SECTION A-ADOOLITTLE DRIVEPARK ‘H’PARK ‘I’OPEN SPACEOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACEWRIGHT BROS. WY. EARHEART WAYJESPERSON ROADYEAGER CT.FRONT PORCHREAR PORCHHOUSEHOUSEGARAGEB. TYPICAL LOT SETBACKS 1”=20’STREET10’ YARDTOTAL UNITS: 101ALLEY LOAD: 22FRONT LOAD: 79 ALLEY LOAD UNITS % of Total PLAN 1: 12 12% PLAN 2: 10 10% FRONT LOAD UNITS % of Total PLAN 1: 13 13% PLAN 2: 15 15% PLAN 3: 19 19% PLAN 4: 32 31%1-STORY HOMES: 25 25%2-STORY HOMES: 76 75%D. PROJECT STATISTICSGARAGEGARAGEHOUSEHOUSEPORCHPORCHC. UNIT TYPE KEYFRONT LOAD UNIT (FL)ALLEY LOAD UNIT (AL)12STORY #PLAN #AL1FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL22FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL32FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL42FL41FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11FL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL11AL12AL22AL22AL22AL22AL22AL22AL22AL22AL22AL2E. SECTION A-A: FROM BUCKLEY ROAD TO HUGHES LANE In response to Development Plan – Site Planning and Organization. 1.0 Building Orientations and Setbacks item , Standard 1.11, as it relates to sound mitigation, the following will be implemented for the Phase 5 R-1 units within 300 feet of Buckley Road. See also MM NO-3a. • Exterior Glazing. Exterior window glazing for residential units exposed to potential noise above Ldn=60 dBA is proposed to achieve a minimum Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) 24 / Sound Transmission Class (STC) 30. Glazing systems with dissimilar thickness panes will be used. • Exterior Walls. Construction of exterior walls is proposed to consist of a stucco or engineered building skin system over sheathing, with 4-inch to 6-inch-deep metal or wood studs, fiberglass batt insulation in the stud cavity, and one or two layers of 5/8-inch gypsum board on the interior face of the walls. If possible, electrical outlets will not be installed in exterior walls exposed to noise. If not possible, outlet box pads will be applied to all electrical boxes and sealed with non-hardening acoustical sealant. • Exterior Doors Facing Noise Source. Based upon Section 1207.7 of the California Building Code (CBC), residential unit entry doors from interior spaces are proposed to have a combined STC 28 rating for any door and frame assemblies. Any balcony and ground floor entry doors located at bedrooms are proposed to have an STC 30 rating. • Supplemental Ventilation. Based upon the CBC, supplemental ventilation adhering to OITC/STC recommendations is proposed for residential units with habitable spaces facing noise levels exceeding Ldn=60 dBA, so that the opening of windows is not necessary to meet ventilation requirements.F. PROPOSED NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION (NLR) METHODS35’ CREEK SETBACK35’ CREEK SETBACK35’ CREEK SETBACKPage 64 of 349 0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA - S P A N I S HB - F A R M H O U S E C - C R A F T S M A NA1.0Page 65 of 349 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE AT MIN. LOT46.98%LOT COVERAGE2,584 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH135 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH252 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE457 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING2,126 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHSPLAN 1A5 0 . 0 0 ' M I N1 1 0 . 0 0 ' M I N15'-0"82'-0"10'-0"5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"GARAGE215204XOPT.COVEREDREAR PORCH180140XGREATROOM214158XDINING19386XBEDROOM 2134100XBA. 2KITCHENBEDROOM 3134100XENTRYLAU.OFFICE128106XPDR.PRIMARYBEDROOM180140XPANTRYPRIMARYBATHOPT. DR.OPT. DR.OPT. LOWER CABS.WINDOWATCORNERLOTWINDOWATCORNERLOTOPT. 10080 SL. GL. DR.3'-0"A L L E Y E AS E M E N THIGH GLASSCOVEREDPORCH0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.11ST FLOORPage 66 of 349 REARFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±19'-0"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE21441054:124:123:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTA10'-1"8'-0"±19'-0"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE2146525FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-0"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE2514101052FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-0"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE251014520 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.2aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING21441052146525251410105225101452Page 67 of 349 OPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCHFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±21'-4"FINISH GRADE214454:124:123:124:124:124:124:124:12FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"8'-0"±21'-4"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE251014520 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.2bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING2144525101452Page 68 of 349 REARFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±19'-8"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1410715413:128:128:125.5:125.5:125.5:125.5:12FRONTB10'-1"8'-0"±19'-8"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE17718999189515LEFTFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±19'-8"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE51141051517999RIGHTFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±19'-8"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE971515141010 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.3aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING141071541177189991895155114105151799997151514101Page 69 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±22'-11"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH14715413:128:128:125.5:125.5:125.5:125.5:12FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±22'-11"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH15151010 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.3bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING14715411515101Page 70 of 349 REARFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±17'-4"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1410411574:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTC10'-1"8'-0"±17'-4"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE67151151816LEFTFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±17'-4"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE5114105157616RIGHTFENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±17'-4"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE515718166141010 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.4aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING14104115767151151816511410515761651571816614101Page 71 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±19'-8"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH14411574:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±19'-8"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH5157161010 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA1.4bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1441157515716101Page 72 of 349 0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA - S P A N I S HB - F A R M H O U S E C - C R A F T S M A NA2.0Page 73 of 349 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE MIN. LOT30.65%LOT COVERAGE1,686 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH76 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH198 SQ. FT.3 - CAR GARAGE470 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING2,495 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1,278 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1,217 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE2 - CAR GARAGE4 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHSPLAN 2A3'-0"5 0 . 0 0 ' M I N1 1 0 . 0 0 ' M I N18'-0"28'-0"12'-6"38'-6"5'-0"25'-0"UP18 RGARAGE205209XOPT. GARAGE189120XGREATROOM166154XENTRYPANTRYOPT. COVEREDREAR PORCH170120XKITCHENDINING186108XFLEX SPACE /OPT.BEDROOM 5w/ BA. 3120160XDROP15'-6"OPT. DR.OPT. DR.OPT. CABINETS10'-0"± 244 SQ. FT.7'-6"PDR.5'-0"10'-0"A L L E Y E A S E M E N TOPT. 8080 SL. GLS. DR.COVEREDPORCHDN17 RBEDROOM 2100100XBA. 2BEDROOM 3120100XPRIMARYBEDROOM162154XPRIMARYBATHLAU.OPT. DECKOPT. 10080 SL. GL. DR. @ OPT. DECKLOFT / OPT.BEDROOM 4100186XLINENHIGHWDW.HIGHWDW.HIGHWDW.UP18 RBEDROOM 5120160XDROPOPT. BEDROOM 5IN LIEU OF FLEX SPACEBA. 3BEDROOM 4100108XOPT. BEDROOM 4IN LIEU OF LOFT0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.11ST FLOOR2ND FLOORPage 74 of 349 REARFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±25'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE251014424:124:124:124:123.5:123.5:123.5:123.5:122:124:124:124:124:123.5:12FRONTA10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±25'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE25146132LEFTFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±25'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE251410105210RIGHTFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±25'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE2214105550 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.2aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING2510144225146132251410105210221410555Page 75 of 349 OPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCHFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±25'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE2514424:124:124:124:123.5:123.5:123.5:123.5:122:124:124:124:124:123.5:123.5:12OPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCHFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±25'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE22105550 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.2bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING2514422210555Page 76 of 349 REARFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE14410157158:124:128:128:124:124:124:125:125:124:128:124:12FRONTB10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE197187916157LEFTFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE5114105179718RIGHTFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE115161879140 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.3aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1441015715197187916157511410517971811516187914Page 77 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH144157158:124:128:128:124:124:124:125:125:124:128:124:123.5:12FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH1150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.3bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING14415715115Page 78 of 349 REARFENCE LINE9'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-9"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1441017754:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTC9'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-9"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE116181261575LEFTFENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-9"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE51141051571618116RIGHTFENCE LINE9'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-9"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE161816514100 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.4aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1441017751161812615755114105157161811616181651410Page 79 of 349 FENCE LINE9'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-9"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH14417754:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:123.5:12FENCE LINE9'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-9"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH16165100 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA2.4bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING14417751616510Page 80 of 349 0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA - S P A N I S HB - F A R M H O U S E C - C R A F T S M A NA3.0Page 81 of 349 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE MIN. LOT35.85%LOT COVERAGE2,406 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH80 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH210 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE463 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING1,944 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHSPLAN 1A5 0 . 0 0 ' M I N1 3 3 . 0 0 ' M I N15'-0"70'-0"15'-0"20'-0"DINING / OPT.BEDROOM 3 /OPT. OFFICE114140X10'-1" CLG.48'-0"KITCHENPANTRYOPT. COVEREDREAR PORCH156136XGARAGE205204XENTRYBA. 2GREATROOM180184XFLEX SPACE /OPT. DINING100138XLAU.BEDROOM 2116112XPRIMARYBATHPRIMARYBEDROOM139136XCOVEREDPORCHLINENOPT. DR.OPT. 10080 SL. GL. DR.PDR.HIGHWDW.DROPLINENBA. 2BEDROOM 3116120XOPT. BEDROOM 3IN LIEU OF DININGLINEN0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.11ST FLOORPage 82 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10524:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTA10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"2'-9"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE13142645FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE521413102FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10522140 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.2aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1052131426455214131021052214Page 83 of 349 FENCE LINEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"8'-0"FINISH GRADE±22'-0"TOP OF RIDGE10524:124:124:124:12FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"8'-0"±22'-0"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE105220 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.2bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105210522Page 84 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"8'-0"±19'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1051158:123:124:124:124:124:128:12FRONTB10'-1"8'-0"±19'-10"1'-6"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1418194715FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-10"1'-6"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE5114710115918FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1051114790 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.3aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING10511514181947155114710115918105111479Page 85 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±22'-1"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH1051158:123:124:124:128:12FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±22'-1"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH105110 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.3bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING10511510511Page 86 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10517154:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTC10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"1'-2"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE181411745612FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"1'-2"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE711418101155FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"8'-0"±19'-9"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1051114187150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.4aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1051715181411745612711418101155105111418715Page 87 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"FINISH GRADE±22'-0"TOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10517154:124:124:124:124:12FENCE LINE10'-1"8'-0"±22'-0"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH105117150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA3.4bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105171510511715Page 88 of 349 0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA - S P A N I S HB - F A R M H O U S E C - C R A F T S M A NA4.0Page 89 of 349 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE MIN. LOT39.94%LOT COVERAGE1,889 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH179 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH258 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE468 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING2,309 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR887 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1,422 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE2 - CAR GARAGE4 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS / LOFTPLAN 2A5 0 . 0 0 ' M I N9 5 . 0 0 ' M I N14'-6"49'-6"5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"UP18 RGREAT ROOM272148XGARAGE206220XKITCHENLAU.PRIMARYBEDROOM160130XPANTRYPRIMARYBATH31'-0"20'-0"PDR.OPT. REAR PORCH236110X18'-0"ENTRYCOVEREDPORCHLOFT166120XDN18 RBEDROOM 2116108XBEDROOM 3116122XBEDROOM 4114112XBA. 2LINEN0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.11ST FLOOR2ND FLOORPage 90 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±25'-10"8"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1052143:123:123:12 3:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTA10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±25'-10"8"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE14245FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±25'-10"8"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE5214102FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±25'-10"8"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE105220 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.2aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING10521414245521410210522Page 91 of 349 FENCE LINEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±25'-10"8"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"10523:123:123:12 3:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:123.5:12FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±25'-10"8"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE105220 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.2bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105210522Page 92 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10511473:125:125:125:127:12 7:125:125:125:125:12FRONTB10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE115741816FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE5114101151816FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10511790 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.3aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105114711574181651141011518161051179Page 93 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"OPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH105173:125:125:125:127:12 7:125:125:125:125:123.5:12FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-10"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH105110 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.3bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1051710511Page 94 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-1"10"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10517153:12 3:123:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTC10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-1"10"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE181414576FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-1"10"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE7114181011556FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-1"10"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10511187150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.4aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105171518141457671141810115561051118715Page 95 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-1"10"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"OPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10517153:12 3:123:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:123:12FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"Hdr. Ht.8'-0"Hdr. Ht.±27'-1"10"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH105117150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA4.4bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105171510511715Page 96 of 349 0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA - S P A N I S HB - F A R M H O U S E C - C R A F T S M A NA5.0Page 97 of 349 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE MIN. LOT36.63%LOT COVERAGE1,765 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH36 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH191 SQ. FT.3 - CAR GARAGE641 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING2,456 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1,333 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1,123 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE3 - CAR GARAGE4 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS / OFFICEPLAN 3A5 0 . 0 0 ' M I N9 5 . 0 0 ' M I N17'-0"52'-0"5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"UP18 RENTRYPDR.OPT. COVEREDREAR PORCH186104XDINING102108XOFFICE / OPT.BEDROOM 5130122X10'-1" CLG.GREATROOM182150XPANTRYGARAGE210204XKITCHENOPT. 10080 SL. GL. DR.26'-0"20'-0" 106180XSTORAGEOPT. BATH 3LINENDROPOPT. LOWERCABSCOVEREDPORCHPRIMARYBEDROOM182150XDN18 RLAU.BA. 2PRIMARYBATHBEDROOM 4 /OPT. LOFT106120XBEDROOM 3102120XBEDROOM 2102109XLINENOPEN TOBELOWOPT. DECKOPT. SL. GLS. DR. AT DECKOPT. BEDROOM 5 w/ BA. 3IN LIEU OF OFFICE AND PDR.BEDROOM 5130100X10'-1" CLG.BA. 3LINENLAU.BEDROOM 3102120XBEDROOM 2102109XLINENOPEN TOBELOWLOFT106208XOPT. LOFTIN LIEU OF BEDROOM 40 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.11ST FLOOR2ND FLOORPage 98 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-10"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10524:124:123:124:123:12 3:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:123:124:12FRONTA10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-10"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE142451719FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-10"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE102145171911FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-10"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1052214190 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.2aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1052142451719102145171911105221419Page 99 of 349 FENCE LINEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-10"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10524:124:123:124:123:12 3:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:123:124:123.5:12FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±26'-10"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10522190 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.2bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING10521052219Page 100 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±28'-3"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1051153:123:12 7:127:127:125:125:125:12FRONTB10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±28'-3"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9418161157FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±28'-3"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1410716915FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±28'-3"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1411051570 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.3aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING10511594181611571410716915141105157Page 101 of 349 FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±28'-3"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH1051153:123:12 7:127:127:125:125:125:123.5:12FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±28'-3"FINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH15150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.3bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1051151515Page 102 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-4"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10517154:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTC10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-4"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1814145671217FENCE LINELEFT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-4"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE7114181011556FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-4"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10511187156140 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.4aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING1051715181414567121771141810115561051118715614Page 103 of 349 FENCE LINEOPT. REAR ELEV10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-4"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10517154:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:123.5:12FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-4"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH105117150 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA5.4bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105171510511715Page 104 of 349 0 8416TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA - S P A N I S HB - F A R M H O U S E C - C R A F T S M A NA6.0Page 105 of 349 LOT COVERAGE MIN. LOT37.20%LOT COVERAGE1,767 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH33 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH171 SQ. FT.3 - CAR GARAGE628 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING2,496 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1,380 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR1,116 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE3 - CAR GARAGE5 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHSPLAN 4ALOT COVERAGE MIN. LOT 38.95%LOT COVERAGE1,850 SQ. FT.JADU COVERED PORCH84 SQ. FT.JADU381 SQ. FT.COVERED PORCH33 SQ. FT.OPT. COVERED REAR PORCH171 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE462 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING2,295 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR1,380 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR915 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLE2 - CAR GARAGE5 BEDROOMS / 3.5 BATHSPLAN 4 with JADU5 0 . 0 0 ' M I N9 5 . 0 0 ' M I N15'-0"65'-0"15'-0"24'-0"OPT. COVEREDREAR PORCH19090XGARAGE206220XGARAGE /OPT. JADU160103XBEDROOM 5102108XUP18 RGREATROOM166152XDINING110152XKITCHENPDR.ENTRYBA. 3PANTRYSTORAGE5'-0"40'-0"5'-0"CABS. BELOWCOVEREDPORCHDN18 RBEDROOM 4100114XBEDROOM 2102100XBEDROOM 3100124XPRIMARYBEDROOM166166XLAU.LOFT125118XBA. 2OPT. DECKOPEN TOBELOWLINENPRIMARYBATHOPT. SL. GLS. DR. AT DECKSLEEPING12686XPDR.BA. 3OPT. JADUIN LIEU OF GARAGE AND BEDROOM 5LINENLIVING140106XCOVERED PORCH0 841630895611ST FLOOR2ND FLOORPage 106 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1014253:124:124:124:123:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:124:12FRONTA10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE142456FENCE LINELEFT8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"9'-1"1021454214FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE102250 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA6.2aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING101425142456102145421410225Page 107 of 349 FENCE LINEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE253:124:124:124:124:123:12 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:123.5:12FENCE LINEOPT. LEFT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"9'-1"1021454214FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADE225FRONT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU A1/4"=1'-0"10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1425LEFT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU8'-0"8'-0"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADE9'-1"9'-1"105102RIGHT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU10250 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA6.2bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING25102145421422514251051021025Page 108 of 349 8:12 6:124:126:126:126:128:12 8:12 8:12 6:126:12FRONT B1/4"=1'-0"10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE41811415FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE105114FENCE LINELEFT8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"9'-1"14101847591FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9110181570 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA6.3aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING10511441871141514101847591911018157Page 109 of 349 6:128:126:124:126:126:128:12 8:12 8:12 6:126:123.5:1210'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEFRONT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU B1/4"=1'-0"188'-0"8'-0"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADELEFT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU9'-1"9'-1"181RIGHT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU9110FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH1051FENCE LINE8'-0"8'-0"±29'-8"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"9'-1"OPT. LEFT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH141847591FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADE11570 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA6.3bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING18181911010511418475911157Page 110 of 349 FENCE LINEREAR10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1051144:124:124:124:124:124:124:123.5:123.5:124:124:12FRONTC10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE1814145671214FENCE LINELEFT8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"9'-1"1710155614FENCE LINERIGHT10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE10571181156560 84160 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA6.4aMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING105114181414567121614171810161556141057118115656Page 111 of 349 4:124:124:124:124:124:124:123.5:123.5:124:124:123.5:12FRONT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU C1/4"=1'-0"10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE18141567128'-0"8'-0"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADELEFT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU9'-1"9'-1"1181656RIGHT ELEVATION AT OPT. JADU1051156FENCE LINE10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGEOPT. REAR ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH1051FENCE LINE8'-0"8'-0"±27'-5"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADETOP OF RIDGE9'-1"9'-1"OPT. LEFT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH17155614FENCE LINEOPT. RIGHT ELEV AT COVERED REAR PORCH10'-1"9'-1"8'-0"8'-0"1'-0"HEELFINISH GRADE571115560 8 164TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA6.4bMATERIAL LEGEND1. COMPOSITION ROOF2. CONCRETE 'S' TILE ROOF3. METAL ROOF4. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOOR5. SAND FINISH STUCCO6. CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING7. CEMENTITIOUS BOARDAND BATTON SIDING8. CEMENTITIOUS SHINGLE SIDING9. CEMENTITIOUS TRIM10. STUCCO OVER FOAM TRIM11. WOOD GRAIN CORBEL12. COMPOSITE SHUTTER13. WOOD BRACKET14. LIGHT FIXTURE15. GABLE END DETAIL16. WOOD POST17. POT SHELF18. BRICK VENEER19. METAL AWING20. METAL RAILING18141567121181656105115610511715561457111556Page 112 of 349 TRACT 3089PHASE 5SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAA7.0Page 113 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatA. Spanish - Color and Material MatrixA7.1SCHEMES 1-4 ARE ‘A’ ELEVATIONSTRANSITIONAL SPANISHSCHEME # 1 2 3 4FASCIA, EAVES, TAILS, HEADERS,BEAMS, POSTS, PANELS, KICKERS& GARAGE DOORS SW 7510CHATEAU BROWNSW 6068BREVITY BROWNSW 7026GRIFFINSW 9182ROJOMARRONSHUTTERS & ENTRY DOORSW 7664STEELY GRAYSW 6194BASILSW 7595SOMMELIERSW 0032NEEDLEPOINT NAVYBASE STUCCOSW 7566WESTHIGHLAND WHITESW 7011NATURAL CHOICESW 7532URBAN PUTTYSW 9111ANTLER VELVETSIDING--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------STONE--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------BRICK--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------MORTAR--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------‘S’ ROOF TILE1HSCS3280MONTE SERENO1HBCS3270TESORO BLEND1HBCS6330SALERNO CLAY1HBCS6464CA MISSION BLENDFLAT ROOF--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------METAL ROOFZINC GRAY ZINC GRAY WEATHERED COPPERSTORM GRAYWINDOW FRAMEESPRESSO ESPRESSO ESPRESSO ESPRESSOGUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTBRONZE BEAVER BROWNWEATHERED BRONZEMUSKETPage 114 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASE 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatB. Farmhouse - Color and Material MatrixA7.2SCHEME #FASCIA, EAVES, TAILS, HEADERS,BEAMS, POSTS, PANELS, KICKERS& GARAGE DOORS SHUTTERS & ENTRY DOORBASE STUCCOSIDINGSTONEBRICKMORTAR‘S’ ROOF TILEFLAT ROOFMETAL ROOFWINDOW FRAMEGUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTSCHEMES 5-8 ARE ‘B’ ELEVATIONSFARMHOUSE5678SW 7005PURE WHITESW 7551GREEK VILLASW 7075WEB GRAYSW 7019GAUNTLET GRAYSW 6990CAVIARSW 6236GRAYS HARBORSW 6076TURKISH COFFEESW 7076CYBERSPACESW 9165GOSSAMER VEILSW 7638JOGGIN PATHSW 7065ARGOSSW 7044AMAZING GRAYSW 7005PURE WHITESW 6207RETREATSW 7075WEB GRAYSW 7019GAUNTLET GRAYARTIC HEWN STONEFOUNDATION HEWN STONEARTIC HEWN STONETALUS HEWNSTONE--------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ---------------ANTIQUE SLATEWEATHERED WOODANTIQUE SLATEBARKWOODMIDNIGHT BRONZEWEATHERED COPPERMIDNIGHT BRONZESTORM GRAYWHITE WHITE TAN TANWHITE WHITE OLD TOWNE GRAYBRONZEPage 115 of 349 TRACT 3089 R-1 LAND USES (PHASES 5)SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAARCHITECTURAL & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW14 February 2022Revised 15 April 2022De OroDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooatC. Craftsman- Color and Material MatrixA7.3SCHEME #FASCIA, EAVES, TAILS, HEADERS,BEAMS, POSTS, PANELS, KICKERS& GARAGE DOORS SHUTTERS & ENTRY DOORBASE STUCCOSIDINGSTONEBRICKMORTAR‘S’ ROOF TILEFLAT ROOFMETAL ROOFWINDOW FRAMEGUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTSCHEMES 9-12 ARE ‘C’ ELEVATIONSCRAFTSMAN9101112SW 7626ZURICH WHITESW 7568NEUTRAL GROUNDSW 7040SMOKEHOUSESW 7010WHITE DUCKSW 7602INDIGO BATIKSW 6090JAVASW 7749LAUREL WOODSSW 6230RAINSTORMSW 7542NATURELSW 7644GATEWAY GRAYSW 7012CREAMYSW 6157FAVORITE TANSW 9164ILLUSIVE GREENSW 6165CONNECTEDGRAYSW 7051ANALYTICAL GRAYSW 7550RESORT TANECHO RIDGEPRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONEPHEASANTPRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONEUMBER CREEK PRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONECHARDONNAYPRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONEHIGH DESERTUSED BRICKHIGH DESERTUSED BRICKHIGH DESERTUSED BRICKHIGH DESERTUSED BRICKORCOKHAKIORCOKHAKIORCOKHAKIORCOKHAKI--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------ANTIQUE SLATEWEATHERED WOODBARKWOOD BARKWOOD--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------WHITE WHITE TAN WHITEWEATHERED BRONZEWHITE MUSKET WEATHERED BRONZEPage 116 of 349 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE R-1 PORTION (PHASE 5) OF THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 101 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PROJECT ADDRESS: 175 Venture Drive BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner Phone Number: (805) 610-1109 Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0084-2022 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner APPLICANT: Wathen Castanos Homes REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Florence RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed R-1 (Phase 5) development of the previously approved Avila Ranch project in terms of its consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Development Plan, Community Design Guidelines and provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND In September 2017, the City Council approved the Avila Ranch project, which envisioned phased development of up to 720 homes and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial uses on a 150-acre site on three parcels in the southern portion of the City of San Luis Obispo, generally northeast of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane (APNs 053-259- 004, -005 and -006). The project as approved was determined to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan (as amended), and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. It was also determined to be consistent with the County’s Airport Land Use Plan. The following entitlements were included as part of original project approval to facilitate development:  Resolution 1832 (2017 Series) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, amending both the Airport Area Specific Plan and General Plan, and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3089.  Resolution 1638 (2017 Series) rezoning property at 175 Venture Drive (the Project) from Business Park/Specific Plan Area (BP -SP) and Conservation /Open Space/Specific Plan Area (C/OS/SP) to be consistent with the Project’s Development Plan and with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan, as amended to enable development of 720 residential units and 15,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial on a 150-acre site. The Project also includes 18 acres of parks and 53 acres of designated open space. Meeting Date: 6/20/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 45 Minutes Page 11 of 95Page 117 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022  Ordinance 1639 (2017 Series) approving the Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Avila Ranch LLC. The Project was subsequently sold to Wathen Castanos Homes, and with it, the rights and obligations associated with the DA. The DA ensures phased and orderly development of the Project and includes provisions for reimbursement for public infrastructure and improvements beyond project requirements. In addition, several other subsequent entitlements related to the Avila Ranch have already been approved or are currently under City review, including both onsite and offsite improvements related to the originally approved project. These include the recordation of the Phase 1 Final Map, various public improvements related to Phases 1 -3, and a variety of resource regulatory permits. A complete list is included on Page P1.1 of the application package, which is included as Attachment A to this report. The applicant now requests that the ARC review and the Planning Commission approve the proposed design and layout for the Low Density Residential (R-1) component of the project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The proposed project includes 101 single-family residential units, two parks, and various accompanying infrastructure, all of which were anticipated in the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan. At this time, the applicant is seeking ARC’s recommendations related to the project design, and whether that design is consistent with relevant City regulations, including the Airport Area Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Development Plan and Community Design Guidelines. General Location: Generally north of Buckley Road and east of Vachell Lane. Site Area: 150 acres for the Avila Ranch project (current application includes 12.8 acres within the R-1- SP zone and 2.6 acres PF-SP for parks) Present Use: Vacant land Zoning: R-1-SP and PF-SP within the Airport Area Specific Plan General Plan: Low Density Residential; Parks Surrounding Uses (outside the Avila Ranch Planning Area): East: County jurisdiction; Agriculture zoning West: M-SP (Manufacturing); C-S (Service Commercial) further west across Vachell Lane North: M (Manufacturing); BP-SP (Business Park); warehousing & industrial uses South: County jurisdiction; Agriculture zoning Figure 1. Avila Ranch Project Site Page 12 of 95Page 118 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 Zoning surrounding the R-1-SP zoned land includes PF-SP, CN-SP and C/OS-SP (refer to Figure 1, Avila Ranch Project Site). The proposed application is for ARC to consider and make recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the design of the R-1 component of the Avila Ranch project, which would be constructed as Phase 5 of the project. If approved, the R-1 product as envisioned would be developed in the framework of existing project entitlements, subject to the policies of th e General Plan, AASP, and requirements of the Avila Ranch Development Plan. Figure 2 shows the phasing within Avila Ranch, highlighting the R-1 area covered by the current application. In all, Phase 5 of the project would accommodate 101 dwelling units, consistent with what is allowed under the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan . Phase 5 also includes Park “H” and Park “I”, which were anticipated in the Development Plan. While Phase 5 is moving ahead in the phasing sequence, the Applicant is also proposing to construct various sequenced infrastructure improvements that would have otherwise been required in earlier phases, including wet/dry utilities and circulation/roadways, as defined in a recently approved Memorandum of Agreement, and noted here for reference. These improvements are summarized on Page P1.0 of the application package, which is included as Attachment A to this report. Figure 2. Project Location within the Avila Ranch Development Plan Page 13 of 95Page 119 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 3.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Spanish (Mission), Farmhouse (Agrarian), Craftsman Design details: Flat roofs, porches, shutters, and a variety of design features to provide articulation and architectural interest. Materials: stucco, stone, brick, mortar, with various siding and roofing materials, including tile, composition and metal. Color: Muted earth colors, featuring grays, browns, blues, reds and greens. The applicant’s proposed development would include 101 R-1 units and is known as De Oro at Avila Ranch. The following narrative provides an overview of the design from an architectural and landscape architectural perspective. Architectural Design Concept The proposed development includes a variety building designs, including six (6) different plan types with three (3) different elevations for each plan. These include a mixture of both front loaded and alley loaded units. These are shown in detail on Sheets A1.0 through A6.4b of Attachment A. The overall community is designed to present a pedestrian friendly street façade and scale along the residential streets through the incorporation of connected paseos and neighborhood parks. The neighborhood is located in a key transition area, situated between a future commercial/mixed use parcel as well as the neigh borhood Park ‘H’. Thus, its design facilities pedestrian connectivity between these uses. One outcome of this is to include floor plans with alley loaded garages. With this orientation, the design is intended to provide uncluttered visual cues encouraging use of the connecting pedestrian paseos along with key street crossing locations. The floor plans range from 2,126 to 2,496 square feet, with 3 to 5 bedrooms. The largest front-loaded plan includes an optional junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). Each plan is designed with an open plan concept along with higher ceiling heights, allowing the interior spaces to feel spacious, particularly with natural light provided by large windows. The designs provide variations in wall planes, wall heights, and rooflines at different levels to help create visual interest and diversity. The proposed architectural styles are consistent with those shown in the approved Avila Ranch Development Plan. These include Spanish (Mission), Farmhouse (Agrarian), and Craftsman, which reflect the history of San Luis Obispo, as well as architectural character typically found within the City. At the same time, the R-1 neighborhood, which consistent with the overall character of the greater community, is intended to be visually distinct from the nearby higher density housing within Avila Ranch in order to create clearly identifiable neighborhood. Page 14 of 95Page 120 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 Table 1 (below) summarizes the proposed floor plans within the R-1 zone, including key features and the applicability of the various architectural styles. The location of each is shown on Sheet SP2.0 of Attachment A, and in Figure 3 below. Although Figure 3 is difficult to read at this scale, it is possible to see the relative locations of the Alley Loaded units (in blue) and the Front-Loaded units (in brown). It is also possible to see the variability in setbacks among the various unit types. To more easily read the details related to the location of the different unit types within this area, please refer to Attachment A. Table 1. Summary of Proposed R-1 Development (Phase 5) Cluster Units Plan # Size Stories Bedroom/Baths Garage Architectural Styles # of Units Alley-Loaded Units 1 2,126 SF 1 3BR / 2.5BA 2 car A, B, C 12 2 2,495 SF 2 4BR / 2.5BA 2 car + optional garage A, B, C 10 TOTAL 22 Front-Loaded Units 1 1,944 SF 1 2BR / 2.5BA 2 car A, B, C 13 2 2,309 SF 2 4BR / 2.5BA + loft 2 car A, B, C 15 3 2,456 SF 2 4BR / 2.5BA + office 3 car A, B, C 19 4 2,496 SF 2 5BR / 3.5BA + JADU * 3 car A, B, C 32 TOTAL 79 All Phase 5 101 Architectural Style Key: A – Spanish (Mission) B – Farmhouse C – Craftsman * “JADU” is a junior accessory dwelling unit, per Municipal Code Section 17.156.022—no more than 500 SF and contained entirely within a single-family residence. Figure 3. Location of Unit Types Showing Setbacks Page 15 of 95Page 121 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 Figures 4 through 6 show various renderings of the proposed development concept from different locations on the project site, and how the various architectural and design elements would interact with parks and pedestrian paseos. The intent of the overall design is to mix architectural styles and floor plans throughout the development consistent with the intent of the Development Plan. Additional design details, including project elevations, are included in the application package (Attachment A, Sheets A1.0 through A6.4b) Figure 4. Project Rendering Figure 4. Perspective view to the northwest Page 16 of 95Page 122 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 Color and Materials There are four (4) different color schemes for each of the three (3) elevation styles, which is intended to create additional variation between both the home elevations and also the exterior color (see Sheets A7.1 through A7.3 within Attachment A for the color and materials). Each board contains photographs and samples of the materials and colors for the stucco body, painted blocking accents, front doors, and masonry elements. Figure 5. Project Rendering Figure 6. Project Rendering Figures 5 & 6. View to the south/southeast Page 17 of 95Page 123 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 Landscape Design Concept The overall landscape design concept is intended to accentuate connectivity and cohesiveness throughout the neighborhood. The pedestrian-oriented paseos are at the heart of this community and provide access to the numerous trails that link to a wide array of parks and outdoor amenities. Sheets L-1.0 through L-1.6 within Attachment A shows the proposed landscape design of the project. Each pedestrian paseo is individually marked by a decorative entry patio with pilaster column, identifying each home’s address along the well-lit meandering paseo. The pedestrian paseos, front yards and neighborhood streetscapes are planted with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, to provide shade during the summer months and solar access during the winter. The project incorporates a drought-tolerant, Mediterranean- style plant palette along the vegetated streetscapes and alleys. 4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC’s) role is to review the proposed project in terms of consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), Avila Ranch Development Plan (ARDP) Avila Ranch Development Plan (ARDP), Community Design Guidelines and applicable City Standards. The ARC should also provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the proposed project design, focusing on building architecture and layout. 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, AASP, ARDP and CDG. Notably, upon its approval, the project (including the ARDP) was found to be consistent with the General Plan and AASP, and is directly referenced in the AASP. The ARDP was also previously considered by the ARC in the context of the CDG. Therefore, consistency with the ARDP is the key consideration for ARC with respect to this project, although relevant aspects of the CDG will be highlighted in the analysis that follows. For development within Avila Ranch, the AASP defers to the design standards included in the ARDP. Attachment B from the ARDP summarizes the design standards for R-1 development. The applicant has proposed an update to ARDP development standards to the R -1 zone to clarify and update requirements that are applicable to the proposed project. These are shown on Sheet P1.5 within Attachment A. In staff’s view, these proposed updates are consistent with the intent of the adopted Development Plan standards, and in some cases clarify potential ambiguities in the standards; and the updates are consistent with flexibility provided in the development agreement to the applicant and decision makers to achieve the overall goals of the ARDP. In summary, the proposed modifications are as follows:  Added 15–20 foot setback standard for lots with side-on garages, where no standard previously existed;  Added 10-foot setback for rear porches, where no such standard previously existed; and Page 18 of 95Page 124 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022  Clarified garage setback standards for non-front facing garages—3 feet for alley access lots to acknowledge the narrowness of the alley. Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with relevant provisions of the ARDP and CDG. Table 2 summarizes the applicable standards within these documents, and how the project responds to them. Table 2. Discussion Items Highlighted Sections Discussion Items Avila Ranch Development Plan – Design Framework ARDP Standard 1.1: Adherence to AASP Building Orientation and Setback Standards The ARDP builds on the streetscape and pedestrian orientation standards included in the AASP, and follows the intent of setback requirements included in the Municipal Code related to the R-1 zone. The proposed design adheres to these standards and meets the intent of ARDP standards that relate to these issues. Attachment B shows the relevant standards for the R-1 zone within the ARDP. The proposed design adheres to these requirements related to setbacks. Also see above discussion. ARDP Standards 1.2, 1.6 and 1.7 and related guidelines: Building Height and Setback relationship; driveway orientation; open space orientation The intent of this standard is to avoid blocking distant views of the background topography through the relationship of setbacks to building height. As designed, the project would adhere to setback requirements of the R-1 zone as described in the ARDP (see Attachment B). The project meets the intent of City requirements, including the municipal code and applicable ARDP standards. Also see previous discussion regarding setbacks. Notably, many one-story buildings are proposed to be located along the eastern and southern edges of the site, including many on the south side of proposed Hughes Lane, and also west of Jespersen Road. This design will allow for more open views to the south, and to the west for motorists travelling along Jespersen. The project as designed meets the intent of standards related to driveway and garage orientation away from major streets, and with its paseos and parks, meet the intent of open space orientation standards. These are also consistent with direction in the AASP and CDG. ARDP Standard 7.1.2: Required Architectural Styles This standard requires that development use one or more of these architectural styles: Farmhouse, California Bungalow, Contemporary, Craftsman, or Mission (Spanish). The project design uses three of those five styles, distributed throughout the project. Page 19 of 95Page 125 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 ARDP Standard 7.1.3 and related guidelines: Distribution of Architectural Styles This standard includes a detailed approach to ensure that architectural styles are distributed throughout the planning area. The intent is to ensure visual variety and interest throughout, and large enclaves of overly uniform style and architecture. The design as envisioned includes 6 different floor plan types and 3 different elevations for each plan, with 3 architectural styles that could apply to any of those floor plans. The project based on the formulas included in the standard, although the project meets the intent of this by distributing the variety of floor plans (and associated architectural styles) throughout he project area. Sheets A1.0-A6.4b demonstrate the intent of the applicant, and show a variety of styles, colors and floor plans within a given street scene. In addition, porches are included in the project consistent with Guideline 7.1.3.E. (see Sheets A1.1, A2.1, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1 and A6.1) ARDP Standards 7.2.3, 7.3.2, 7.3.5 and related guidelines: Scale and massing, including the relationship between building height and setbacks The ARDP builds on the streetscape and pedestrian orientation standards included in the AASP, and follows the intent of setback requirements included in the Municipal Code related to the R-1 zone. The proposed design adheres to these standards and meets the intent of ARDP standards that relate to these issues. Attachment B shows the relevant standards for the R-1 zone within the ARDP. As described in the previous discussion, the proposed design and development standard updates adhere to the intent of these requirements related to setbacks and building heights. ARDP Standards 7.4.1 and 7.5.1: Architectural facades and treatment; colors and materials The intent of this standard to ensure that visually prominent design details are compatible with the overall architectural style, and that compatible colors and materials are chosen. Key features include entries, windows, doors, and garages. Sheet A7.0 reflects this standard, showing details related to each of these features, which are consistent with the applicable architectural theme. Colors and materials proposed are shown on Sheets A7.1 through A7.3. These reflect a variety of color and material choices within compatible parameters. Colors range from muted grays, whites and browns augmented a variety of color choices. Materials differ depending on architectural style. ARDP Standards 8.1.1-8.1.4: Landscaping The proposed project responds to these standards with a landscape plan that enhances and complements the architectural design, as shown on several project sheets, notably Sheets L-1.0-L-1.6, and the renderings shown on Sheets AS1.1-1.3. Page 20 of 95Page 126 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 ARDP Standards 9.3.2-9.3.8: Lighting The project has not yet established a formal lighting plan, although Sheets L.1.1-L-1.5 show potential lighting fixtures as they relate to open space areas and development. The project will be required to comply with the City’s night sky ordinance; however, the ARC may provide specific direction regarding exterior lighting for the project. ARDP Standard 12.1: Fencing The intent of this standard is to ensure that fencing design does not block views of open spaces or Tank Farm Creek. No fences would block views of the creek. Along paseos, the applicant proposed 4-6 foot wooden privacy fencing as shown on Sheet L-1.0. CDG Chapter 5 – Residential Project Design Guidelines § Section 5.2: Subdivision Design and General Residential Design Principles This section of the CDG includes several key principles related to integrating open space into the design, project scale, and pedestrian orientation. More specifically related to architectural review, the section also calls for durable and low maintenance finishes, the use of a variety of materials, building articulation, and garage orientation. The project is consistent with the intent of these principles. Sheets A7.1-7.3 illustrate a variety of complementary colors and materials that would be applied to the varied design details shown on Sheets A1.0- A6.4b. § Section 5.5: Single-Family Housing Design The ARDP was previously found to be consistent with the CDG, and reflects and expands on many of the same principles articulated in the CDG. Among the principles articulated in this section of the CDG include: 1. pedestrian orientation; 2. architectural variety, housing sizes and design details; 3. variable setbacks in compliance with the Municipal Code; 4. primary entrances facing a street, encouraging porches to transition between public and private spaces; and 5. garages subordinate to living spaces, preferably not facing the primary street entrance to the home. The project is consistent with these principles. Sheets L-1.1-L- 1.5 shows how homes are integrated into and have access to pedestrian paseos. Also see the renderings in Figures 4 and 6 above. Consistent with the ARDP, three architectural styles are proposed throughout the project, with considerable design variation as described above. Many garages are oriented to the side along alleys, as shown in Sheets A1.1 and A2.1. Page 21 of 95Page 127 of 349 Item 4a ARCH-0084-2022 Architectural Review Commission Report – June 20, 2022 Sign Regulations 15.40.485. Sign Programs The Sign Regulations Sign Programs section allows for flexibility and innovation of sign types proposed in coordination with the design review of a project. The conceptually proposed monument sign on plan set sheet L-1.0 appears to be compatible and complementary with the proposed development and suitable in scale. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Avila Ranch project and associated Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were respectively approved and certified by the City Council on September 19, 2017, pursuant to Resolution No. 10832 (2017 Series). The FEIR constitutes the complete environmen tal determination for the project, which included the Development Agreement, Development Plan and approved VTTM 3089. The proposed R-1 design complies with previously approved project documentation as described above. For that reason, it is in substantial conformance with the Final EIR and prior environmental determination. 7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.2 Recommend the Planning Commission find the project inconsistent with the AASP, ARDP Design Framework and Community Design Guidelines. The ARC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include recommendations for design modifications and/or conditions of approval to achieve potential consistency with the ARDP Design Framework and Community Design Guidelines. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Project Plans (ARCH-0084-2022) B - Avila Ranch Development Plan R-1 Development Standards Page 22 of 95Page 128 of 349 1 Architectural Review Commission Minutes June 20, 2022, 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commissioners Present: Commissioner Kelley Abbas, Commissioner Michael Clark, Commissioner Jacob Domine, Vice Chair Brian Pineda (arrived at 5:30 p.m.), Chair Ashley Mayou Absent: Commissioner Robert Arens, Commissioner Michael DeMartini City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian 1. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission was called to order on June 20, 2022 at 5:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Mayou. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Public Comment: None End of Public Comment-- 3. CONSENT 3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 18, 2022 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES Motion By Commissioner Clark Second By Commissioner Abbas To approve the Architectural Review Commission Minutes of April 18, 2022. Ayes (4): Commissioner Abbas, Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Domine, and Chair Mayou Absent (3): Commissioner Arens, Commissioner DeMartini, and Vice Chair Pineda CARRIED (4 to 0) Page 129 of 349 2 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.a 175 VENTURE (ARCH-0084-2022) REVIEW OF THE R-1 PORTION PHASE 5) OF THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD ALLOW UP TO 101 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS Senior Planner Brian Leveille introduced Contract Planner John Rickenbach, who presented the staff report. Applicant representatives Carol Florence and Michael Stone provided a brief overview of the overall project, a focused presentation on development area Phase 5, and responded to questions raised by the Commission. Chair Mayou opened the Public Hearing Public Comments: None End of Public Comment-- Chair Mayou closed the Public Hearing Motion By Chair Mayou Second By Commissioner Clark Find the project consistent with the design policies and guidelines of Airport Area Specific Plan, Avila Ranch Development Plan, and the Community Design Guidelines, and provide the following recommendations to the Planning Commission for final approval: Evaluate the size and functionality of the porches. Look at options to enhance safety and connections for crossing the street to the bridge at Wright Bros. and Earhardt Way Ayes (5): Commissioner Abbas, Commissioner Clark, Commissioner Domine, Vice Chair Pineda, and Chair Mayou Absent (2): Commissioner Arens, and Commissioner DeMartini CARRIED (5 to 0) Page 130 of 349 3 5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 p.m. The next rescheduled Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission will be held on July 11, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. The Regular Meeting of July 4, 2022 will be cancelled due to the Independence Day Holiday. APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 07/18/2022 Page 131 of 349 Page 132 of 349 Recording Fees Exempt Pursuant to Government Code § 27383. Recording Requested By And When Recorded Mail to: City of San Luis Obispo c/o City Clerk 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 183247.1 2017053192 Tommy Gong San Luis Obispo - County Clerk -Recorder11/17/2017 01:41 PM Recorded at the request of: PUBLIC Titles: 1 Pages: 124 Fees: $0.00 Taxes: $0.00 Total: $0.00 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 101 AVILA RANCH, LLC RELATING TO THE AVILA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN The "AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT") As Adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council on October 3, 2017 by Ordinance No. 1639 (2017 Series) REC.EIVED NOV 2 0 2017 SLO CITY CLERK Dgo-7c[ Page 133 of 349 copy of which figure is attached here as Exhibit F. The land to be dedicated or reserved may be comprised of multiple properties, and may be located in the City or unincorporated County territory. Avila Ranch may satisfy a portion of this requirement through the payment of an in lieu fee to the City or, with the City's approval, to a land conservation organization. If land is dedicated in the form of a Conservation Easement, the terms and conditions shall be approved by the City, together with a correspondent and contemporaneous baseline conditions report. If land is to be dedicated in fee simple title, the City shall have the opportunity to conduct due diligence inspections, including but not limited to, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (and subsequent assessment as may be necessary), title review, and physical site inspections; the City may reject any such dedications based on its due diligence inspections, which shall not be construed as a waiver of the dedication requirements herein. Section 7.05. Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing and Related Programs. Avila Ranch shall provide affordable housing for the Project as described in Exhibit G. Avila Ranch shall also provide workforce housing and shall implement the local preference "SLO Workers First" program, owner occupancy restrictions and down payment assistance program as described in Exhibit G. Section 7.07. Energy. a) Avila Ranch shall provide for accelerated compliance with the City's Energy Conservation Goals and its Climate Action Plan by implementing energy conservation measures significantly above City standards and norms by providing for solar PV energy generation for 100 percent of onsite electrical demand as described in Section 13 of the Design Framework of the Development Plan. The Project shall also include energy efficiency standards in excess of the current Building Code. b) Developer shall provide sustainability features as described in Section 13 of the Design Framework of the Development Plan, including: (i) housing that meets the 2019 net zero building and energy codes or, if the 2019 building and energy codes are not yet adopted upon building permit application, the equivalent to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, (ii) implementing any future city-wide policy regarding carbon emissions reduction, (iii) solar electric panels, (iv) integrated power outlets for electric vehicles and electric bicycles, (v) building design that maximizes grey water usage, and (vi) work -at-home options with high-speed internet connectivity. Section 7.08. Water. a) Avila Ranch shall provide for accelerated compliance with the Climate Action Plan through by implementing special water conservation measures to reduce the usage of potable water by Avila Ranch households to 35 percent below the current City-wide average as described in Section 13 of the Development Plan. b) Avila Ranch shall comply with the California Water Code and the regulations imposed by the City before or after the Effective Date in its capacity as the 23 183247.1 Page 134 of 349 Section 4.01.1, the aspect of Applicable Law to be amended by the approval shall not apply to the City's consideration of the application. Section 8.02. General Plan and AASP Amendments. The parties anticipate that Avila Ranch may request amendments to the General Plan or the AASP to respond to changing circumstances and conditions. City is not obligated to approve any such application and may, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, approve, deny or propose conditions or modifications thereto, including conditions or modifications that might otherwise be prohibited by the vested rights provided by this Development Agreement. Avila Ranch shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to review any such proposed conditions and modifications and to withdraw its application for a General Plan amendment or AASP amendment (in which case neither Avila Ranch's proposed amendments nor the City's proposed modifications shall become effective). Section 8.03. CEQA Compliance. Section 8.03.01. MMRP Application. When conducting an environmental review of any application for an Approval, City shall review the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in connection with the Development Plan and Avila Ranch EIR (the "MMRP") to determine if any mitigation measure contained in the MMRP as to the portion of the Property subject to this Development Agreement should be incorporated into the design of, or added as a condition of approval to, such Approval. Section 8.04. Life of Approvals. Any Approval issued by City, including vesting maps as defined in Section 8.05 below, shall continue in effect without expiration until the later of. (i) the expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement or (ii) the date upon which such Approval would otherwise expire under the laws of the State of California. Section 8.05. Vesting Maps. The ordinances, standards and policies applicable to any vesting tentative map, vesting parcel map, vesting subdivision map or any other type of vesting map Vesting Map'.') under California Government Code section 66474.2, and the ordinances, policies and standards vested under any Vesting Map pursuant to California Government Code section 66498.1(b) shall be those established as Applicable Law under this Agreement. If this Development Agreement terminates before the expiration of any Vesting Map or the vested rights provided thereby, such termination of this Development Agreement shall not affect Avila Ranch's right to proceed with development under such Vesting Map in accordance with the ordinances, policies and standards so vested under the Vesting Map. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Vesting Map shall extend Applicable Law beyond the stated term of this Development Agreement (and the rules, regulations and official policies of City applicable to that portion of the Property covered by such Vesting Map shall become those in effect as of the expiration of such term) except as otherwise agreed by City and Avila Ranch; provided, however, that City and Avila Ranch may agree to an extension of the term of this Development Agreement with respect to the area covered by any such Vesting Map. Section 8.06. Need for Flexibility. The provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between the City and Developer. Implementation of the Project may require minor modifications of the details of the Development Plan and affect the performance of the Parties to this Development Agreement. The anticipated refinements of the Project and the 27 183247.1 Page 135 of 349 development of the Property may require that appropriate clarifications and refinements are made to this Development Agreement and the Entitlements with respect to the details of the performance of the City and the Developer. The Parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Development Agreement. ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENTS Section 9.01. Amendments of Agreement. Section 9.01.1. General. This Development Agreement maybe amended from time to time only upon the mutual written consent of City and Avila Ranch and in compliance with section 17.94.190 of the City's zoning ordinance; provided, however, that in connection with the transfer of any portion of Avila Ranch's Rights and/or Obligations under this Development Agreement to another person, entity, or organization pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 below, Avila Ranch, such transferee and City may agree that the signature of such transferee may be required to amend this Development Agreement insofar as such amendment would materially alter the Rights and/or Obligations of such transferee hereunder. In no event shall the signature or consent of any "Non -Assuming Transferee" (as defined in Section 13.03 below) be required to amend this Agreement. Section 9.01.2. Future Approvals Do Not Require Amendments to Agreement. Except as the Parties may otherwise agree, no amendment of this Development Agreement shall be required in connection with the issuance of any Approval, or an amendment to the MMRP. Any Approval issued after the Effective Date as to a portion of the Property shall be incorporated automatically into this Development Agreement and vested hereby. City shall not, however, amend or issue any Approval unless Avila Ranch requests such an amendment or issuance from City unless otherwise permitted by this Agreement. ARTICLE 10. ANNUAL REVIEW Section 10.01. Annual Review a) The Community Development Director shall annually and concurrently conduct i) the MMRP Evaluation as set forth in Section 11.01; and (ii) the Development Agreement Review as set forth in Section 11.02 (collectively, the "Annual Review"). With respect to the MMRP Evaluation, if the Community Development Director determines that mitigation measures adopted by City in connection with its approval of the AASP and the Zoning are not being implemented as set forth in the MMRP, the Community Development Director shall take any appropriate remedial action as described in Section 11.01 below. Further, the Community Development Director shall incorporate the results of the MMRP Evaluation into the review of any applications for Approvals that are submitted following completion of an Annual Review. 183247.1 Page 136 of 349 Exhibit G Affordable & Workforce Housing Plan Affordable Housing Plan The Avila Ranch project will encourage long term housing affordability by including design and develop­ ment strategies that serve to provide lower cost housing, by including a range of housing sizes and types that are not typically provided in the community, and by providing a greater number of lower income inclusionary units than required by the City lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Since the price of houses over time is most closely related to the size of the dwelling unit, the size of the lot, and costs of mainte­ nance, the project has concentrated on lowering the overall size of market rate dwelling units, and reduc­ ing lot size for market rate units. Within each of the residential zones there will be dwelling unit sizes ranging from 550 square foot studios to 1,150 square foot family apartments in the R-4 area, to 2,500 square foot single family detached units in the R-1 development area. A predominant individual share of the project is in small lot single family R- 2 units (297 out of 720) and attached single family ownership and rental R-3 units (197 units out of 720). Consequently, the average size of the units across the development is approximately 1,525 square feet. Maintenance expenses, to the extent feasible, will be included in a Community Facilities District to reduce the necessity for Homeowner's Associations, and the higher costs associated with that maintenance and governance structure. Landscape maintenance and cost of water and utilities will also be reduced because of the drought tolerant landscaping, smaller lots and other sustainable and cost reducing features. The City's Housing Element provides incentives to develop housing in a denser pattern (R3/R4), and with smaller unit sizes to encourage affordability across the low, mod and workforce income ranges. These incentives include reduced inclusionary housing requirements for denser projects and for projects with lower dwelling unit square footages. Conversely, more inclusionary housing is required for projects with dwelling units that exceed unit sizes of 2,000 square feet. Table 2A of the Housing Element contains these adjustment factors. According to the City's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance and Table 2A, the inclusionary housing require­ ment for the residential component of the project is a total of 67 units, with 22 low and 45 moderate income units. The project proposes to meet and exceed the residential component requirement by providing 32 lower income units and 35 moderate income units as show in Table 1 below, which will pro­ vide for deeper affordability and more lower income units than required. In addition, the commercial component of the project requires a total of 4 units, with 1 low and 3 moderate income units. The project proposes to meet commercial component requirement by either constructing the units in the project or by paying an affordable housing in-lieu fee. Page 137 of 349 Table 1 Inclusionary Housing Requirements Units Required and Units Provided The Avila Ranch project will address housing affordability in several ways, most notably through the design itself, which includes cluster development and many medium and high-density housing units (197 R-3 units and 125 R-4 units), as well as R-2 units that have floor areas that are well below the typical average for single-family detached units in the community. The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement will be addressed through deed restrictions on some low income and moderate -income units to be constructed by Avila Ranch, while others will be provided by dedicating and donating improved land to a non-profit affordable housing provider. However, should an affordable housing provider fail to construct the units, the obligation to provide for the 24 deed -restricted low-income affordable housing units remains with Avila Ranch to complete. The following highlights are summarized from the Development Plan: Mix of Residential Densities and Small Lots. There is an intentional mix of residential densities in the Avila Ranch project that includes a range of R-1 lot sizes, R-2 "four -packs", "six-packs", and "eight - pack" cluster units, and R-3 and R-4 multifamily dwellings, with an emphasis on smaller lot, higher density units. R-2 small lot single family detached units comprise over forty percent of the residential units (with building living areas ranging from 1,050 SF for a 213/16 unit to 2,200 SF 36/26 unit), and medium density and above units will comprise over 85 percent of the units in the project. The average unit size across the entire project is less than 1,550 square feet. Units Avg Size Total Floor Net Net Den- Density Density Area Acres sity Units Units/Acre R-1 Alley 33 2,250 74 250 4.7 7.02 33 7.02 R-1 Front 68 2,250 153,000 8.07 8.43 68 8.43 R-2 Pocket Cottage 76 1,200 91,200 5.67 13.40 76 13.40 R-2 Standard 221 1,750 386,750 21.62 10.22 221 10.22 R-3 Duplex 38 1,750 66,500 4.13 9.20 57 13.80 R-3 Townhome 159 1,375 218,625 6.49 24.50 173 26.66 R-4 Apartments 125 850 106,250 4.39 28.47 115 26.20 Neighborhood Commercial 15,000 1.85 Total 720 1,525 1,096,575 55.07 13.07 743 13.49 Nominal Requirement 108 HE Table 2A Adjustment 41 Constructed Fee Total Commercial 4 Requirement: 71 Provided: 67 71 Low 23 32 1 33 Moderate 48 35 3 38 The Avila Ranch project will address housing affordability in several ways, most notably through the design itself, which includes cluster development and many medium and high-density housing units (197 R-3 units and 125 R-4 units), as well as R-2 units that have floor areas that are well below the typical average for single-family detached units in the community. The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement will be addressed through deed restrictions on some low income and moderate -income units to be constructed by Avila Ranch, while others will be provided by dedicating and donating improved land to a non-profit affordable housing provider. However, should an affordable housing provider fail to construct the units, the obligation to provide for the 24 deed -restricted low-income affordable housing units remains with Avila Ranch to complete. The following highlights are summarized from the Development Plan: Mix of Residential Densities and Small Lots. There is an intentional mix of residential densities in the Avila Ranch project that includes a range of R-1 lot sizes, R-2 "four -packs", "six-packs", and "eight - pack" cluster units, and R-3 and R-4 multifamily dwellings, with an emphasis on smaller lot, higher density units. R-2 small lot single family detached units comprise over forty percent of the residential units (with building living areas ranging from 1,050 SF for a 213/16 unit to 2,200 SF 36/26 unit), and medium density and above units will comprise over 85 percent of the units in the project. The average unit size across the entire project is less than 1,550 square feet. Page 138 of 349 Pocket Cottage Units. The Plan includes 76 "Pocket Cottage" units, which are intended to meet the needs of young professionals, empty nesters and young families. These units have floor plans ranging from 1,050 to 1,300 square feet in 2611/113, 2BR/2B and 3BR/2B configurations. These units, like the other cluster units, are arranged around a common landscaped courtyard, and will have access from a common driveway. These,smaller units also have a one -car garage and an adjacent uncovered guest parking space. This parking reduction is justified by the lower expected occupancy for these smaller units and the multimodal features of the overall development. A portion of these units will be re- served for income -qualified workforce households through the Workforce Housing Incentive Program WHIP) described below. Nine of the Pocket Cottage units (5 2 -bedroom and 4 3 -bedroom units) would be dedicated for Moderate Income, and 13 of these units (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and 7 3- bedroom/2-bath units) will be dedicated for the project's Workforce Housing Incentive Program WHIP) program described below. The nine inclusionary moderate -income units will be provided on in Phases 1 and 3 of the project on Lots 37, 51, 65, 76, 91, 121, 364, 378 and 392. The Workforce units in the Pocket Cottage series will be provided on Lots 32, 46, 60, 74, 79, 89, 90, 117, 365, 379, 393, 315 or 316. R-3 Units and Inclusionary Housing Requirements. The project includes 197 R-3 multifamily units on 11 acres that range in size from 700 square foot for -sale and for -rent studios to 1,750 square foot duplexes. The R-3 portion will include eighteen (18) for -sale moderate -income units (10 2-bedroom/1- bath units and 8 3 -bedroom, 2 -bath units) and twelve (12) WHIP units (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and 6 3-bedroom/2-bath units). The inclusionary units will be provided on Lot 405 as part of the first 80 R-3 townhomes (and the first 116 R-3 units overall), and the 12 Workforce units will be provided on Lot 407. R-4 Housing_ and Affordable Housing Development. Finally, the project will include a substantial number of apartment units that are near employment and shopping at Suburban and Higuera. The R- 4 apartment portion of the project will be directly served by an on -street transit stop and will be within walking distance of nearby shopping. A 1.2 acre portion of R-4 project will be dedicated to an afford- able housing provider (Lot 300 of the VTM) at the time that the final map for Phase 1 is recorded to address the local need for lower income housing and to satisfy, in part, the project's inclusionary housing requirements. The lot shall include 24 lower income units. However, should an affordable housing provider fail to construct the units, the obligation to provide for the 24 deed -restricted low- income affordable housing units on the lot remains with Avila Ranch to complete. Unit sizes in the R- 4 apartment portion will range from 550 square foot studios to 1,150 square foot units for larger families. The site to be dedicated is adequate to meet the affordable housing requirement, plus addi- tional potential units. This site will be improved as part of Phase 1 of the project since it is served by Earthwood, and can be conveyed to the affordable housing provider during Phase 1. Its development is not dependent on the completion of improvements in Phase 3 of the project (where it is located), and construction can start on it after the Buckley Road Extension improvements are completed. This will allow completion of these low income inclusionary units early in the project, rather than leaving them to the end. In addition, eight (8) Low Income 2-bedroom/1-bath and eight (8) Moderate Income 2-bedroom/1-bath units will be provided on Lot 301, a market rate apartment development. Neighborhood Commercial. The 1.8 -acre Neighborhood Commercial portion of the project will gen- erate a requirement for four additional inclusionary units (1 lower income and 3 moderate income). Page 139 of 349 Development of this site is anticipated 10+ years, and will be based on market demand. Most of the NC site is currently located in ALUP Safety Zone S-1-13 that precludes residential development; how- ever, there is a 0.25 -acre portion of Lot 603 that is outside and that can accommodate residential development. The project will include the four inclusionary units in its design, if possible, and subject to the restrictions of the Specific Plan. If that is infeasible, the project will pay an affordable housing in -lieu fee per the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Table 2 of the Housing Element. Overall, the project will provide a total of thirty-two (32) low and thirty-five (35) Moderate Income inclu- sionary units compared to the city's requirement for twenty-two (22) Low Income units and forty-five (45) Moderate Income units. The inclusionary housing product mix has been intentionally skewed toward the low-income units to ensure that this income group is adequately represented in the project, and to rec- ognize that the moderate -income groups have adequate market rate opportunities in the R-3, R-2 Pocket Cottage and R-4 rental portions of the project. Table 2 shows the phasing of the affordable units, and Exhibit 1 shows the location of these units. Table 2 Assisted Affordable Housing Phasing Plan Phase Program 1 2 3 4 5 6* Total Low Income Rentals 24 8 1 33 Mod Income Rentals 8 3 11 Moderate Income For -Sale 6 3 18 27 Workforce For -Sale -WHIP 13 12 25 Other Market Rate Work- force For Sale 36 18 70 124 Rental 83 86 169 Total 79 120 186 385 Units in Phase 179 29 214 197 101 4 724 Total -Inclusionary Low 33 Total -Inclusionary Mod 38 Total -Workforce WHIP 25 Total --Market Rate Work- 293 force Total 389 Phase 6 represents the Commercial Development and associated Inclusionary Housing Requirement. This will be met either by development of units within the commercial project or by payment of affordable housing in -lieu fee Page 140 of 349 Workforce Housing Plan A special four -point program will be provided to create workforce housing and increase the supply of housing available to local employees. This program will include providing local preferences for individuals who work within the City of San Luis Obispo and immediately surrounding area the priority to purchase or rent a residence within the Project, owner -occupancy restrictions in the single-family detached units, and a special Workforce Housing Incentive Program which will provide deed -restricted units for workforce housing eligible households (households earning 121-160% of the Area Median income). This workforce housing program seeks to target the Project to local employees, reduce the influence of investors in the limitation of housing choice and availability, provide a down payment assistance program for Workforce Income families, and provide a certain number of units that will be deed -restricted. The elements of the program are as follows: Local Preference (" SLO Workers First"]. Program 10.4 of the City's Housing Element encourages res- idential developers to "...sell or rent their projects to those residing or employed in the City first before outside markets." Further, the City and project applicants recognize that one of the principal reasons for the designation of additional residential land in the community in the 2014 Land Use and Circula- tion Element update was to address the current jobs -housing imbalance. One direct and effective way of achieving this is to provide priority for existing employees to rent or purchase residences within the Project. To that end, an interest list has been developed for the Project. Currently, seventy per- cent (70%) of those on the interest list work in the San Luis Obispo area. Avila Ranch agrees to give first preference to rent or purchase a residence within the Project to local employees identified on the interest list. For purposes of this program, the term "local employees" shall include individuals who are employed in business that are located in geographic areas that are customarily included in the City's annual jobs -housing balance analysis in its General Plan Status Report. These areas include the City's corporate limits and areas outside the City limits such as Cal Poly, California Men's Colony, Cuesta College, agricultural lands within the Edna Valley area and business parks on South Broad Street. New employees to businesses in these geographic areas with bonafide employment offers will be considered "local employees" as well. Avila Ranch agrees to maintain and update the interest list through full build -out of the Project. City and Avila Ranch agree that, operationally, this program will be administered as follows: Avila Ranch shall maintain the interest list and shall separate and prioritize names of local employees based on interest in product type. When product becomes available, usually 270-360 days prior to certificate of occupancy assuming a 180 -day construction period), Avila Ranch shall notify those individuals of the opportunity to purchase a residence starting with the "top of the list." Those individuals shall have approximately 60 days to get pre -qualified to purchase the residence and to provide Avila Ranch with proof that the individual is a local employee and the time notice i.e. paycheck or bonafide offer of employment from a local employer.) If an individual fails to get pre -qualified or fails to provide Avila Ranch with proof of local employment within the time periods above, then Avila Ranch may remove or put that name at the end of the interest list. Page 141 of 349 d. Except for the multi -family apartments, Avila Ranch agrees not to sell any units within the Project to any individual without first offering the unit to a local employee who is on the interest list for that product type. Upon exhausting all local employees on the interest list for a product type, Avila Ranch agrees to give priority in the sale of such units to individ- uals residing in the County (but within Fair Housing constraints and state and local regu- lations), and finally to individuals from outside the county. Nothing herein shall preclude Avila Ranch from notifying multiple individuals with the opportunity to purchase a residence and prioritizing the purchase and sale based on "first in line" principles. Nothing herein shall preclude Avila Ranch from taking all reasonable actions necessary in order to facilitate the sale of units within the Project provided such actions are consistent with the "SLO Workers First" program described herein. Avila Ranch shall, upon request, update the City on its implementation of this program and provide City with the interest list and proof of employment for all sales made under this program. City and Avila Ranch acknowledge that this program described above will accomplish three important objectives: 1) use new housing to address the current imbalance between existing jobs and housing; 2) ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, that the increased housing in San Luis Obispo results in a decline in the current commute traffic; and, 3) reduce competition from outside buyers in the initial offering and sales. Owner -Occupancy Restrictions. Avila Ranch agrees to include restrictions in the purchase agreement and Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the single family detached units (R-1 and R-2) substantially in the form as set forth in Attachment "A" requiring these units to be restricted to owner - occupants only for the first five years after sale. In the case of units with Accessory Dwelling Units ADUs), the Principal Dwelling or the ADU will need to be occupied by the property owner. The final form of these agreements will be determined at the time of development of the first final map, and will provide for appropriate monitoring and enforcement. This component of the CC&Rs may not be modified without the City's written consent. The City of San Luis Obispo shall be a designated third party beneficiary to these contractual rights and shall have the right to enforce the owner occupancy requirement. Enforcement and monitoring of the owner occupancy requirement on all single-family dwellings however, Avila Ranch and/ or in coordination with a qualified housing non-profit. Upon re- quest, Avila Ranch shall provide City with any information related to Avila Ranch's implementation and enforcement of this program. Workforce Housing Incentive Program (WHIP). Avila Ranch agrees to provide 25 deed restricted units, including thirteen (13) Pocket Cottage units and twelve (12) R-3 Townhomes, to families in the Workforce Housing category, defined by the City of San Luis Obispo as household incomes of 121% to 160% of Area Median Income (AMI). This program would require that eligible households have in- comes no greater than 160% of the then -current Area Median Income (AMI) (Currently estimated at 133,000 per year) and are income -certified by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo or other qualified housing non-profit. For these units, prices would be limited to no more than that required to achieve an Index of Affordability ("Index") of 31 percent (cost of housing including mortgage prin- cipal, mortgage interest, taxes and insurance divided by 140% of AMI). The Housing Element does not specify an Index of Affordability for Above Moderate household; however, the proposed index is consistent with the requirements of Policy 2.2 of the Housing Element which specifies a 30% Index for Page 142 of 349 Moderate Income units, with FHA guidelines, and recognizes the energy and occupancy costs savings proposed as part of the "Net Zero" features of the project. The maximum purchase price would be equal to 5.65 times (140% of 4.05 multiplier) the median income for each household size. For exam- ple, the current 4 -person (3 bedroom) median household is $83,200 and the associated maximum price of a 3 -bedroom unit would be $470,200, and the maximum purchase price for a two-bedroom unit would be $423,200. These units would have to be occupied by an income qualifying Workforce Housing household for a minimum of ten (10) years; if resold within this ten-year period, the units would need to be sold to another income -qualifying Workforce Housing buyer, and the ten-year af- fordability period would reset. Thirteen (13) of these Workforce units (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and 7 3-bedroom/2-bath units) will be provided in the R-2 Pocket Cottage portion of the development and twelve (12) units will be provided in the R-3 Townhome portion of the project (6 2-bedroom/1-bath units and 6 3-bedroom/2-bath units). The Workforce units in the Pocket Cottage series will be pro- vided on Lots 32, 46, 60, 74, 79, 89, 90, 117, 365, 379, 393, 315 or 316, and the 12 Workforce units will be provided as on Lot 407 (see Exhibit 1). The deed restrictions and enforcement would be administered in the same manner that the City does the inclusionary housing requirements. More specifically, prior to recordation of any final map for the Project, Avila Ranch shall enter into and record an Affordable Housing Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants on title for the Property per City form incorporating the affordability provisions set forth herein. Avila Ranch and City acknowledge that as each workforce housing unit is constructed, a note and deed of trust would be recorded against title to the unit per City form. Avila Ranch acknowl- edges that the note will be in the amount of the difference between the fair market value of the unit and the restricted sale price and will be in favor of City. The City of San Luis Obispo Community Devel- opment Department shall monitor all deed -restricted WHIP units. Down Payment Assistance Program. Avila Ranch agrees to provide a matching down payment assistance DPA) of five percent of the purchase price up to $20,000 as a "silent second" on the initial sale of the 25 Workforce homes. These units would have to be occupied by an income qualifying Workforce Housing household for a minimum of ten (10) years; if resold within this ten-year period, the units would need to be sold to another income qualifying Workforce Housing buyer and the 10 -year deed restriction would reset to 10 more years with the new buyer of the home. The DPA loan would be repaid upon sale of the unit or refinancing, and the proceeds would be placed in a revolving loan fund to assist future workforce, moderate, or lower income home buyers in Avila Ranch. Unlike a reduction in price that would be cap- tured by a future seller at the end of the affordability term, this assistance would continue throughout the life of the funds to assist buyers in the development. -The intent is that these funds will be used in conjunction with the initial 25 Workforce units, but these funds could be used for any income qualifying household who purchases a home in Avila Ranch after the initial ten-year workforce affordability period. This will establish a revolving loan fund of approximately $500,000 to be administered by the City of San Luis Obispo. Page 143 of 349 Page 144 of 349 1 | P a g e AVILA RANCH ENERGY GUIDELINES The Avila Ranch Energy Guidelines are designed to promote sustainability, affordability, and a healthy home environment for our clients. The Development plan, as approved, has some inconsistencies with current codes updates; for instance, the 2019 code update did not adopt a ZERO NET ENERGY threshold. The CEC (California Energy Council) did not deem ZERO NET ENERGY to be a cost effective solution for homebuyers. The Majority of updates to section 13 is focused on solar and the language around “ZERO NET”. We feel these homes will be designed with the RIGHT SIZE solar design, which is an avg of 19-30% above the current t-24 requirements. Current t-24 min requirements have about 50-53% usage offset, with our increase in size we will be offsetting around 70-80% of electrical usage. Other minor changes included tweaks to the language around the REACH CODE and minor crhanges to Advanced framing methods. Some of the methods provided in the original DP were neither cost affective or structurally sound. 1. BUILDING DESIGNS  SOLAR o Maximized the solar size for each plan type while being able to stay compliant with T-24 and competing with all requirements and lot constraints. o See below for breakdown of each plan – we are able to increase the size of the photovoltaic design by 19% to 30% above the current 2019 title 24 code requirements. We believe this is the RIGHT SIZE SYSTEM for these homes. Avila Ranch - ALL Electric Plan Stories Sq. Ft PROPOSED Right Sized Solar System Size 2019 Code Title 24 Code Minimum Size % above code minimum size compliance Plan 1 - cluster 2 1848 2.80 kW 2.28 21% Plan 2 - cluster 2 1898 2.80 kW 2.28 21% Plan 3- cluster 2 2069 3.15 kW 2.61 20% Plan 4 - cluster 2 2273 3.15 kW 2.64 19% Page 145 of 349 2 | P a g e Plan 1 - cottage 2 1167 2.45 kW 1.86 30% Plan 2 - cottage 2 1611 2.80 kW 2.23 24% Plan 3 - cottage 2 1723 2.80 kW 2.25 24% Plan 4 - cottage 2 1554 2.80 kW 2.22 24%  ALL ELECTRIC – meeting city requirements for clean energy choice program by going all electric.  LEED – ND - Compliance with the U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development ( LEED- ND) focuses on the following areas o Smart Location and Linkage o Neighborhood Pattern and Design o Green Infrastructure and Buildings o Innovation and Design Process o Regional Priority Credits  GREEN POINT RATED - GreenPoint Rated is a credible and accessible pathway to ensure you have the elements of a sustainable, efficient, and healthier home while focusing on these 5 key areas o Energy Efficiency o Indoor Air Quality o Water Conservation o Resource Conservation o Community  ADVANCED FRAMING SYSTEMS  QII – Quality Insulation Inspections o QII ensures that insulation is installed properly in floors, walls, and roofs/ceilings to maximize the thermal benefit of insulation.  ENERGY STAR RATED APPLIANCES  HVAC o Dual Zones o Heat Pump Efficiency Rating 10.5 o SEER 26% better than min T-24 reqs o EER 12% better than min T-24 reqs o Bypass Ducts o Standard A/C  WATER HEATER o Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) rated heat pump water heater o 3.85 UEF o Up to 400% more efficient than a standard electric water heater o Energy Saving Scheduling  Programable water heater to match demand throughout the day. Page 146 of 349 3 | P a g e  Link - https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebPartners/ProductDocuments/71FFBB6F-7E6F- 48F3-9B6D-9CB9FEBE6FA3.pdf  EPA WATER-SENSE FIXTURES  BICYCLE STORAGE AREA IN GARAGES o Plus each single family home to receive a voucher for $750 toward an e-bike o Multi-family to include a bicycle rideshare component.  DEDICATED CIRCUIT FOR EV CHARGER PRE-WIRE  NEGOTIATING WITH ZIPCAR FOR RIDESHARE SERVICES Page 147 of 349 Page 148 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 1 Avila Ranch Development Plan The Avila Ranch Development Plan was approved by the City Council on September 19, 2017. This update of the Development Plan incorporates direction provided by the City Council in 2017, plus additional input from various City advisory bodies that provided input to the process prior to the document being considered by the City Council. This version of the Plan includes minor refinements to certain development standards to clarify and be consistent with current plans and documentation developed to date. Land use patterns and most development standards are fundamentally the same as those considered and approved by the City Council in 2017. The Development Plan also incorporates the various mitigation measures included in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The Plan represented herein is based on the “Mitigated Project Alternative” in the Draft and Final EIR. The overall land use plan and site design provide residential land uses with varying densities, accommodating up to 720 residential units. R-1 low density single-family residential neighborhoods would be located south of Tank Farm Creek, and that land use would now include about a third of the units with alley loaded uses, with shared open spaces. Figure 6 shows the approved land plan, and the detailed site plans and special development details are provided in Appendix A hereof. Land uses northwest of the creek would consist of a predominantly R-2 medium density single- family neighborhood, with R-4 high density residential uses allowed along both sides of the Earthwood Lane at the site’s northwest corner. In the R-2 area, there would be common drives, common open space, and “pocket cottage” setting would be introduced for up to 76 units. The Pocket Cottage units would have relatively smaller lot sizes and floor plans to address affordability. The planned R-3 medium-high density residential uses would be located in the northeast area of the site, and would include a centralized park, as well as a “duplex” configuration that would offer larger unit sizes in the R-3 area to provide for a wider range of unit sizes (and a wider representation of income groups, presumably) in that area. The Town Center would be located in the eastern portion of the site, south and east of the creek along the west side of the Jespersen Road Extension, and would include 15,000± square feet (sf) of commercial buildings. Additionally, the Development Plan would allow a broad mix of uses in the Town Center to potentially reduce the number of offsite trips that may be generated. General (nonmedical) professional, business, and services offices would be allowed. Uses expected for the Town Center would be neighborhood serving uses only including general (non-medical) accessory, professional, business and service offices, general retail, restaurants, limited indoor commercial recreation such as fitness/gym facilities, religious facilities, specialized and technical schools, private schools and tutoring services, laundromats, and community meeting rooms. The Town Center would provide parking for the Neighborhood Park, and for the Tank Farm Creek Bike Path (as a trailhead). It would also provide parking for special events in the adjoining parks and park structures such a weekly farmers markets, neighborhood movies and other neighborhood gatherings. The size and configuration of open space areas would result in a contiguous open space, with open space concentrated in and adjacent to the 300-foot wide buffer along Buckley Road, along the Page 149 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 2 creek, and in the northeast and southeast corners of the site. Park distribution and layout would create opportunities for approximately 18 acres in a total of ten parks. Resulting park area at buildout would be approximately 10.9 acres per thousand population. A final parks plan has also been developed and has been reviewed and approved by the City Parks and Recreation Commission. Each phase of the project includes a public park. Special park and community facilities will include several dog parks, community gardens, basketball courts, natural interpretive areas, soccer field, baseball fields, pickleball courts, “tot lot” play areas, tennis courts and other facilities. Primary internal circulation is responsive to the approved land use plan and the circulation improvements addressed in the EIR, including the extension of Horizon Road to Suburban as part of Phase 4 (pedestrian and vehicle improvements). Many “green” design features are included to address changes in the State and local building codes. The following features are included in the Plan: 1. Building energy efficiency standards that will enable the project to comply with the requirements of Section 7.07 of the Development Agreement. The Plan includes guidelines to achieve structures that use high performance structural methodologies, solar PV systems, water conservation techniques, high-efficiency lighting, and compliance with the EV parking requirements. 2. Shared Mobility strategies would be included to reduce the necessity for additional vehicles for each family. Car sharing would be provided in the development at an initial rate of one car per 50 residences, with at least 50 percent of that fleet in the form of electric vehicles. Vehicles would be stored onsite on public streets, near public parks and on public streets, as permitted. There would also be a bike sharing program, or provision of bicycles for each household or tenant. 3. Transit usage would be encouraged by extension of Route 2 to the project site as provided in the plan, plus information and/or incentive packages for transit ridership. 4. Special design requirements may include the use of Building Performance Institute (“BPI”) certified trades, Advanced Framing/Engineering (wider stud placement for decrease in transmission loss and reduction in required framing lumber), Quality Insulation Installation (QII) to minimize envelope and duct seal energy losses, compact plumbing to minimize plumbing runs and distance between hot water taps and water heaters, and usage of EPA WaterSense fixtures to reduce indoor water usage. Many project features are the result of recent physical or regulatory conditions, or changes in the setting for the project. Some of these include: 1. A finding and determination that re-routing Tank Farm Creek to connect to the Chevron open space had significant environmental impacts and uncertain timing. The previous version of the plan relied upon expected drainage improvements by Chevron, and the timing Page 150 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 3 of those improvements is now uncertain. Connecting to the Chevron open space also resulted in the loss of federal and state wetlands. The revision avoids those impacts while maintaining adequate flood control. 2. Setbacks have been increased along Tank Farm Creek so that they are a minimum of 35 feet along at least 90 percent of the corridor, and no less than 20 feet, the minimum allowed by the City Zoning Ordinance and Conservation and Open Space Element. 3. The project was modified to provide for more contiguous open space, a longer and wider Reservation Area along the Buckley frontage, and an expanded Safety Zone S-1B area to accommodate extension of Runway 7-25, and the elimination of all residential uses from the expanded S-1B Safety Zone. The project received its final Conformity Finding from the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Commission on December 21, 2016. 4. More specific designs were prepared for the parks and recreation areas of the project and the number and size of the parks was increased. The project has received approval for the design of the public parks and open space in Phases 1-3 and has received conceptual approval for the public parks and open spaces in development phases 4-6. The location and sizes of the parks have been adjusted in accordance with those approvals. The plan now reflects the park facilities approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. 5. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. These changes include narrower vehicle lanes and wider bike lanes on internal streets. Vehicle lanes have been narrowed to 10 feet while bicycle lanes have been widened to a full 8-foot buffered bike lane standard. These buffered bike lanes occur on all internal major streets, including Earthwood, Venture, Jespersen and Horizon. Special at-grade “speed table” pedestrian street crossings have also been included. These provide for traffic calming and a continuous walking experience. Finally, pedestrian through-connections have been specified along and between residential blocks. This results in a pedestrian intersection density of over 500 intersections per square mile, well in excess of the standard established by LEED and the Smart Growth Coalition. The net result of these project features, which evolved through the CEQA and planning review process, includes the following: 1. Increase in open space area. 2. Reduction in wetland impacts by 0.7 acres. 3. Improvement of storm water management and effectiveness of LID measures. 4. Increase in building energy efficiency. 5. Reduction in projected vehicle miles. 6. Reduction in projected water usage consistent with SB 606 (Hertzberg) and AB 1668 (Friedman). Page 151 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 4 7. Increase in the number of units that are affordable to workforce income groups (160 percent of local median family income and below). 8. Finding of conformity with the County Airport Land Use Plan by the ALUC. 9. Increase in the amount of park space from 16 acres to 18 acres onsite, to 10.9 acres per thousand, ten percent about the standard for Expansion Area specific plans, and four times the current citywide average. 10. Approval of the parks plan by the City Parks and Recreation Commission. 11. A reduction in air quality impacts. Building related Greenhouse Gas Emissions will be reduced by 50 to 75 percent, and ROG/NOx gas reduction are estimated to be reduced by 35 percent to 50 percent. Table 1 on the following page summarizes key project statistics as approved by the City Council in September 2017. Several features are included in the project as a result of the environmental review process and the public participation process. The conformance of the project with the mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report is reported in two ways: 1) Appendix I contains a tabular list of the EIR mitigations and an indication of where those mitigations have been included in the Development Plan; and 2) the mitigation measures are included in the text with the mitigation measure in parentheses at the appropriate location (e.g., (MM Trans-2)). Page 152 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 5 Table 1 Avila Ranch Development Plan Statistics Item/Issue Project Feature Tank Farm Creek North-South Creek Segment Not realigned but widened to accommodate flood flows East-West Channel Channel retained Creek/Riparian Buffer Setback 35-feet, with 20-foot minimum along no more than 700 linear feet Tank Farm Creek Class I Bicycle Path Minimum of 35-foot setback from top of creek bank/ riparian canopy with 20-foot minimum along no more than 700 lineal feet Retaining/flood walls at toe of slope along creek corridor At setback along east side of the creek Residential Uses Residential: Acreage 55.3 acres Residential: Units 720 units * Mix of Units 101 R-1 units 297 R-2 units 197 R-3 units 125 R-4 units ALUP Safety Areas Units within ALUP Safety Areas No residential units within S-1B and S-1C Safety Areas ** Neighborhood Commercial Uses Acreage 1.86 acres Maximum Square Footage 15,000 sf Potential Uses Local uses Open Space & Parks Open Space: Acreage 51.96 acres Parks: Acreage 19.08 acres Parks: Number 1 Neighborhood Park 1 Pocket Park 8 mini-parks * Exclusive of four (4) additional affordable units in the commercial areas. ** Safety zone designations were modified in the ALUP update of May 2021; intent remains similar. Page 153 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 6 Development Plan Format and Content The Avila Ranch Development Plan contains an environmental setting section, a brief project description, background information, Land Use, Design, Circulation and Infrastructure regulations and strategies. The 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Update (LUCE) prescribes the format and content of regulatory elements of Specific Plans for Special Focus Areas in LUCE Policies 8.1.1 and 8.1.2, as well as the development objectives for the site in LU Policy 8.1.6. The Avila Ranch Development Plan provides the program for development of the site in conformance with the General Plan’s objectives, policies and standards. The actual enabling framework for implementation of this development program is contained in the Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment policy document associated with the Avila Ranch project. The Avila Ranch Development Plan has been patterned after the Land Use Element’s requirements for a Specific Plan, which typically contains a Land Use Framework that includes the planned land use pattern, actual development densities in each subarea on the project site and development phasing. Also incorporated into the Land Use Framework is a classification system that clearly identifies uses allowed in each subarea, and “performance standards” for each site and subarea. Another key element of the Land Use Framework are general site planning and development standards that specify the requirements for all development and land uses regardless of the applicable land-use designation, including sensitive resources, site access requirements, energy efficiency, fences, walls, hedges, buffers, and other screening, noise regulations, outdoor lighting standards, related performance standards (e.g., air quality, glare, vibration, etc.) and undergrounding of utilities. The Land Use Framework also includes the planned housing mix within the area that is in keeping with the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element’s (LUCE’s) focus on housing for this site. The Avila Ranch Development Plan also includes a Design Framework that provides detailed design guidelines to be used as the Development Plan is implemented. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish the expected level of design quality within the area while still maintaining project flexibility and innovation. The objective of this framework is not to dictate a specific design but to establish design expectations that can be implemented as various project components are planned for implementation. The Design Framework is intended to provide guidance on the integration of the site- specific features such as building architecture, with area-wide elements such as streetscape, recreation and open spaces, resources and architecture into the overall project design. The Design Framework also has standards that define the overall character of the streetscape. The design standards and guidelines contained herein are specific to Avila Ranch and work in conjunction with other City adopted goals, policies, standards, and guidelines. As individual projects are brought forward for implementation, they will be reviewed by the City staff, Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and Planning Commission (PC), in accordance with City regulations. Page 154 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 7 The Circulation Framework of the Development Plan includes the planned circulation system elements, design standards, and circulation system phasing. This Framework also addresses parking and loading standards, if different than standard City requirements, transit needs, and non-vehicular modes of circulation such as pedestrians and bicycles. Finally, the Development Plan includes an Infrastructure/Public Facilities Framework that covers those requirements (water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, and communications) as well as parkland, schools and other public facilities. For infrastructure, the framework addresses the planned trunk infrastructure system improvements and system phasing necessary to support implementation of the land-use plan and financing mechanisms to implement planned facilities. The General Plan sets out special planning and development objectives for the Avila Ranch site to be addressed in the Avila Ranch subarea of the AASP. This Development Plan includes features responsive to these requirements. Various General Plan objectives are intended to ensure that the site is developed primarily as a residential neighborhood with supporting commercial, and recreation facilities, and provisions for onsite and offsite open space/resource protection. Land Use Element Policy 8.1.6 indicates the Development Plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues: a. Provision of a variety of housing types and affordability levels. b. Modification of the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude this area or designate it as a special planning area within the Airport Area Specific Plan. c. Provision of buffers along Buckley Road and along the eastern edge of the property from adjacent agricultural uses. d. Provision of open space buffers along northern and western boundaries to separate this development from adjacent service and manufacturing uses. e. Provision of open space buffers and protections for Tank Farm Creek to enhance the wildlife corridor that runs through the property. f. Conformance to safety and noise parameters described in this General Plan and the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, or other applicable regulations such as the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. g. Participation in enhancement to Buckley Road and enhancement of the connection of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. h. Appropriate internal and external pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to the City’s circulation network. i. Implementation of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan including connections to the Bob Jones Trail. Page 155 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 8 j. Provision of water and wastewater infrastructure needs as detailed in the City’s Water and Wastewater Master Plans. This may include funding and/or construction of a wastewater lift station. k. Fire protection and impacts to emergency response times. l. Architectural design that relates to the pastoral character of the area and preserves view of agrarian landscapes. m. Provision of a neighborhood park. There are several supporting documents associated with the Avila Ranch Development Plan including the following: 1. Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment (AASP). This document includes the necessary policy, text and graphics modifications to the AASP to accommodate the implementation of the Avila Ranch Development Plan. This document includes goals, policies, objectives, standards, and guidelines for conservation and open space, design, circulation, infrastructure, and financing associated with implementation of the Avila Ranch project, as well as development policies associated with the continuing development of the overall 1,500-acre Airport Specific Plan Area. The AASP has been amended to provide for the development program contained in the Avila Ranch Development Plan. 2. General Plan Conformity Analysis. This document evaluates the conformity of the Avila Ranch Development Plan with the various applicable polices and regulations in the adopted elements of the San Luis Obispo General Plan. The Conformity Analysis contains a detailed response to each applicable General Plan Policy, and demonstrates how the project can be found to be in substantial compliance with those policies. 3. Storm Water Control Plan. This document is included in the submittal for the Avila Ranch Vesting Tentative Map and demonstrates compliance of the Development Plan with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (“Water Board”) Low Impact Development (LID) regulations. 4. Drainage Report. A drainage report was submitted with the Vesting Tentative Map that analyzed the hydrology for the project site, including pre-development runoff and flooding, post-development runoff and flooding, and compliance with various City, State and Federal drainage regulations. 5. Water Supply Assessment. An SB610 Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the project to demonstrate the adequacy of water supplies for the project. 6. Airport Land Use Plan Conformity Analysis. This analysis included a quantitative analysis of conformance with the density limitations in the Airport Land Use Plan, and a policy conformity analysis. This document was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission in May 2015, and again in September 2016 after project modifications were made to develop Page 156 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 9 the Mitigated Project. The project was finally reviewed on December 21, 2016 when it was found to be consistent with the ALUP by the ALUC. 7. Environmental Technical Studies. Various environmental technical studies (in addition to those above) have been prepared that have informed the creation of the Development Plan. These documents include: a. Traffic Impact Analysis and Report b. Biological Reconnaissance Study c. Wetlands Study and Delineation d. Cultural Resources Evaluation and Inventory e. Noise Impact Evaluation f. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments g. Soils Report and Infiltration Report Page 157 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 10 Project Overview Introduction and Project Features The Avila Ranch site is composed of approximately 150 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, and is comprised of three separate parcels: APN: 053-259-006, APN: 053-259-04 and APN: 053-259-005 (See Figures 1 through 3). The site slopes from the northeast to southwest, although there are localized undulations. It is diagonally bisected by a drainage that is colloquially referred to as “Tank Farm Creek” which conveys on- and off- site storm drainage indirectly to San Luis Creek and comprises approximately 14 acres of the 150-acre site. The site was annexed to the City in 2008 after the adoption of the original Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). At that time, it was given a holding land use designation of Business Park, the same designation the County of San Luis Obispo applied to it in 2000, prior to its annexation to the City. The Business Park land use designation is in significant supply in the city and surrounding areas. The City’s Sphere of Influence is adjacent with the southern boundary of the site, which also includes properties to the east and west of the project. See Figure 3. As approved in September 2017, Avila Ranch would include approximately 720 dwelling units with a diverse range of housing needs, a centrally located “Town Center” with 15,000 square feet of local-serving retail and office uses, 16 acres of pocket parks, mini-parks and neighborhood parks, and 53 acres of riparian open and farmed agricultural land. There will be riparian recreation, open space, community gardens and bike connections to the Chevron and Octagon Barn bike facilities, among other amenities. Figure 1 Project Location Avila Ranch Buckley Road Page 158 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 11 Figure 2 Vicinity Page 159 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 12 Figure 3 Vicinity and Site Page 160 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 13 Sustainable Energy Features The Avila Ranch project will be a model for sustainable development practices. It is intended to be compliant with the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (“LEED- ND”), and City of San Luis Obispo’s Cal Green checklist. Just a few of the features include: 1. Compliance with SLO Green Build passive solar guidelines for building orientation, south glazing and thermal mass. 2. Pervious alternatives to hardscape. 3. Compliance with GreenPoint rated- single family, GreenPoint-multifamily and CalGreen checklists. 4. High-efficiency Energy Star fixtures, appliances, and features. 5. Consistent with the requirements of Section 7.07 of the Development Agreement, single family detached residential buildings that are at least 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2016 California Energy Efficiency (“Title 24”) standards, and multifamily residential and non-residential structures that are at least 10 percent more energy efficient than the 2016 Title 24 standards. 6. Alternative energy systems (photovoltaic solar) included on residential and non-residential units in the project. The current City guideline (GP Conservation Policy 4.6.17) is for at least 30 percent of the single-family units to be supplied with basic photovoltaic (PV) systems. The project will exceed that by requiring that the project include rooftop or solar canopy PV systems that provide energy saving improvements consistent with General Plan policy. 7. Shared Mobility strategies are included to reduce the necessity for additional vehicles for each family. Car sharing would be provided in the development at an initial rate of one car per 50 residences (with adjustments to increase or decrease vehicles based on actual demand and usage), with at least 50 percent of that fleet in the form of electric vehicles. Vehicles would be stored onsite, on street, in guest parking spaces, near public parks and on public streets, as permitted. There would also be a bike sharing program, or provision of bicycles for each household or tenant. 8. Building design standards intended to comply with the Clean Energy Choice Program. To meet the 2019 building code changes, there are design requirements for the usage of Advanced Framing and more energy efficient wall, floor and ceiling assemblies, Quality Insulation Installations, and Compact Demand Hot Water and plumbing. Advanced Framing/Engineering involves wider stud placement to decrease transmission loss and reduction in required framing lumber. Quality Insulation Installation (QII) will minimize Page 161 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 14 heating and cooling losses, compact plumbing to minimize plumbing runs and distance between hot water taps and water heaters, and usage of EPA WaterSense fixtures to reduce indoor water usage. These standards were reviewed by the California Energy Commission’s “Reach Code” process and adopted by the City Council and are promulgated as amendments to the CA Energy Code. 9. Compliance with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s optional mitigation measures, including those set forth in Table 3.3-9 of the EIR. These include such features as Walkable Streets and dense bike path, transit improvements, traffic calming, dense pattern of pedestrian and bike circulation improvements, water conservation strategies, EV charging stations in common areas, and car sharing. 10. Compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan. 11. Project features and measures to reduce average daily potable water usage consistent with the requirements of Section 7.08 of the Development Agreement. Sustainable Open Space and Agriculture The project will include improvements to the existing riparian corridors for habitat enhancements, drainage controls, and pedestrian and bicycle paths. Onsite open space will total over 53 acres in accordance with LUCE Policy 8.1.6, including 36 acres for sustainable agriculture, and 17 acres for riparian open space. The sustainable agriculture will be dedicated to the production of local produce through practices that are environmentally responsible and compatible with the surrounding environment. Progressive storm-water treatment and management improvements will also be used to further the community’s Low Impact Development goals through bio-retention swales, runoff treatment and filtration, permeable paving and pavement systems, water retention gardens and other integrated treatment detention/retention systems. These facilities will also have the added benefit of providing open-space and aesthetic value. These improvements will also solve storm-water issues associated with upstream and adjacent properties. Page 162 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 15 A Complete “Linked” Community The surrounding neighborhood provides a wealth of services, facilities and resources. Day care, drug stores, restaurants, schools, an upscale convenience store, a bank, several places of worship, a fitness center, medical and/or dental services, personal-care services, and a full-service supermarket are currently located within biking or walking distance of the Avila Ranch. In addition, there are currently over 2,500 jobs within a half mile distance of walking or biking. An integrated web of pedestrian and bicycle pathways will be developed along the public street system, dedicated pedestrian pathways, and riparian bike paths. To augment these existing services and facilities, the community will offer a 9.5-acre neighborhood park, eight (8) mini-parks within one- eighth mile of residential units, a pocket park, the Tank Farm Creek Riparian Corridor and a “Town Center” with a community center, convenience goods and services. The Town Center will function as more than just a commercial destination. It will have plaza areas for public gatherings, parking to be shared with the adjacent neighborhood park and the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor, and areas for a trailhead that is connected by local, community and regional roadways, bike trails, pedestrian linkages and transit. More than just an area for daily shopping and convenience goods, the Town Center will serve as a community gathering place, a transit hub, and a location for occasional community events and gatherings. A fully improved transit/trolley/school bus/van pool stop will also be included as part of the community’s Town Center. A Diverse Range of Housing Opportunities The project will reflect a wide range of housing across the economic and socio-economic spectrum. It will also be characterized by styles that have the detailing and architectural authenticity for which San Luis Obispo has become known, with a wide enough range in styles to create neighborhood identities and avoid monotony and repetition. There will be areas for traditional single-family units of varying designs, smaller lot R-2 single family detached units, attached single family cluster units and medium- and high-density multifamily units. Page 163 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 16 In particular, the project will provide housing that will appeal to the community’s “workforce” housing needs with unit sizes, pricing and amenities for small families, professionals, retirees, “empty nesters” and larger families. Based on the approved Development Agreement, the project will provide a substantial number of housing units that are both deed restricted and market rate affordable to families with moderate and “workforce” incomes with some units affordable to lower income households. The project includes new, smaller unit sizes (“Pocket Cottages of 1,000 SF to 1,200 SF) in the R-2 area to widen the socio-economic base of that area and to offer a lower market rate price point. Within the R-2 area all unit sizes range from approximately 1,000 SF to 2,100 SF. Conversely, the R-3 area now includes townhomes and some larger “duplex” units to introduce larger units for larger families or for “move up” R-3 units, and the unit size range in the R-3 area now includes units ranging in size from 700 square foot units to 1,750 square foot units. The R-4 multifamily units will offer smaller studios ranging in size from 550 square foot rental units to 1,150 square foot units for larger families. The project’s architectural styles will be respectful of local traditions and culture, while meeting present-day lifestyle needs. Anticipated architectural styles are expected to include highly detailed Agrarian/Ranch, Bungalow, Mission, Craftsman Bungalows, and Contemporary/Mid- Century Modern. Neighborhoods will be organized around the project’s open-space features with a neighborhood park, pocket park or open-space amenity within walking distance. Public buildings, park structures and structures in civic meeting places will use an agricultural theme, such as modern or contemporary barn architecture. Major City Development Objectives The project site has been identified in the adopted General Plan as one of the principal potential growth sites in the community over the next 10-20 years. In addition to the General Plan objectives noted above, and the conformance with General Plan policies noted in the General Plan Conformity Analysis, it will promote several community objectives that are furthered or achieved by the project, as follows: 1. Completion of the Buckley Road Extension. The City and County development plans consider the extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street as an essential element of the community’s circulation network. The extension of Buckley Road from Vachell Lane to South Higuera is one of the key features of the project. The SLOCOG RTP/Sustainable Communities Plan considers this improvement a high priority. This will have significant community and region-wide benefits, as it will provide for direct vehicle connections between SR 227 and SR 101, and route regional traffic around the edges of the community rather than through impacted intersections. This connection will also provide a direct connection between the City’s bikeway system east of Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street, thereby connecting the City’s bicycle network to the Octagon Barn trailhead for the Bob Jones Trail. Page 164 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 17 2. Completion of Missing Bikeway Links. There are currently bicycle facilities at Santa Fe and Tank Farm Road, and portions of the Bob Jones City to Sea Trail at Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101, and at Ontario and Highway 101. The County of San Luis Obispo is currently processing an extension of the Bob Jones Trail to connect it to the Octagon Barn to serve as a trailhead and hub. The extension of Buckley Road, the onsite riparian bikeway along Tank Farm Creek and the bikeway improvements along the Buckley will complete this trail network. All in all, the project will result in the addition of almost three miles of bicycle paths and lanes, pedestrian trails, and completion of critical missing important links in the overall bicycle network, critical transportation priority in the community. 3. Correction of Hydrology and Flooding. Over the years, the Tank Farm Creek corridor has been neglected and suffers from overgrown, choked channels. This corridor will be rehabilitated and adjacent green spaces developed which will include Class I bike paths, pocket parks and pedestrian/bikeway overpasses. There are also drainage concerns along Suburban Road, Vachell Road and Buckley Road, many resulting from incremental, site- specific drainage problems over the years. There are also drainage concerns associated with the former “Dioptics” building/site at Venture and Vachell Lane that will be addressed. 4. Oversizing of Infrastructure. The City plans to serve all areas within the AASP with sewer and water services, once they are annexed to the City. The project will extend and route domestic water, recycled water and sewer service through the project site and make it available for extension to the east. Sewer and water mains will also be installed, to the extent feasible, along Suburban Road to serve the properties along Suburban that were annexed to the City in 2008, but developed in the County. 5. Climate Action Plan. The City has a renewed emphasis on the Climate Action Plan and air quality issues. Many of the new features are designed to address those priorities. Environmental Setting and Background Information The environmental impacts of development on the property were evaluated in the Airport Area Specific Plan EIR, certified by the City Council in August 2005. Recently, the AASP was amended to address changes in the Chevron site and the LUCE was amended. In addition, there have been several site-specific technical studies that have informed the development of the project. A summary of those issues and findings, as they pertain to the project site, are summarized below. Flooding and Hydrology As noted, a portion of the project is in the FEMA 100-year flood plain. According to City documents, any project components within a 100-year flood plain would be subject to a “no net fill” requirement, and building pads would have to be elevated at least one foot above base flood elevation. Figure 4 shows the pre-development 100-year flood plain. Figure 5 shows the predevelopment flood areas. Page 165 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 18 A system of approximately twenty-two (22) sub basins is planned to provide the required LID retention, detention and storm water treatment. These basins provide localized detention, retention and storm-water filtration/quality enhancement to the various neighborhoods and have a collective capacity necessary to provide detention adequate to accommodate a 50-year event, and retention necessary to accommodate a 25-year event. In order to accommodate offsite storm drainage an engineered swale will be provided along the north property line. This feature will convey existing offsite flows to Tank Farm Creek. Figure 5 shows the post development flood prone areas. As part of this project, the north-south portion of Tank Farm Creek will be widened to accommodate and channel offsite flood flows that come from the Suburban Road area and runoff from South Hills through Tank Farm Creek. Page 166 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 19 Figure 4 Predevelopment Flood Areas Figure 5 Post Development Flood Areas Biological Resources The AASP EIR and the LUCE EIR identified a number of species of concern on or near the project site. Biological resources surveys and wetland delineations were prepared by Althouse and Meade between 2012 and 2016. The initial biological findings show the project can improve the biological conditions, protect the corridor, enhance the connectivity for wildlife, and upgrade the biological value of the Tank Farm Creek area. The site development plan includes replacement and improvement at mitigation ratios acceptable to state and federal regulatory agencies. The project includes riparian setbacks and wildlife corridors along Tank Farm Creek that are significantly above City minimums. Soils and Geology There are no expected impacts related to soils and geology. A review of the SCS Soil Survey map for San Luis Obispo, indicates four classifications of soil are primarily found in the area. Soils and geology surveys were conducted on the site, and for the Buckley Road extension. Soils in the vicinity of the Buckley Road extension may have some serpentine soils and the potential for naturally occurring asbestos; however, the studies along the planned alignment yielded limited exposure and routine mitigations specified by the State and APCD are included in the project. Soils on the project site are classified as Concepcion loam, Cropley clay, Marimel sandy clay, and Salinas clay. All are fanned from alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks and have slopes ranging from Page 167 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 20 zero to nine percent. These soils are found on terraces, alluvial fans, flood basins and in small basins. Characteristics of these soils are as follows: Concepcion loam. 2 to 5 percent slopes. The Concepcion loam constitutes about half of the site, generally easterly of the Tank Farm Creek alignment. It is a very deep, moderately well drained, gently sloping soil fanned on marine terraces. It is derived from old alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks. The Concepcion soil permeability is very slow and the surface run off is slow. In a representative profile, the surface layer is a very dark gray loam. Below this dark gray layer is a light brownish gray sandy loam. The national hydric soils list does not identify the Conception series as a hydric soil. This soil type is considered a non-prime farmland soil with a land capability rating of 3, and has a California Revised Storie Index rating of “Poor.” It is a farmland of local importance. Cropley clay 2 to 9 percent slopes. This soil type represents about one-fourth of the site and includes the area generally east of the former Dioptics/current Trust Automation building at 125 Venture Drive, and north of Tank Farm Creek. This soil was formed from alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks and have slopes ranging from zero to two percent. These soils are found on terraces, alluvial fans, flood basins and in small basins. Cropley clay soils are moderately well drained and have slow permeability. In a representative profile the surface layer is a very dark gray silty clay to about 36 inches. Below this dark gray layer is a yellowish brown silty clay loam. The soil type is considered a non-prime farmland soil with a land capability rating of 2 when irrigated, and 3 when not. It has a California Revised Storie Index rating of “Fair”. It is considered farmland of local importance. Marimel sandy clay loam. Occasionally flooded. The Marimel sandy clay soils group comprises most of the rest of the project site and is in the southwest corner of the project site. This soil is very deep, somewhat poorly drained, nearly level, on alluvial fans, floodplains, and narrow valleys. It is formed in alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks. and exhibit moderately slow permeability and slow surface runoff. In a representative profile, the surface layer is a grayish brown sandy clay loam. Below this layer is a mixed grey and pale olive silty clay loam. The soil type is considered a non-prime farmland soil with a land capability rating of 3. It has a California Revised Storie Index rating of “Fair. It is classified as farmland of local importance. Salinas Silty Clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes The Salinas Silty Clay soils on the site cover approximately 10 acres and generally run parallel to Buckley Road up to Tank Farm Creek, outside the Urban Reserve Line and in the designated agricultural buffer. They are very deep, well drained, nearly level on alluvial fans, floodplains and narrow valleys. The soil is formed in alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks and exhibit moderate to rapid Page 168 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 21 permeability. This soil type is considered Class 1 “prime” soils when irrigated; however, they are considered Class 3 non-prime soils if dry farmed, as is the current practice. Soil permeability on the site generally follows the soil type capabilities, with areas to the southwest slower and somewhat more compacted below the depth of cultivation according to soil permeability tests performed on the site. The Concepcion group has pockets that are highly permeable and suitable for onsite drainage and water management. According to the percolation analysis, approximately two thirds of the Concepcion portion of the site has soil permeability that is classified as moderate to rapid. Hazardous Materials/Assessment A Phase I and Phase II Preliminary Site Assessment (PSA) were conducted for the project by Grisanti and Associates of Los Osos in 2012. The Phase I assessment revealed a well-known occurrence of inundation of the site during the 1926 Unocal Tank Farm fire. Although limited testing completed for the Phase I report did not reveal any remnant on-site contaminants from that event, a Phase II study was considered prudent to conclusively eliminate the possibility of remnant hydrocarbons from that event, and for pesticides. The Phase II assessment concluded that “…the Laboratory Reports of Analysis showed no detectable concentration of any pesticides, herbicides or hydrocarbons. Based on the previous submitted Avila Ranch Property Preliminary Assessment and the Phase II evaluation of the property, the tests exceeded reasonable due diligence requirements of the PSA evaluation of this property and further assessment activities are not warranted.” Noise No noise issues were identified in the AASP EIR. There are, however, potential concerns associated with uses on the south side of Suburban Road adjacent to the project, and future traffic on Buckley Road. As part of the project, buffer areas are to be provided along the north and northwest property lines. Agricultural buffers provide setbacks to Buckley Road, the main noise-generating road facility. The Airport Land Use Plan’s noise contours do not conflict with the planned land uses. The Final EIR for the Airport Master Plan demonstrates noise levels on the project site do not exceed City standards. A review of the ALUP noise contours, as part of the Airport Land Use Commission review of the pre-application for the Development Plan, confirmed that these contours do not materially affect the project. A noise monitoring study was prepared by David Lord and demonstrated that there were no significant aircraft peak or average daily noise concerns associated with development of the project. He also concluded there are no stationary source noise concerns but future noise from Buckley Road traffic may exceed city standards. In order to address potential overflight as a nuisance concern, the project will include noise mitigation measures to limit aircraft-related interior 24-hour, 10-second interval peak noise level (“Lmax”) to 45 decibels, as described in amended AASP Policy 4.5.3, in order to reduce potential complaints from residents. There are also special measures associated with the R-4 units located adjacent to the Suburban Road industrial uses, as well as R-1 and R-2 units that may be within 300 feet of Buckley Road (MM NO-3a). Page 169 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 22 Air Quality Construction related impacts are to be mitigated through measures identified in the EIR. Long- term air-quality impacts were found to be mitigable, and consistent with the local Climate Action Plan. According to the EIR, the project has a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric that is lower than the SLOCOG standard and the Citywide average. Additional features to further reduce VMT and air quality impacts are described in Table 3.3-9 in the EIR. The project also introduces a number of features such as car sharing, bike sharing and enhanced transit, extensive bike and pedestrian connections and improvements, school bus service, and other features. The project will also establish standards for compliance with applicable City energy requirements, including Section 7.07 of the Development Agreement for this project. To comply with City requirements, there are design requirements to increase the energy efficiency of single family residential units (R-1 and R-2) and for non-residential and multifamily residential units (NC, R-3 and R-4).. These improvements will include the use of Advanced Framing and more energy efficient wall, floor and ceiling assemblies, quality Insulation installations, and compact on- demand hot water and plumbing. Standards are also set for the use of Solar PV for each building type, for adequate roof area for the solar arrays, and for the placement of solar canopies in common parking lots of multifamily and non-residential areas. Cultural Resources Implementation of the project would entail ground disturbance associated with infrastructure development and construction of new structures, access roads and underground utilities could have an impact on known or unknown cultural resources. A survey of the site was conducted in 2000 by Gibson’s Archeological Consulting, followed by a Phase 1 and a Phase 2 analysis in 2015 and 2016 by Applied Earthworks. The archaeological surface survey consisted of one archaeologist zig-zagging back and forth examining the surface, rodent burrows, farm roads and other cleared areas around the fields for any signs of prehistoric cultural materials (including seashell fragments, stone tools and fragments, stone flakes, bone, burnt rock, etc.) or significant historic cultural materials. An archival records search was conducted which included the Central Coast Archaeological Information Center located at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Based on the most recent survey, grading mitigations and limitations are recommended for the project site. (MM CR-3a). Agricultural Resources and Preservation Agricultural production is limited by the availability of irrigation water on the site and the productivity of the soils. As noted above, and with the exception of the 10 acres of the site in Salinas silty clay loam along the Buckley Road frontage, the Storie Rating for the soils on the site ranges from “Fair” to “Poor.” Farming on the site has been ongoing for many years, with three crops grown on the site in most years, primarily dry grains such as barley and wheat, occasional safflower, and beans. Crops are normally dry farmed, or at least selectively irrigated, and crop yields are somewhat lower than the County average. Single crop barley revenue yields are approximately $150 per acre. Safflower yields approximately twice the revenue per acre when cultivated; however, this crop depends on irrigation at a rate of approximately 0.5-acre feet per acre, or higher-than-average precipitation. For purposes of Page 170 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 23 analysis, agricultural productivity from the site is approximately $25,000 to $35,000 per year for the 140 acres that acre capable of being cultivated. Agricultural productivity on the site is significantly below the County average of $500 per acre for field crops, and the $10,000 per acre revenue rate for fruit and nut crops, as reported by the San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture. The AASP EIR and the LUCE EIR addressed the loss of ag land due to the annexation and development of the area. That loss was identified as a significant and irreversible adverse impact that could not be mitigated. Policies contained in the existing LUCE and Airport Area Specific Plan require direct dedication of open space areas, or payment of an in-lieu fee, for newly developed and annexed land. The EIR requires, as a condition of annexation and/or development within the Airport and Margarita Areas, that developers be required to dedicate open space land or pay in-lieu fees to secure open-- space easements on agricultural land outside the URL at a ratio or no less than 1:1. The project will convert 96 acres from agricultural to non-agricultural use within the designated URL. There are 35 acres± of agricultural area set aside within the project boundaries. An additional 71 acres of off-site agricultural conservation area will be identified at least equal to or better agricultural production capability or, alternatively, via establishment of an in-lieu fee. In addition, the frontage along Buckley Road will be planted with more productive crops like those of adjoining properties which will result in the agricultural production on the site equally or exceeding the present valuations. Appendix H shows the phasing of the agricultural conservation easements to comply with MM AG-1 of the Avila Ranch EIR. Airport Safety A significant amount of technical work has been completed by the City to document the appropriate area for special safety regulations to ensure long-term viability of the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport (SBP). This included a study by a professional aviation land-use planning consultant under contract with the City. As part of the process of developing the Avila Ranch Development Plan, the Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the project’s compatibility analysis and initial concepts to achieve compliance and found the plan reflects safety, noise, overflight, airspace protection and other issues identified in the ALUP. A pre-application was submitted to the ALUC in April of 2015 which found that the Development Plan could be found to be consistent with the ALUP if presented in substantially the same format. Follow-up presentations were made to the ALUC in June and September of 2016, and a formal application was submitted in November 2016. The pre-application and application studies concluded that the project was consistent with the ALUP, and in December 2016 the ALUC found that the Avila Ranch project was in conformance with the Airport Land Use Plan. Page 171 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 24 Land Use Plan and Framework Land Use The Project includes a land use plan which designates approximately 55.3 acres of residential land uses, 71.3 acres of open space and parks, and 1.9 acres of neighborhood commercial development (see Table 1 and Figure 6). This would allow for the development of approximately 720 residential units and 15,000 square feet (sf) of commercial buildings. Low, medium, medium-high, and high density residential developments would be constructed along planned collector and residential roadways. One neighborhood park, eight mini-parks, and a pocket park would be established as part of the 18+ acres of park space planned for the Project site. The Land Plan for the project is shown in Figure 6. Low Density Residential (R-1) designation for the Avila Ranch area is for new single-family residential development. It is expected that there will be 100-110 Low Density Residential dwelling units on 13 acres including a range of lot sizes from 5,000 SF to 10,000 SF units with a mixture of front garages and alley loaded garages. Maximum density would be up to eight units per net acre. Potential unit sizes will range from 1,650 square feet to 2,500 square feet. Sheet A7 in Appendix A shows the planned layout of the R-1 neighborhood. The Medium Density Residential (R-2) designation in the Avila Ranch area will be primarily 4- pack, 6-pack and cluster units on single-family detached lots. Total R-2 development in the Avila Ranch area is projected to be approximately 300 dwelling units on 27 acres, with maximum potential development of 12 units per net acre. The R-2 units may be in several different configurations, and development shall comply with the design standards in the Avila Ranch Development Plan. A Small Cluster “Pocket Cottage” concept has been included to address the need for relatively smaller unit sizes on smaller lots; these units are illustrated in Sheets A-4 through A-6, and A-17 in Appendix A and range in size from 1,000 square feet to 1,250 square feet and include more limited parking. The R-2 lots will be oriented to provide small-lot “work force” housing with some of the housing sizes and corresponding initial sales prices aimed at those families with incomes equal to 120 percent to 160 percent of City Median Family income. , Unit sizes in the R-2 area will range from approximately 1,000 square feet to 2,400 square feet. Sheets A-4 through A6 in Appendix A show the planned layout of the R-2 neighborhoods. Medium High Density Residential (R-3) the Medium-High Density Residential land use designation is for a combination of stacked flats apartments, townhomes and condominiums arranged around a central amenity or open space. The R-3 portion of the Avila Ranch project is expected to yield approximately 200 dwelling units on eleven acres, but may include up to 20 density units per acre in accordance with Chapters 17.16.010 and 17.28 of the City’s Zoning regulations. The planned development types for the R-3 zone will include townhomes and duplexes organized around central park area. Unit sizes will range from approximately 700-square foot for-sale and for-rent studios in the townhome portion to approximately 1,750 square foot duplexes. Sheet A-9 in Appendix A shows the planned layout of the R-3 townhomes and duplexes. Page 172 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 25 Figure 6 Avila Ranch Land Use Plan Page 173 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 26 High Density Residential (R-4) residential land uses will include stacked flat apartments, arranged around, or associated with a central amenity or open space. The Avila Ranch R-4 land use area is in the northwest corner of the project, adjacent to existing and future Business Park and Service Commercial developments. While dwelling units in the R-4 land use area are not considered to be subject to excessive stationary noise impacts (based on the noise study prepared for the project), the sleeping and living portions of the dwelling units are to be oriented away from the eastern and northern project boundaries and carports, garages, and drives are to be located along these boundaries to act as buffers to adjacent non-residential land uses. The R-4 portion of the Avila Ranch project is expected to yield between 120-130 dwelling units on the 4.05 acres, excluding the temporary 12,451± square foot fire station, and may include 24+ density units per the Development Agreement. Sheet A-6 shows the planned layout of the R-4 apartment area. The Conservation/Open Space designation is intended to preserve undeveloped or minimally developed land for preservation of natural resources, production agriculture and public safety. The LUCE provides that fifty percent of the site area shall be provided in open space, with up to one-third of that provided offsite. For this project site of 150 acres, there would be a minimum requirement of 50 acres of onsite open space. The total amount of planned onsite open space (not including recreational park areas) is 53 acres. The balance of the required open space will be provided offsite through open space or agricultural conservation easements, or through a fee as established in the AASP. The Avila Ranch Development Plan designates the following specific areas for open space: A. Planning area creeks: to protect and enhance habitat and recreational values; B. Agricultural buffer areas outside of the URL along the Buckley Road frontage and the easterly project boundary. Within the agricultural buffer area along Buckley Road and outside of the URL, furrows and planted rows should run parallel to the extended Runway 7-25 centerline, where feasible to enhance aircraft safety. C. The ACOS Reservation Space in conformance with the ALUP. D. The Tank Farm Creek corridor as a linear park, bikeway and passive recreation areas. Figure 7 shows the relationship of the elements of the project and the site’s open space features. Page 174 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 27 Figure 7 Land Plan and Tank Farm Creek Page 175 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 28 The Neighborhood Commercial area will serve as a focal point and activity center for the project, and will provide shared use parking for nearby open space and parks uses, bicycle parking and storage facilities, public plazas for gatherings and special events, and transit connections. Because of the nearby retail shopping center on South Higuera, this neighborhood center will focus on small-scale convenience items, and possibly provide some office space. Development will be for 15,000 SF or building area. Sheet A-7 and A-8 show a conceptual layout of the Town Center and Neighborhood Commercial area. Table 2 Land Plan Statistics Parks and Recreation “Expansion Areas”, as defined in the General Plan, are required to provide park and recreation facilities at a rate of 10 acres per 1,000 residents, four times the current citywide average. These facilities are to be provided in a mix of neighborhood parks, mini-parks, and pocket parks and community gardens, with at least half of the requirement (5 acres per thousand) in a neighborhood park. The neighborhood park is to be located within one-half to one mile of the serviced population. The projected residential population on the project site is 1,649 persons, which creates a park requirement of 16.5 acres. The neighborhood, mini-park and pocket park facilities on the project site will total 18 acres (not including pedestrian trails and passive open space). A 9.5-acre neighborhood park will serve the project. It is centrally located next to the Town Center so that most residents will be within one-half mile to it. This neighborhood park will be linked to surrounding neighborhoods, the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor and to the regional bikeway system by separated Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes, and special ped/bike bridges over Tank Farm Land Use Acres Percent of Total Acres Units Residential 55.30 36.9% 720 units R-1 Low Density (7 du/acre) 12.80 8.5% 101 R-2 Medium Density (12 du/acre) 27.30 18.2% 297 R-3 Medium-High Density (20 du/acre) 10.80 7.2% 197 R-4 High Density (24 du/acre) 4.40 2.9% 125 Affordable Housing Units Neighborhood Commercial 1.86 1.2% 15,000 sf Roadways 21.71 14.5% Open Space and Parks 71.04 47.4% Open Space 53.00 35.4% Parks 18.00 12.0% Total 149.91 100.0% Page 176 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 29 Creek. According to the concept plan approved by the Park and Recreation Commission (See Appendix B) the neighborhood park will include group BBQs, basketball courts, tot lots, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, pickleball courts, tennis courts, a dog park, a skate park, and a community meeting pavilion area. Eight mini-parks and a pocket park will also serve the neighborhoods. Each will be approximately one-half to 2.5 acres in size and provide facilities such as community gardens, tot lots, passive play areas, BBQ and picnic areas, basketball courts, community gardens, dog park, and landscaping. These will serve residents within a two-block radius and fill the few “gaps” in the coverage for the neighborhood park facilities. The mini-parks will be phased with adjacent residential development to provide park facilities for future residents near their homes. Figure 8 shows the location of parks in the project. Residential Uses and Affordability There is an intentional mix of residential densities in the Avila Ranch project that includes a range of R-1 lot sizes, R-2 “four-packs”, “six-packs” (pocket cottage), and “eight-packs” (cluster units), and R-3 and R-4 multifamily dwellings, with an emphasis on smaller lot, higher density units. R-2 units comprise over forty percent of the residential units, and medium density and above units will comprise over 85 percent of the units in the project. In contrast to other recent projects, the average unit size across the entire project is approximately 1,500 square feet, compared to an approximate 1,750 square foot average for recent developments in the Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas. These R-2 units can provide a substantial contribution towards the need for “workforce” housing and housing for moderate income families. The R-2 single family units are located where there are streetscape benefits (functionally and aesthetically) from few driveway cuts and orientation to open space. For example, houses will have front doors facing Venture Road, an important Residential Collector, but access points will be limited to intersecting public streets, or through rear or side common driveways. Page 177 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 30 Figure 8 Park Locations Page 178 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 31 An additional concept that has been included in the update are the “Pocket Cottage” units. These units are included to meet the needs of young professionals, empty nesters and young families. They are smaller in scale and have floor plans ranging from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet in 2BR/2B and 3BR/2B configurations. They have private patios and open space is provided through a shared front yard area. Single-family units in the project comprise about 15 percent of the residential uses in the development. Lot sizes for the R-1 single-family units are planned to range from a low of 4,000 SF to a high of 8,500 square feet. These units are intended to address the upper end of the workforce housing and other above- moderate housing needs. The R-1 units are in two configurations, one adjacent to the Town Center which will have alley-loaded units and common yard areas, and a traditional single-family portion with front-loaded lots. The project includes 197 R-3 multifamily units on 11 acres that range in size from approximately 700 square foot for-sale and for-rent units up to 1,750 square foot units. The multi-family units, which may include both duplex and townhome units, will offer many of the advantages of single-family detached homes, but with common open space. The R-3 portion of the project is organized around a central one-acre park that will oriented around an enhanced riparian corridor. A portion of the R-3 zone will include inclusionary housing units for low and moderate-income buyers pursuant to the City’s guidelines. Finally, the project will include a substantial number of apartment units that are near employment and shopping at Suburban and Higuera. The R-4 apartment portion of the project will be directly served by an on-street transit stop and will be within walking distance of nearby shopping. An approximately 1.2-acre portion of R-4 zone will be dedicated to an affordable housing provider to address the local need for lower income housing and to satisfy, in part, City affordable housing requirements. Unit sizes in the R-4 apartment portion will range from 550 to 1,150 square feet. The Avila Ranch project will encourage long term housing affordability by including design and development strategies that serve to provide lower cost housing. The cost of housing over time is most Page 179 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 32 closely related to the size of the dwelling unit, the size of the lot, and costs of maintenance. Within each of the residential zones there will be a broad range of dwelling unit sizes from approximately 550 square foot units in the R-4 area to 2,300 square foot single family detached units in the R-1 zone The average size of the units in the development is less than 1,500 square feet; by comparison, recent developments in the Margarita Area and the Orcutt Area have averages more than 1,750 square feet. Maintenance expenses, to the extent feasible, will also be included in a Community Facilities District to reduce the necessity for Homeowners Associations, and the higher costs associated with that maintenance and governance structure. Landscape maintenance and cost of water and utilities will also be reduced because of the drought tolerant landscaping, smaller lots and other features. The commitment to not cause an increase in community greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with the Development Agreement in the context of City energy use requirements will further reduce utility costs for Avila Ranch residents well below the level of typical new residential units in San Luis Obispo. Landscaping will also be designed to be low- maintenance and water efficient to reduce monthly water expense and landscape maintenance. Passive and active solar energy strategies will also be included to reduce monthly energy costs. Finally, the presence of onsite transit, car sharing and bike sharing programs will reduce the residents’ reliance on private automobiles and possibly the need for a household to have multiple vehicles. The project’s car sharing program will help reduce the project’s air quality impacts by reducing VMTs, but it will have a more direct and profound effect on the housing affordability issues by reducing the need to own multiple cars. A recent study found that car share program members drive nearly 50% less after joining, and that nearly 30% of them reduced their household vehicle ownership and two- thirds of the households avoided purchasing another car. This program could contribute hundreds of dollars per month to household budgets in avoided vehicle costs. Revitalizing Tank Farm Creek One of the key project components is the revitalization of Tank Farm Creek, which is used as the principal organizing element for the overall project design. Aesthetically and topographically, this site feature defines the neighborhoods, creates a unifying open-space element, provides the principal connecting feature through and to the project and provides the potential to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the project’s parks and open space. The north-south utilitarian drainage channel extension of Tank Farm Creek will be enhanced and widened to address offsite storm flows. Sheet A-23 and A-24 in Appendix A show the planned cross sections for Tank Farm Creek (see Sheets A-4 through A- 6 for a key map of the cross sections). (MM BIO-2a). Project Phasing Page 180 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 33 Figure 9 shows the planned phasing of the land uses. This phasing is generally determined by the required location of sewer and circulation facilities, existing road improvements, site topography, and market conditions. Phase descriptions are as follows: Phase 1 includes up to 179 R-2 units, completion of the sewer pump station and force main, extension of Venture Road along the phase frontage, extension of the potable and recycled water facilities, and extension of dry utilities to the phase, and extension of Earthwood to Suburban. This phase would also include the Class I Bike Path from the the corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, as described in the Circulation section, the extension of the Earthwood Collector (w/Class II bike lane) to Suburban, and a transit stop along the Earthwood Lane. This phase will be designed with two principal neighborhood clusters, with each having its own architectural and design identity, as described in the Design Framework. Circulation improvements associated with this phase will include turn lane improvements to the Suburban and Higuera intersection, pedestrian and bike lane improvements to Earthwood between Venture and Suburban, and pedestrian and bike lane improvements on Suburban between Earthwood and Higuera. This phase will include the development of approximately 2.9 acres of park land. Phase 2 will include the development of 29 R-2 units and the extension of the wet and dry utilities along the phase frontage. This phase will also include the extension of Buckley Road from Vachell to Higuera, including bike facilities. Concurrent with the opening of the Buckley Road Extension, left turns from and to Higuera and Vachell will be restricted. This phase would include the development of an approximately 1.3 acres of park land and the extension of the Class I bike path from Earthwood Lane to Venture Drive and a permanent or interim bike path or bike lane from Vachell Lane to the Octagon Barn parking lot, subject to right-of-way availability and any necessary regulatory approvals. Phase 3 includes 89 R-2 units, and 125 R-4 units, as well as the completion of in tracts improvements. This phase would also include the development of a 0.8-acre mini-park in that phase. The R-4 portion of the project would include the dedication of a one-acre site to an affordable housing provider for the development of 32 inclusionary housing units for lower income households, as well as 8 inclusionary units for moderate income households. Phase 4 would involve the development of significant additional transportation infrastructure, including completion of the Buckley Road frontage improvements. This phase would also include the construction of a vehicle bridge crossing for Venture Lane over Tank Farm Creek, construction of Horizon Lane north of Venture Lane to Suburban, and the construction of Jespersen Road south of Venture Lane to Buckley Road. Frontage improvements along Buckley would also be constructed from Phase 1 east to the eastern project boundary, and the internal loop system for the R-3 portion of the development would be installed. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be made along Suburban between Horizon and Earthwood. During Phase 4, a 0.9-acre mini-park would be installed in the R-3 area, and the 9.5-acre Neighborhood Park would be completed. Also, during this phase, the Tank Farm Creek Class I bike path would be completed to the Chevron open space. The residential portion of the development would include of 197 R-3 units, including 38 duplex units and 159 townhomes, 18 of which would be income restricted for low and moderate-income households. Page 181 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 34 Phase 5 includes 101 R-1 units. This also includes the development of an additional 2.6 acres of park area, and the portion of the open space/buffer area within the phase. Phase 6 includes the development of the Town Center neighborhood commercial sites and remaining project frontages. Page 182 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 35 Figure 9 Phasing Plan Page 183 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 36 Design Framework This section includes design standards and guidelines for the Avila Ranch project. They are intended to be specific to the Avila Ranch project, and are to work in conjunction with the adopted goals, policies, standards, and guidelines found in the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines (CDG), the City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code), and other related documents. They are intended to create a customized design character reflective of the overall vision for Avila Ranch while at the same time avoiding unnecessary replication of existing City development code documents. Owners, builders, architects, and designers should refer to these design guidelines, in addition to the AASP, CDG, and City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17), as a guide when considering the design or construction of property within Avila Ranch. Where specific design standards and guidelines are set forth within these guidelines and the AASP, they shall be used; where there are design requirements and regulations in the CDG and Zoning Ordinance that are not in this document or the AASP, the CDG and Zoning Ordinance provisions shall apply. Note that if in the future the City adopts citywide design standards more stringent than those included in the Development Plan, the more stringent standards would apply. As outlined within AASP Chapter 5.0 Community Design, Standards define actions or requirements that must be fulfilled by new development. Alternatively, Guidelines refer to methods or approaches that may be used to achieve a stated goal but to provide some flexibility and allow for interpretation depending upon specific conditions as to how they are satisfied. Collectively, the standards and guidelines incorporated herein are meant to guide implementation of the vision intended for the project. SITE PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION 1.0 Building Orientation and Setbacks Pedestrian interaction for Avila Ranch is encouraged through the thoughtful placement and orientation of residential and commercial structures. Porches will be incorporated on street-facing residential units to provide opportunities for everyday neighborhood interaction. Residential units fronting onto Residential Collector and Residential Arterial streets such as Venture Drive, Earthwood Lane, and Jespersen Road will have limited or no vehicle access points to preserve the residential streetscape without having the interruption of driveways and vehicle maneuvering. These features of the Residential Collector streets will enhance the safety and convenience of these streets as principal bikeways. Standards 1.1 Goals 5.1 and 5.2 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Building Orientation and Setbacks section. Page 184 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 37 Figure 10 R-1 Development Standards Page 185 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 38 Figure 11 R-2 Development Standards Page 186 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 39 Figure 12 R-3/R-4 Development Standards Page 187 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 40 1.2 Residential building setbacks shall conform to the development standards set forth in Figures 10 through 12 Residential setbacks may vary, but must be in proportion to the width of the street so that there is at least 75 percent of the units have one foot of building height for each 1.5 feet of distance from the street centerline to the façade of the dwelling unit. 1.3 Buildings located within the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center shall have street yard setbacks of zero feet. 1.4 Neighborhood Commercial buildings shall be sited to address adjacent streets with the main building facades oriented towards Jespersen Road, according to the proportions shown in Sheet A-8 and Appendix A. 1.5 Neighborhood Commercial buildings facing streets shall incorporate horizontal and vertical wall articulation through the use of wall plane offsets and other features which articulate walls such as recessed windows and entries, second floor setbacks, and awnings and canopies. There shall also be regular access points along the public street frontage, preferably every 25-50 feet or as the design allows. 1.6 Residential buildings along Venture Drive, Jespersen Road/Horizon Lane and Earthwood Lane shall be oriented to the residential street with front doors and porches fronting on the street. Dwellings along Jespersen Road/Horizon Lane and Venture Drive shall only have access from the side or rear and there shall be no direct individual driveway access to these roadways. Individual driveways are not permitted along Earthwood Lane, except for common driveways, intersecting public streets, and access points for common parking lots for multifamily units. 1.7 Residential buildings on lots adjacent to greenbelt areas, e.g. Tank Farm Creek, Open Space, neighborhood parks, and linear parks, shall be oriented with front doors and porches, or secondary patios and yards fronting on the greenbelt area. Such units shall have vehicular access from the side or rear and there shall be no direct individual driveway access to and from the open space. 1.8 Within R-3 and R-4 residential zones, parking shall be utilized as a buffer. Within the R-4 zone, buildings along the north and project boundaries (eastern property line for R-4 area east of Earthwood, and the western property line for area west of Earthwood) shall be analyzed to determine noise level reduction methodologies (e.g., setbacks, building materials and construction, etc.). To ensure noise compatibility with adjoining Page 188 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 41 uses, implement noise level reduction measures to satisfy criteria addressed in MM NO 3a and as noted below. 1.9 Buildings and improvements adjacent to Tank Farm Creek shall have adequate setbacks to ensure a 35-foot-wide riparian setback to any improvements and adequate slope and transition area, as per Sheets A-23 and A-24 of the Avila Development Plan in Appendix A. 1.10 Buildings adjacent to wetlands shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the wetlands. 1.11 R-1 and R-2 residential units planned in the Project site within 300 feet of Buckley Road and R-4 units in the northwest corner of the Project site shall include noise mitigation for any potential indoor space and outdoor activity areas that are confirmed to be above 60 dB(A) as indicated in the Project’s Sound Level Assessment. The following shall be implemented for residential units with noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A): a. Outdoor Activity Area Noise Mitigation. Where exterior sound levels exceed CNEL = 60 dBA, noise reduction measures shall be implemented, including but not limited to exterior living spaces of residential units such as yards and patios shall be oriented away from Project boundaries that are adjacent to noise-producing uses that exceed exterior noise levels of CNEL = 60 dBA, such as roadways and industrial/commercial activities. Construction of additional sound barriers/berms with noise-reducing features for affected residences. (MM NO 3a) b. Exterior Glazing. Exterior window glazing for residential units exposed to potential noise above Ldn=60 dBA shall achieve a minimum Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) 24 / Sound Transmission Class (STC) 30. Glazing systems with dissimilar thickness panes shall be used. (MM NO 3a) c. Exterior Doors Facing Noise Source. According to Section 1207.7 of the California Building Code, residential unit entry doors from interior spaces shall have a combined STC 28 rating for any door and frame assemblies. Any balcony and ground floor entry doors located at bedrooms shall have an STC 30 rating. (MM NO 3a) d. Exterior Walls. Construction of exterior walls shall consist of a stucco or engineered building skin system over sheathing, with 4-inch to 6-inch deep metal or wood studs, fiberglass batt insulation in the stud cavity, and one or two layers of 5/8-inch gypsum board on the interior face of the wall. If possible, electrical outlets shall not be installed in exterior walls exposed to noise. If not possible, outlet box pads shall be applied to all electrical boxes and sealed with non-hardening acoustical sealant. (MM NO 3a) e. Supplemental Ventilation. According to the California Building Code, supplemental ventilation adhering to OITC/STC recommendations shall be provided for residential units with habitable spaces facing noise levels exceeding Ldn=60 dBA, so that the Page 189 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 42 opening of windows is not necessary to meet ventilation requirements. Supplemental ventilation can also be provided by passive or by fan-powered, ducted air inlets that extend from the building’s rooftop into the units. If installed, ducted air inlets shall be acoustically lined through the top-most 6 feet in length and incorporate one or more 90-degree bends between openings, so as not to compromise the noise insulating performance of the residential unit’s exterior envelope. (MM NO 3a) f. In the northwest to R-4 area, to ensure noise compatibility with adjoining uses, sleeping and living areas should be oriented away from the north and west property lines, with west- and north-facing balconies and upper story outdoor activity areas discouraged. (MM NO 3a) g. Per AASP Policy 4.5.3, all residential units shall be designed to limit the aircraft- related 24-hour, 10-second interval peak noise impacts to no more than 45 decibels. Guidelines A. In order to improve the visual quality of the streetscape in the R-1 and R-2 zones, every third house should include a variation to the front yard setback. B. Front yard setback variations for houses in the R-1 and R-2 zones should not be less than two to five feet, with a minimum street yard of ten (10) feet. C. Buildings should be sited and rooflines designed to take advantage of solar access for each unit to the greatest extent possible. D. Residential units should be oriented to front or side onto parks and open spaces to provide safety and maximize visibility of the park, where appropriate. Fencing types and landscaping palettes shall be used to reinforce the connectivity of the dwelling units to the open space and park areas. E. Attached residential units should be designed and detailed to correlate to the neighboring single - family detached and/or attached homes. The architecture should incorporate the best features of the neighboring units. F. Pedestrian linkages to nearby neighborhoods and other commercial projects should be provided within all zones. G. Designs for all residential zone units should be oriented to incorporate a relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces. H. Buildings should be oriented within R-3 and R-4 zones to take advantage of natural amenities such as views, mature trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar features unique to Avila Ranch. Page 190 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 43 I. Within the R-4 zone, buildings should be the predominant view from adjacent streets. Parking should be concentrated in areas behind buildings and away from the street. 2.0 Pedestrian Activity Areas Neighborhood parks, open space trails, plazas, and amenities in the Town Center comprise the primary pedestrian activity areas within Avila Ranch. These areas are envisioned to encourage healthy, active lifestyles within individual neighborhoods while also providing a medium for ongoing neighborhood social events. Standards 2.1 Goal 5.3 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Pedestrian Activity Areas section. 2.2 The northwestern and southwestern corners of Jespersen Road/Horizon Lane at the R-1 Residential Road intersection (Town Center) shall include plazas of a minimum 1,200 square feet that are oriented towards the Neighborhood Park and Town Center Plaza as illustrated on Figure 13. Neighborhood Commercial uses should have windows and entries that open onto these plazas to ensure that there is interaction between these public spaces, retail, and services uses. 2.3 Mini Parks and Pocket Parks shall be provided within or adjacent to each individual neighborhood of Avila Ranch as delineated in Figure 8. These parks shall be provided in accordance with the approved master plan for parks adopted by the Parks and Recreation Commission as set forth in Appendix B. Figure 13 Conceptual Design for Town Center Plazas Page 191 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 44 Guidelines A. Each neighborhood area should provide convenient access to the Tank Farm Creek pedestrian trail through the incorporation of multiple pathway entry points. See Figure 7. B. The character of Jespersen Road/Horizon Lane and the R-1 Residential Road abutting the Town Center should provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with accessible sidewalks, bulbouts, parkway landscaping, street trees, limited driveway access points, and reduced front building setbacks. C. Roundabouts, bulbouts, and decorative paving should be incorporated at primary intersections locations such as Venture Drive/Earthwood Lane or Jespersen Road/R-1 Residential Road, where appropriate. Roundabouts shall provide decorative landscaping, including trees that provide for monumentation and reference points within the project. The Town Center roundabout shall also include agricultural implements such as water towers and windmills to accentuate the agricultural design character of the Town Center. At-grade crossing shall be provided as illustrated in the Avila Development Plan (Sheets A-15 and A-16 of Appendix A) to provide for street-side parkettes, traffic calming, and unobstructed pedestrian passage across streets. D. The Neighborhood Park should be designed to provide neighborhood recreation needs including a mix of passive and active areas that foster social interaction and healthy lifestyles. These include a skate park, dog park, court games, jogging track, community meeting pavilion and other uses illustrated in the Park Master Plan in Appendix B. E. Neighborhood Park facilities may include informal turf areas, bocce ball courts, children’s play areas, group barbeque areas, group picnic facilities and shade structures, clubhouse, pool, pedestrian and bicycle trails, and community gardens. F. Programming of the Neighborhood Park may include shared facilities or related uses with on- site agricultural production such as outdoor learning areas, picnic, farming and cooking demonstrations, and a farm stand. G. The plaza located within the Neighborhood Park directly across from the Town Center should incorporate ample seating, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, a central organizing feature, unique landscaping, and pervious hardscape Page 192 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 45 3.0 Parking Parking is an essential component of all planned land uses within the Avila Ranch project. Ensuring adequate buffering between abutting land uses, public streets, and commercial parking areas will ensure the promotion of the high-quality environment envisioned for the development. Parking requirements for specific land uses within Avila Ranch are found within Chapter 17.16.060 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Except in the Pocket Cottage portion of the R-2 zone, parking shall be provided with two covered spaces per unit and on street parking, and at least two on-site guest parking spaces per 6-pack or 4-pack cluster. Parking stalls to be designed per Engineering Standards 2220. In the Pocket Cottage portion of the project, one covered and one uncovered space is to be provided, without additional guest parking spaces. Standards 3.1 Goal 5.4 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Parking section. 3.2 Parking for the Neighborhood Park shall be provided through both on- site parking, on-street parking on the adjacent local street, and shared parking with the Town Center commercial area. Any on-site parking associated with the Neighborhood Park shall be located within a parking lot or other parking space configurations on the north side of the park. These parking lots shall provide for bicycle storage, staging areas, and special event parking. 3.3 Driveway access points for the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center shall be located along the R-1 Residential Road adjacent to the R-1 Residential zone as shown in Figure 14. 3.4 Parking shall be designed and sited to minimize and buffer commercial noise from adjacent residential land uses. 3.5 A ten-foot minimum landscape buffer shall be provided on the Neighborhood Commercial properties adjacent to the R-1 Residential zone and the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center. In addition, there shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot Figure 14 Example of Town Center Parking, Screening and Access Page 193 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 46 setback from the east property line to any habitable structure to comply with ALUP Safety Area requirements, as shown in Figure 14. 3.6 Parking for the R-4 units shall be carports for added noise mitigation and visual screening. 3.7 Parking for car sharing stations shall be provided along public streets as approved by the City Engineer, in guest parking spaces in the R-2 portion of the project, in common area parking lots in the R-3, R-4 and the Town Center. Total number of car share vehicles shall be an initial rate of at least one vehicle per 50 units (and adjusted thereafter based on actual demand). At least fifty percent of the car share fleet shall be EVs. There shall be a minimum of five car-sharing stations dispersed through the project, with each station having electrical charging stations for EV car sharing vehicles. 3.8 All common parking lots shall have solar canopies to produce energy and to provide shade and noise attenuation. 3.9 All parking lots in the R-3, R-4 and NC zones and in public parks shall provide EV charging stations at a rate of one station per eight (8) spaces (12.5 percent of the total number of parking spaces common area parking spaces). R-1 and R-2 units shall be “ZEV ready” and be pre-wired for garage charging stations. 4.0 Outdoor Use Areas While outdoor use areas, as defined by the AASP, are unlikely to occur within the project area, any outdoor use areas planned in conjunction with Avila Ranch land uses will meet the standards and guidelines outlined within the AASP. Standard 4.1 Goal 5.5 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Outdoor Use Areas section. 5.0 Screening Service, storage areas, trash and recycling collection areas, and utilities associated with planned Avila Ranch land uses will be properly screened to minimize visual impact and promote the natural, unobstructed open space views. Standard 5.1 Goal 5.6 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Screening section. Guideline A. Equipment related to on-site agricultural production should be properly stored and screened from public view. Page 194 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 47 6.0 Preservation of Views and Scenic Resources 6.1 Views from the Road The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan identifies Buckley Road as a scenic corridor that should be maintained in order to protect views of surrounding open space resources. A minimum 300-foot wide buffer, as illustrated in Figures 15 and 16, has been incorporated into the Avila Ranch Development Plan along Buckley Road to maintain the scenic nature and the rural/agricultural character of this corridor. Uses within this buffer provide a wide range of amenities for the area including accessible multi-use trails, natural open spaces, and agriculture production. Views of structures visible from Buckley Road are minimized through the incorporation of landscaping and natural screening techniques. The Buckley Road frontage buffer is to be installed in Phase 1 of the project. (MM VIS 3). A split rail fence is al so to be provided between the Class I bike path and the onsite agricultural buffer. (MM AG 2a). Standards 6.1.1 Goal 5.7 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Views from the Road section. 6.1.2 Views along Buckley Road towards the Irish Hills to the west and towards the Santa Lucia range and foothills to the east shall be maintained through the incorporation of an open space and park buffer of a minimum 300 feet wide along Buckley Road as shown in Figures 15 and 16. The sound berm illustrated in Figure 14 shall be planted with a combination of native tree species and shrubs to provide a natural, rather than ornamental, backdrop to the working agricultural area along Buckley Road. This berm shall be installed as part of Phase 1 of the project so that trees and shrubs can be established early in the development of the project. Any fencing on the berm shall be at the top of the slope, and shrubs and trees shall be planted on the Buckley downslope of the berm to screen the fencing. Figure 15 Buckley Road Buffering and Screening Page 195 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 48 6.1.4 The Open Space Plan illustrated in Appendix C shall be implemented as part of the project. The Open Space Plan is intended to ensure the long-term maintenance of the Tank Farm Creek corridor, ensure adequate wildlife corridors, ensure views form the residential area and the roadways to the Tank Farm Creek, and to ensure that Tank Farm Creek functions efficiently as a storm drainage conveyance. Guidelines A. Visible building facades from Buckley Road should be minimized to maintain the scenic nature of the corridor through landscaping and/or other natural screening techniques. B. Cul-de-sacs should be open ended and/or dead-end onto open space or park areas. All cul de sacs shall provide for pedestrian and bicycle pass throughs, and should terminate on the public street side with a pedestrian speed table, where possible. 6.2 Gateways The AASP does not identify areas within the Avila Ranch development as possible locations of a gateway for the City of San Luis Obispo. If a gateway is identified and proposed on the Avila Ranch site within the future, goals, standards, and guidelines found within, the AASP will take precedent. Standard 6.2.1 Goal 5.8 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Gateways section. 6.2.2 Entry monuments and treatments shall be provided at the Jespersen/Venture roundabout, the Earthwood/Venture roundabout, and at the Buckley/Jespersen entrance. These entrance treatments shall use an agrarian theme in conformance with LUCE design objectives for the project, including usage of antique agricultural windmills where compatible with airport operations and traffic safety. Page 196 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 49 Figure 16 Conceptual View of Avila Ranch Buckley Frontage Page 197 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 50 7.0 Architecture 7.1 Architectural Character The architectural character of Avila Ranch is to be representative of the agricultural heritage associated with southern San Luis Obispo as well as architectural styles typically found within the city. A contextual appropriate selection of architectural styles aides in defining the context of the site from the rural character along the southern property line to the industrial character found along the northern property edge. A list of permitted architectural styles appropriate for each land use within Avila Ranch has been provided to ensure consistency with the overall project vision. Standards 7.1.1 Goal 5.9 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Architectural Character section. 7.1.2 The architectural styles for residential land uses within Avila Ranch shall be Agrarian, California Bungalow, Contemporary, Craftsman, or Mission as illustrated in Figures 18 through 22. Figure 17 Residential Street Scene Page 198 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 51 Figure 18 Agrarian Architectural Style Figure 19 Bungalow Architectural Style Page 199 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 52 Figure 20 Craftsmen Architectural Style Figure 21 Contemporary/Mid Century Modern Architectural Style Page 200 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 53 7.1.3 In order to create some individualism the project is broken down in neighborhoods, as shown in Figure 23. Within each neighborhood or enclave, there shall be dominant and subordinate architectural styles to avoid monotony. The percentage proportions of architectural styles within the R-2 zones of Avila Ranch shall be integrated as follows in order to create the desired residential character and transitioning of the site from south to north: a. Neighborhood Area 1: 60% of units shall be designed with Agrarian style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an architecture style of choice. b. Neighborhood Area 2: 60% of all units shall be designed with the California Bungalow or the Craftsman style architecture. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an architecture style of choice. c. Neighborhood Area 3: 60% of all units shall be designed with the Contemporary style architecture or the Mission architectural style. The remaining 40% of units shall be divided into 10% increments between the other allowed residential architectural styles. Any fraction of a number over a half shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number with any remaining balance placed in an architecture style of choice. Figure 22 Mission Architectural Style Page 201 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 54 7.1.4 R-4 zone shall be designed uniformly with one of the allowed residential architectural styles. (Neighborhood Area 4). 7.1.5 R-1 zone shall be designed with a proportional yet mixed use of at least three of the allowed residential architectural styles. (Neighborhood Area 5). 7.1.6 The Neighborhood Commercial Town Center buildings and any buildings located within the Conservation/ Open Space zoned areas shall be designed uniformly with an Agrarian or Contemporary Agrarian style of architecture. (Neighborhood Area 6). 7.1.7 R-3 zone shall be designed uniformly with one of the allowed residential architectural styles. (Neighborhood Area 7). 7.1.8 Porches shall have a minimum depth of six (6) feet. 7.1.9 Residences shall have entries that front onto the street except for residences configured in a parking court within R-2 zones. Where possible, these interior R-2 units shall have frontage treatments onto adjacent parks or open spaces. Units that are adjacent to the parkway commons in Neighborhood Area 2 shall have frontage treatments along that parkway and the interior motor court/common driveway. 7.1.10 Buildings within R-3 and R-4 zones shall have covered porches, entries, or walkways that front onto the street. Guidelines A. Residential elevations within the R-1 and R-2 zones should not be repeated more frequently than every fourth house. This variation may be achieved by not repeating both a color scheme and an elevation style. Setbacks should have minor variances (3-5 feet) to ensure a variety in the streetscape and elevation pattern. B. The Neighborhood Commercial Town Center architectural character should reflect Agrarian style architecture that may be represented through modern barn, rustic barn, or other contemporary barn elements. C. The Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and any other approving body may allow an exception to the height requirements for the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center focal point provided that architectural features meet the desired Agrarian architectural character. Page 202 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 55 Figure 23 Avila Ranch Neighborhoods D. Residences within the R-1 zone should incorporate a covered front porch. Page 203 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 56 E. Residences within the R-2 zone that front collector or local residential roads should include a porch. 7.2 Scale and Massing The pedestrian and agricultural character of Avila Ranch will be reflected through appropriately scaled buildings and landscaping. It is anticipated that building forms will be modest in size with individual components of buildings expressively articulated through playful use of massing. Standards 7.2.1 Goal 5.10 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Scale and Massing section. 7.2.2 To avoid garage dominated streets, a portion of the house or porch within the R-1 Residential Zone shall be at least five (5) feet in front of the garage. 7.2.3 In order to ensure that the building height and setbacks are appropriate to the street context, building heights along the street frontage shall be one foot in height for each 1.5 feet in distance from the building setback to the street centerline. Guidelines A. Variation in front yard setbacks, lot widths, and one and two story homes should be used to create a diversity of architectural massing. B. Massing design should include variation in the wall plane (projection and recess), variation in wall height, and rooflines at different levels. C. Portions of the upper story of a two-story home should be stepped back in order to reduce the scale of the façade that faces the street and to break up the overall massing. This could be achieved with a porch covering a min of 60% of the front facade. D. Architectural elements that add visual interest, scale, and character to the neighborhood, such as recessed or projecting balconies, verandas, or porches should be included within building designs. E. A variety of roof planes and pitches, porches, overhangs, and accent details should be incorporated into residential designs to increase the visual quality and character of a building, while reducing the bulk and size of the structure. F. Garages should be recessed behind the home’s main façade to minimize the visual impact of the garage door and parking apron from the street. G. Garages located in parking court configurations should be recessed in order to increase the prominence of the main entry. 7.3 Building Heights Page 204 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 57 Building heights for residential structures are expected to range from one to three stories to accommodate both single- family and multi-family developments. Commercial structures located within the Town Center are two stories in height but buildings adjacent to corner plazas across from the park may be up to three stories. Standards 7.3.1 Goal 5.11 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Building Heights section. 7.3.2 Residential building heights shall abide by the development standards set forth in the Airport Area Specific Plan Amendment. 7.3.3 Buildings located within the Neighborhood Commercial zone shall abide by the building height requirements set forth within Chapter 17.38 of the City’s development code. 7.3.4 A minimum of 25% of R-1 zone units shall be single story. Single story units shall be concentrated along the landscaped berm, parallel to Buckley, unless it can be demonstrated that a two-story dwelling unit conforms to the city noise regulations. 7.3.5 The height of buildings next to major circulation routes should be equal to at least two- thirds of the distance from the street centerline to the face of the building. At least 75 percent of the units have one foot of building height for each 1.5 feet of distance from the street centerline to the façade of the dwelling unit. Guidelines A. Town Center buildings abutting the two plazas at the corner of Jespersen Road and the R-1 Residential Road should be least 20 feet in height. 7.4 Architectural Façade and Treatment Facades and architectural treatments of buildings within Avila Ranch are designed as a collection of high quality, individual neighborhoods comprised of individually articulated and highly detailed structures. To meet this high standard of quality, full articulation of building facades and use of architecturally compatible treatments will be utilized consistently throughout the development. Standard 7.4.1 Goal 5.12 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Architectural Façade and Treatment section. Guidelines Page 205 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 58 A. Entries should be enhanced to reflect the architectural style and details of the building. B. Windows should be articulated with accent trim, sills, shutters, window flower boxes, awnings, or trellises authentic to the architectural style of the building. C. Windows, garage windows, and doors should complement the architectural style of the building. D. Garage doors should incorporate architectural detailing that is consistent with the overall architectural style of the building. 7.5 Materials and Colors Materials considered appropriate for Avila Ranch are those that have generally stood the test of time such as stone, brick, wood, glass, plaster, and metal. Each development may choose to express its unique identity through material and color selection, as long as they are compatible with the overall character of the area. Standard 7.5.1 Goal 5.13 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Materials and Colors section. Guidelines A. Roof tiles and colors consistent with the architectural style of the house should be incorporated. Roofing colors should be soft earth tones. Where solar shingles are used to comply with solar energy requirements in this plan, they shall be integrated so that they are part of the architectural character. B. Roof penetrations for vents should be consolidated and located on the rear side of roof ridges. Vents should be painted to match the roof color. C. As part of the last development phase, the building materials, colors, entries, and windows of the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center should reflect adjacent residential area. 8.0 Landscape 8.1 Planting Concept Landscaping for the Avila Ranch development is envisioned to reflect both the natural and agricultural landscapes of San Luis Obispo. Natural landscape patterns have been integrated within the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor and within Conservation/Open Space areas. Agricultural landscape patterns have been incorporated along Jespersen Road and adjacent to the on-site agriculturally related facilities. Standards Page 206 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 59 8.1.1 Goal 5.14 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Planting Concept section. 8.1.2 Trees planted within Avila Ranch outside of residential zones shall be chosen from the City’s approved Street Tree Master List and shall be in conformance with the master plan in Appendix D. 8.1.3 Shrubs, perennials, and ground cover planted outside of residential zones within Avila Ranch shall be in conformance with the master plan in Appendix D. 8.1.4 Trees, shrubs, perennials, and ground cover planted within the residential portions of Avila Ranch shall be located as shown in Appendix D and shall be chosen from the City’s approved Street Tree Master List. 8.1.5 Street trees shall be provided in tree wells along streets abutting the Neighborhood Commercial Town Center with the intent of developing a continuous canopy over the sidewalk. Thematic parkway trees shall also be planted on Earthwood, Venture, Jespersen, and Horizon at least every fifty (50) feet. Tree selection for these parkway strips on the Residential Collectors and Residential Arterial shall be of a single species to provide continuity throughout the project. Tree species should be selected for canopy height and width to ensure that at least 50 percent of the adjacent walkway is shaded within 10 years after planting. 8.1.6 Trees, shrubs, and plants chosen to be planted along the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor shall utilize native, locally procured varietals. 8.1.7 Plants and shrubs planted on properties adjacent to Tank Farm Creek shall be properly situated and maintained to avoid spreading into the adjacent riparian corridor. 8.1.8 Plants and shrubs shall be low water using. 8.1.9 Turf shall not be located within front yards of residential zones. 8.1.10 To reduce the potential for noise, dust and pesticide drift, the project shall include dense hedgerows of trees and landscaping at the top of the southern noise berm, along the eastern property line between the R-3 and Neighborhood park and the adjacent agricultural parcel, along the northern property line in the adjacent drainage swale, along the east side of Vachell between the R-2 residences and Vachell, and along the western property line between the R-4 and R-2 areas in Phase 3 and the properties to the north and west. (MM AG 2b ). Guidelines A. Residential Collectors and Residential Arterials shall have a single street tree species for continuity. A different street tree species unique to each neighborhood shown in Figure 27 should be utilized to provide a layer of consistency and individuality for that neighborhood. Page 207 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 60 B. Native trees, plants, and other low water using plant varieties are encouraged within Avila Ranch and should be integrated into the project to the greatest extent possible. C. Community gardens that are easily accessible to residents should be incorporated within Avila Ranch in mini parks and pocket parks, as shown on the Parks Master Plan in Appendix B. D. Open space areas adjacent to Buckley Road should incorporate working agricultural areas. E. Agriculture production related facilities should integrate a grove or farm compound styled tree plantings to unify and add visual interest to the site, in accordance with the Parks Master Plan and Open Space Plan. 9.0 Buildings, Signs and Lighting 9.1 Buildings Buildings placed throughout Avila Ranch will be rooted in the surrounding landscape and natural open spaces through the incorporation of contextual landscaping. Landscaping will soften building edges at the ground plane and provide attractive plantings to support the planned environment of the project. Standard 9.1.1 Goal 5.15 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Buildings section. 9.1.2 Public art shall be incorporated within Avila Ranch in conformance with the City’s Public Art for Private Development ordinance. The preferred method of compliance is by including larger scale sculptures in the Sculpture Garden in Park H. 9.1.3 Public art shall reflect the agrarian history and context of the site. 9.2 Signs Standards 9.2.1 Goal 5.17 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Signs section. 9.2.2 All signage within Avila Ranch shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Sign Regulations for applicable Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Conservation/Open Space land uses. Guideline A. Landscaping should be incorporated within parking courts to minimize paving and views of garages. 9.3 Lighting Page 208 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 61 Lighting for residential, commercial, and open space uses within Avila Ranch is envisioned to provide adequate illumination levels to aide in the transitioning of urban to rural uses while also providing an appropriate illumination level to address public safety concerns. Planned lighting is intended to maintain the current low lighting levels that distinctly differentiate between existing urban and rural land uses within the area. Standards 9.3.1 Goal 5.18 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Lighting section. 9.3.2 Exterior lighting within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Design Standards, Airport Area Specific Plan, and Night-Sky Preservation site requirements. 9.3.3 All exterior lighting within Avila Ranch shall be compatible with and complement the architectural styles and landscape designs proposed. 9.3.4 Exterior lighting fixtures shall be properly shielded to minimize light overflow and glare onto adjacent properties. 9.3.5 Trail and walking pathway lighting shall be appropriately scaled to the pedestrian. Additional overhead park lighting may be utilized in areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. 9.3.6 Lighting fixtures shall be energy efficient in accordance with the latest version of the California Energy Standards (Title 24). 9.3.7 All project lighting shall comply with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.23). Lighting in the project shall conform to the following operational and development standards: a. Outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. b. No lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than two maintained horizontal foot-candles at grade on any property within a residential zoning district except on the site of the light source. c. The maximum light intensity on a residential site shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. d. The maximum light intensity on a nonresidential site, except auto sales lots and sports fields, shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. Page 209 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 62 e. The maximum light intensity on an auto sales lot shall not exceed a maintained value of 40 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade. f. The maximum light intensity on a sports field shall not exceed a maintained value of 50 foot-candles, when measured three feet above grade. Baseball field lighting and lighting for other recreational uses may be increased to a maintained value of 100 foot-candles with approval of the Community Development Director. g. Outdoor lighting shall be completely turned off or significantly dimmed at the close of business hours unless lighting is essential for security or safety (e.g. illumination of parking areas and plazas). h. Outdoor lighting shall not blink, flash, or rotate. I. Outdoor flood light projection above the horizontal plane is prohibited, unless exempted by Section 17.23.080. j. Outdoor sports fields shall not be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. except to conclude a scheduled recreational or sporting event in progress prior to 11:00 p.m. k. Outdoor lighting fixtures, including lighting for outdoor recreational facilities, shall be cutoff fixtures designed and installed so that no emitted light will break a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture. Cutoff fixtures must be installed using a horizontal lamp position. Lighting fixtures should be of a design that complements building design and landscaping, and may require architectural review. l. Outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded or recessed. m. Lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in height, intensity, and scale to the use they are serving. Parking lot lights shall not exceed a height of 21 feet, and wall-mounted lights shall not exceed a height of 15 feet, from the adjacent grade to the bottom of the fixture. The Architectural Review Commission can approve an exception to these height standards based on specific extenuating circumstances. n. All luminaries mounted on the under surface of service station canopies shall be fully shielded and utilize flush-mounted canopy fixtures with flat lenses. o. Search lights, laser source lights, or any similar high-intensity light shall be prohibited, except, in emergencies, by police and/or fire personnel, or at their direction, or for purposes of gathering meteorological data. Exceptions may be granted in conjunction with approved temporary lighting. 9.3.8 All exterior building lights facing Tank Farm Creek shall be hooded to prevent light spillover into the creek. All residential street lights over 10 feet in height shall be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the top of the creek bank and hooded and/or directed away from the creek. Any night lighting adjacent to the creek (e.g., walkway lights) shall be of low voltage and hooded downward. Artificial light levels within 20 feet Page 210 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 63 of the top of the creek bank shall not exceed 1-foot candle or the lowest level of illumination found to be feasible by the City. (MM BIO 5a). 10.0 Public Art In order to weave and integrate Avila Ranch with the existing cultural and aesthetic fabric of San Luis Obispo, public art is intended to be incorporated as a central organizing element within or adjacent to the Town Center plazas or parks. Installations will reflect the agrarian history and context of the area and that of the project site, and may include antique agricultural implements, Aeromotor windmills, and other features. Signage designs for land uses within Avila Ranch comply with applicable City Sign Regulations while playfully integrating and playing off the dominant architectural character of the area. Individual residential neighborhoods are imagined as having unique identification signage to inform and direct residents and visitors. Commercial uses are to display functional yet simple signage designs that effectively alerts potential patrons to their location within the Avila Ranch development. Standards 10.1 Goal 5.16 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Public Art section. 10.2 The preferred method of complying with the public art requirements for the project is the implementation of the Sculpture Garden in Park H. 10.3 Public art shall reflect the agrarian history and context of the site. 11.0 Drainage Drainage requirements related to Avila Ranch are intended to meet the Regional Water Control Board’s Low Impact Development Post Construction Requirements. The performance of designed detention basins and permeable surfaces integrated throughout the project ensure on-site retention of the project’s share of stormwater runoff while ensuring the safety of adjacent property. Standard 11.1 Goal 5.19 (and associated standards and guidelines) outlined within the AASP shall be referred to and incorporated as part of this Avila Ranch Drainage section. 11.2 A landscaped drainage swale or other suitable engineered solution shall be included along northern property line of Avila Ranch within the R-2 and R-4 Residential Zones to facilitate drainage from adjacent property, and to provide screening to the light industrial properties to the north. 12.0 Fencing Fencing planned for Avila Ranch will add to visual quality and character of the overall development. In addition to the existing City fencing requirements, the following standards and Page 211 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 64 guidelines apply to all residential lots within Avila Ranch in order to maintain and emphasis views of Tank Farm Creek. Standard 12.1 Residential lots adjacent to Tank Farm Creek, parks, open spaces, or walking pathway, as shown in Figure 24, shall use open fencing types like those illustrated in Figure 25. Guideline A. Fencing adjacent to Tank Farm Creek, parks, open spaces, or walking pathways should use wrought iron, tubular steel or wood (e.g., split rail or other decorative fencing types) 13.0 Energy Conservation (MM AQ 2a) The general approach to energy use and conservation in the Avila Ranch area is based on the direction set forth in Section 7.07 of the Development Agreement for the project. Specifically, that provision of the Development Agreement states the following: (a) Avila Ranch shall provide for accelerated compliance with the City’s Energy Conservation Goals and its Climate Action Plan by implementing energy conservation measures significantly above Figure 24 Special Fence Treatment Locations Special Fence Treatment Locations (Typ) Minimum 4-foot high solid screen with open lattice above Figure 25 Open Space Fence Example Page 212 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 65 City standards and norms by providing PV energy generation for 100 percent of onsite electrical demand as described in Section 13 of the Design Framework of the Development Plan. The Project shall also include energy efficiency standards in excess of the current Building Code. (b) Developer shall provide sustainability features as described in Section 13 of the Design Framework of the Development Plan, including: (i) housing that meets the 2019 net zero building and energy codes, or if the 2019 building and energy codes are not yet adopted upon building permit application, the equivalent to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, (ii) implementing any future city-wide policy regarding carbon emissions reduction, (iii) solar electric panels, (iv) integrated power outlets for electric vehicles and electric bicycles, (v) building design that maximizes grey water usage, and (vi) work-at-home options with high-speed internet connectivity. In this context, the Development Plan is intended to be dynamic and flexible, to allow for the possibility that City energy requirements are updated from time to time outside the framework of the Development Plan. The discussion that follows in this section generally describes the baseline energy requirements that were in place at the time the Development Plan was approved in 2017. The intent of this plan in combination with the Development Agreement is to ensure that the project includes energy and sustainability features that go well beyond what was required at that time. A project that meets those criteria as evaluated by City staff would meet the intent of the Development Plan and Development Agreement. 13.1 Energy Conservation Energy Conservation is a significant policy focus area for the City of San Luis Obispo. Both the Open Space and Conservation Element, and the Airport Area Specific Plan provide guidance in the conservation of energy. The project was evaluated and approved in the context of the 2016 building codes, which provided for energy conservation measures that were significantly greater than what were in place before that time. The intent of the standards and guidelines as written below was to anticipate what was to be required in the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the City’s Clean Energy Choice Program, which were not yet adopted at that time. The overall intent of the Development Plan was to improve energy conservation measures in R-1 and R-2 buildings by at least 15% over the 2016 Title 24 standards, and at least 10% for the R-3, R-4, NC and other uses. The energy conservation measures below are one way, but not necessarily the only way, to achieve this. Applicants are encouraged to refer to the City’s latest energy standards while working with City staff to meet the intent of the Development Plan and Development Agreement. Standard 13.1.1 All buildings and structures shall meet and exceed the anticipated 2019 energy conservation standards, as well as the Clean Energy Choice Program. Prior to the establishment and adoption of 2019 Title 24 Energy Code, R-1 and R-2 structures in the Avila Ranch project shall be 15 percent more efficient than the 2016 Title 24 Energy Page 213 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 66 Standards, and R-3, R-4, NC and other uses shall be at least 10 percent more efficient than the 2016 Title 24 Energy Standards. 13.1.2 Energy conservation measures should give priority to the thoughtful design of structures to take advantage of passive cooling and heating, including cross ventilation, solar exposure, solar thermal massing strategies. Guideline A. Building and structures shall use high-performance Advance Framing (AF) and/or Structurally Insulated Panel (SIP) techniques, where structurally possible, to reduce the amount of framing lumber and the heating and cooling loss associated with frequent framing intervals. Advanced Framing and Advance Wall Systems (AWS) refers to a set of framing techniques and practices that minimize the amount of wood and labor necessary to build a structurally sound, safe, durable, and energy efficient building. Reducing the amount of wood in wood-framed exterior walls improves energy efficiency through a reduced framing factor, allowing more insulation to be installed, and has greater resource efficiency for the materials being used. Advanced Framing and Advanced Wall System techniques may include, but are not limited to the following: a. Use of precise engineering of headers on load bearing walls to reduce the among of waste associated with oversizing. b. Use of insulated corners to eliminate the isolated cavity found in conventional three- or four-stud corners, making it easier to install insulation and providing for more cavity insulation space. Advanced framing wall corners can include insulated three-stud corners or two-stud corner junctions with ladder blocking, drywall clips, or an alternative means of supporting interior or exterior finish. c. Advanced framing ladder junctions should be used at wall intersections with 2x blocking at 24-inch on center vertical spacing. This method requires less than 6 feet of blocking material in a typical 8-foot tall wall. In conventional walls, interior wall intersections include a stud at each side of the intersecting wall, which can require as much as 16 feet of stud lumber plus additional blocking material. d. Eliminating unnecessary double-floor joists underneath non-load bearing walls, as well as using 2-inch x 4-inch and 2-inch x 3-inch interior non-load bearing walls to minimize the among of engineered and non-engineered lumber waste. B. Quality Insulation Installation (“QII”) shall be used per California Energy Commission standards and Insulation Stage Checklists to ensure high performing insulation systems. QII ensures that insulation is installed properly in floors, walls, and roofs/ceilings to maximize the thermal benefit of insulation. Depending on the type of insulation used, QII can be simple to implement for only the additional cost of HERS verification. Batt insulation may require an increase in Page 214 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 67 installation time over standard practice because batts may need to be cut to fit around penetrations and special joists. C. Compact plumbing strategies shall be used to reduce water and water heating waste. These will include reducing the total run from the water heating unit to the hot water dispensing appliances, “demand” recirculating hot water systems, back-to-back and stacked plumbing fixtures, and other techniques. D. Pursuant to AASP Policy 7.2.2, the buildings and structures in the project shall provide for indoor and outdoor water use that is at least 35 percent below citywide average at the time the Development Plan was approved in 2017. WaterSense fixtures, or their equivalent, shall be used for all appliances, and all appliances shall comply with CalGreen standards for water use efficiency. (MM AQ 2a). E. Rainwater and stormwater management shall be in conformance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Low Impact Development standards. Such standards call for the detention/retention and treatment of the 95th percentile storm event. Treatment will be in decentralized filtration basins, bioswales, underground artificial or natural cisterns, and other approved strategies. The Parks Master Plan and the Open Space Master Plan in Appendices B and C, respectively, show the locations and extent of these basins. F. Passive solar strategies shall be used in all buildings to the greatest degree practicable. At least 75 percent of the structures in a neighborhood should have the longer roof line axis within 15 degrees of east-west. Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). Roofing materials shall be used which have a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs. G. City infrastructure should comply with the recommendations of the City’s Climate Action Plan and should utilize strategies and improvements to conserve energy. These include: 1) usage of roundabouts where possible to avoid the usage of electrically powered traffic signals; 2) usage of high-efficiency LED street lights; 3) usage of high-efficiency LED traffic signals. Where traffic signals are modified as part of this project, signal heads with low-efficiency incandescent fixtures shall be modified to have high efficiency LED fixtures, where possible; 4) bus stops shall include PV systems to support the power requirements; and, 5) street lighting, park lighting and area lighting shall be designed to limit errant light. H. Design plans for units shall provide for the use of battery powered or electric landscape maintenance equipment for new development. At least one exterior convenience outlet shall be provided for each yard area that requires regular maintenance. Two outdoor outlets shall also be provided for any private outdoor activity/patio areas. Page 215 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 68 I. Each dwelling unit shall be designed to provide a convenient storage area for bicycles that is easily accessible. This may include storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units, or front porch bike lockers. J. Residences should be equipped for the possible use of all electric appliances. This shall include adequate electrical connections in cooking and laundry areas. K. To encourage the use of electric vehicles private residential garages shall be equipped with a dedicated 240-V circuit or outlet for electrical vehicle charging in conformance with the California Green Building Code and he National Electrical Code. Residences with common parking areas such as the R-3, R-4 and Neighborhood Commercial areas shall be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations are a rate equal to one charging position for each eight vehicles (12.5 percent of spaces) per the LEED ND requirements. 13.2 Onsite Energy Production Solar PV systems shall be included on all structures in compliance with City requirements. The intent is for onsite solar production to offset the projected electrical demand for the type of building unit (but not including electrical demand for EV charging stations). This may be provided through a combination of solar canopies for R-3, R-4, Neighborhood Commercial/Town Center and public park uses, solar panels, solar shingles and other methods. Guidelines for specific unit types and land uses are as follows. Note these guidelines are one way, but not necessarily the only way, to meet the intent of the standards in question: a. R-1 Single Family. These uses should provide between 275 and 300 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 7,250 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Sur- face material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. b. R-2 Pocket Cottages Single Family. These uses should provide between 200 and 225 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 5,500 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Because of the orientation of these uses from a common driveway from an east- west street, care should be taken to orient the longer roof along the east-west axis where possible. There are limited opportunities for solar canopies in guest parking areas, except where these spaces are used for car sharing stations. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. c. R-2 Standard Single Family. These uses should provide between 250 and 275 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 7,000 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Because of the orientation of these uses from a common driveway from an east-west street, care should be taken to orient the longer roof along the east-west axis where possible. Page 216 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 69 There are limited opportunities for solar canopies in guest parking areas, except where these spaces are used for car sharing stations. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. d. R-3 Single Family Attached Duplex Units. These uses should provide 200 and 225 square feet of equivalent south-facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 5,500 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Solar canopies in guest parking spaces may provide the predominant share of the total requirement of 7,500-8,000 square feet of total solar array area, and the solar canopies are the preferred method of achieving this objective because of the required orientation of these uses, and the sensitive architectural setting. Where possible, units should provide rooftop solar water heating units. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. e. R-3 Townhome Units. These uses should provide 150 to 175 square feet of equivalent south- facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 4,000 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Solar canopies in guest parking spaces may provide the predominant share of the total requirement of 25,500 square feet of total solar array area, and the solar canopies are the preferred method of achieving this objective because of the required orientation of these uses, and the sensitive architectural setting. Where possible, units should provide solar water heating or pre- heating units. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. f. R-4 Apartment Units. These uses should provide 125 to 150 square feet of equivalent south- facing tilted total solar panel surface area per dwelling unit to generate at least 3,500 kWh per year, or as may be calculated in the energy analysis for the structure. Solar canopies in guest parking spaces may provide all or the predominant share of the total requirement of 17,750 square feet of total solar array area, and the solar canopies are the preferred method of achieving this objective because of the required orientation of these uses, and the sensitive architectural setting. Where possible, these units should provide solar water heating units or pre-heating units. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. These solar canopies are to be located around the perimeter of the site along the west and north boundaries so that they function as noise attenuation barriers as well. g. Neighborhood Commercial/Town Center. Total electrical energy demand is estimated to be 7,500 to 10,000 kWh. All of this demand can be accommodated through solar canopies on the central parking lot area. Surface material and finish shall be non-glare for airport compatibility. h. Public Parks/Spaces. Each public park has structures that may be outfitted with rooftop solar systems. These include picnic shelters, shade structures, covered pavilions, and potential solar canopies may provide 10,000 to 12,500 square feet of solar array area. Page 217 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 70 Circulation Framework There are four principal circulation features for the site: 1) the extension of Buckley Road along the “Caltrans” alignment to South Higuera Street; 2) connection of a new Class I bike paths and Class II “buffered” bike lanes from and through the project site to the Octagon Barn, which is the trailhead for the Bob Jones City to Sea Trail; 3) the extension of Venture Drive through the site and connecting with the extension of Jespersen Road from Buckley Road, creating a continuous Residential Collector; 4) the extension of Earthwood Lane as a Residential Collector from Venture Road to Suburban Road for connectively and access to the neighborhood shopping center and south of Venture to Vachell Lane, it transitions to a 48-foot residential collector and, 5) the extension of Jespersen Road from Buckley into the project site, with the eventual extension of it offsite to connect to Suburban Road via Horizon Lane. A vehicle bridge and two pedestrian/bike bridges are planned over Tank Farm Creek to provide neighborhood connectivity, and an eastbound bike bridge is planned on the south side of Buckley to provide two-way bike connectivity along Buckley Road. Figure 26 shows the overall circulation system and Figures 27 through 30 show the City standard street sections that are to be used for the project. The LUCE update identified the need to add north-south connections between Tank Farm Road and Buckley Road. The extension of Earthwood Lane south of Suburban Road to the Avila Ranch project, the extension of Jespersen Road north of Buckley Road to the northern project limits will contribute to this connectivity. In the longer term, the connection of Horizon Lane to Tank Farm Road from Suburban Road, completion of the “Unocal Collector” and other improvements will complete this system. Pedestrian circulation will be accommodated by street design standards that include sidewalks on both sides of the street for most classifications of streets within developed areas, and off-street, multi-use paths along streets adjacent to open space areas, and network of multi-use, Class I facilities that will connect to the street system within the planning area as well as existing and planned facilities outside of the Airport Area. The City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes a comprehensive system of on-street and off- street bicycle facilities in and around the project site. The ultimate alignment of some of the Class I bike Page 218 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 71 paths south of Tank Farm Road will need to be determined as part of the plans to develop the Chevron property. However, the AASP illustrates the following conceptual alignments: A. Off-street Class I multi-use paths that parallel creeks and riparian corridors, Page 219 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 72 Figure 26 Circulation Plan Page 220 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 73 Figure 27 Buckley Road Sections Page 221 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 74 B. On-street Class II bicycle lanes on arterial and collector streets, and; C. A combination of off-street paths adjacent to streets and on-street bicycle lanes. Class I bicycle paths and Class II bicycle lanes within the Avila Ranch area will be constructed, signed and marked to meet or exceed the minimum standards established by the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and the City of San Luis Obispo design standards. Class I paths are to be a minimum of 12 feet in width with two-foot shoulders, except in hillside areas where grading would cause visual impacts or along creeks where space is limited. Class II bicycle lanes are to be at least 6.5 feet wide under normal circumstances, according to the design criteria of the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP). For Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, Class II facilities will be at least eight feet wide. The project’s Residential Collectors bicycle lanes are planned to be 8-foot “buffered” lanes (instead of the BMP standard of five feet for that condition), as shown in Figure 28. An important linkage in the regional bikeway system is Buckley Road. It will eventually connect to Higuera Street and the San Luis Obispo City Bob Jones Trail trailhead at the Octagon Barn site. Because of physical constraints and the extent of construction, the amount of roadway available for bike traffic varies between Broad and Vachell. These constraints include the bridges across Tank Farm Creek and the East Fork of San Luis Creek. The Bicycle Transportation Plan provides for Class II bike lanes and Class I bike paths along corridor, and continuing to Higuera Street. Residential Collector and Local streets are planned for Avila Ranch. These roadways function to collect traffic from local streets and fronting property and then channel the traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets have fewer limitations on intersections and driveways than higher order streets. Figure 28 shows and plan and sectional view of an Avila Ranch Collector Street. A plan and section view of Local streets for the R-1 area is shown in Figure 29, and an illustration of the other Avila Ranch Local streets is shown in Figure 30. Per the AASP, all traffic mitigation measures, taken at full build out of the Airport Area, assure compliance with the Circulation Element LOS D policy. However, since the rate and exact development patterns within the Airport Area cannot be predicted, no fixed implementation schedule of overall traffic mitigation measures can be determined. Therefore, and although not anticipated, development projects within the Specific Plan area may cause a temporary cumulative traffic level of LOS E to be reached prior to public improvement project being undertaken. Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area are to construct adjacent streets, bicycle and transit improvements as part of their development. For AASP transportation fee public projects, the City reviews LOS levels periodically and makes recommendations for use of accumulated Airport Area traffic impact fees toward new CIP projects to address the higher LOS levels and assure ultimate LOS levels are achieved with ultimate build-out development of the Airport Area. Phasing of the bicycle improvements, according to the AASP, is a multi-jurisdictional and long- term effort. According to the AASP, the City or County will implement Class I and II bikeways that are not adjacent to development or are in the unincorporated area outside of the Specific Plan area (e.g., along Buckley and Santa Fe Roads, and along the East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek south of Buckley Page 222 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 75 Figure 28 Collector Streets and Bike Lanes with 2-foot Buffering Page 223 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 76 Figure 29 R-1 Zone Street Sections Page 224 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 77 Figure 30 Local Street Sections (Non-R-1) Page 225 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 78 Road) as part of their respective Capital Improvement Programs. This provision does not reduce the possibility that development may need to complete these segments as part of their individual environmental review assessments, if warranted. Several constraints to implementation include right of way acquisition along the project’s Buckley frontage, the Buckley Road extension, bridge improvements, and other factors. According to the Traffic Impact Study, at full buildout, the following improvements would be needed to address project impacts and needs. Unless otherwise noted, the recommendations apply to all horizon years (Existing, Near Term, and Cumulative Plus Project. Traffic Study Recommendations Vehicular: 1. Extend Prado Road to Broad Street. This planned project would reduce queue issues at the intersections of South Street/S Higuera Street, Madonna Road/S Higuera Street, and Tank Farm Road/S Higuera Street. The improvement is being implemented as part of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, and potentially as a citywide project under the City’s current revision of the traffic impact fees program. 2. A second northbound left turn lane at Prado Road/S Higuera Street. The intersection functions adequately, but turning queues are excessive in the peak hours. This requires widening the Prado Road Bridge west of S Higuera Street to provide two receiving lanes. This widening of the Prado Road bridge and Prado Road west of Higuera is currently underway as a City Capital Improvement Project with support from Specific Plan impact fees. 3. Add second southbound left turn lane to the Tank Farm Road/S Higuera Street intersection. The intersection functions adequately, but turning queues are excessive in the peak hours. The single turn lane also restricts through traffic flow. This improvement, part of the Citywide traffic fee program, will be installed by the project in Phase 1 per the EIR. 4. Restripe westbound approach to Suburban Road/S Higuera Street to provide a dedicated left and shared left/right turn lane and change southbound left to protected signal phasing. This improvement is being installed as part of the Project’s Phase 1 traffic improvement. 5. Prohibit left turns into and out of the Vachell Lane/S Higuera Street intersection. Extend Buckley Road to South Higuera Street or connect the project to Earthwood Lane before the turn prohibition is implemented. Buckley Road is being extended as part of Phase 2 improvements and modification of the Vachell/Higuera intersection is dependent of an alternate route. The Vachell/Higuera left turn prohibition improvements will occur when the Buckley Road Extension is completed. 6. Under Near Term Plus Project conditions, add a second southbound right turn lane to the LOVR/S Higuera Street intersection. This improvement is a longer-term improvement that requires additional rights of way, and is intended to address excessive right turning queues in the peak hours. The city is currently managing the flow of the intersection under the Los Verdes Page 226 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 79 Settlement Agreement, and the improvement will be implemented as part of the citywide traffic impact fee program. 7. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions pay fair share mitigation fees to install a traffic signal or single lane roundabout at the intersection of Buckley Road/Vachell Lane. Adequate right of way has been planned for either improvement, depending on the recommendations at the time of construction. 8. Implement the County/Caltrans Highway 227 Corridor Plan. SLOCOG, the County and Caltrans have adopted a corridor improvement concept for Broad/227/Edna Road from Aero Drive to Los Ranchos Drive. The City portion of this project will be included in the AASP Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Program. Pedestrian and Bicycles: 1. Construct Class I multi-use paths in accordance with the project site plan and connect them to the off-site transportation network consistent with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. Planned Bicycle circulation is consistent with the BMP. 2. Construct Class II “buffered” bike lanes on all Residential Collectors and Residential Arterials in the Project (Earthwood, Venture, Jespersen and Horizon), and on offsite roads include Vachell and Buckley along the project frontages, offsite Earthwood to Suburban, and the Buckley Road Extension, as depicted on Figure 28. 3. Construct two bike bridges across Tank Farm Creek, one for eastbound traffic on the south side of Buckley to provide east-west connectivity on Buckley Road, and the other along the southern side of Phase 1. 4. Pedestrian improvements along Suburban, Vachell and Higuera to eliminate the missing links of sidewalks and/or elimination of non-ADA compliant crossings. Appendix F shows the scope of these improvements. Transit: 1. Provision of transit stops on the project site. Phase 1 will include a transit stop on Earthwood north of Venture, and Phase 4 will include a transit stop at the Town Center. Transit stops are shown on the Circulation Plan in conformance with this requirement. 2. The project site will also be served by bus service from the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. Transit stops will be provided throughout the project in accordance with their requirements. Site Access and On-Site Circulation: Page 227 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 80 1. Provide left and right turn lanes on Buckley Road at Vachell Lane and the south project entry. The project design accommodates these improvements. 2. Construct single lane roundabouts at the on-site intersections of two collector roads. Roundabouts are shown at Earthwood/Venture, Venture/Horizon(Jespersen), and the Town Center. 3. Where collector roads intersect with local roads the local roads should be stop controlled. 4. Review construction documents to ensure adequate sight distance is provided at on-site intersections and driveways. Site distance calculations are shown on the Vesting Tentative Map, in conformance with City design requirements. 5. Connect the project to Earthwood Lane as a part of Phase 1 of development. Connect the project to Horizon Lane as a part of Phase 4 of development. Earthwood is connected to Suburban as part of Phase 1. Venture is connected to Jespersen/Horizon as part of the Phase 4, and the Jespersen/Horizon extension from Buckley is planned for Phase 4. Additional detail on these improvements is provided in the Traffic Impact Study for the project. Phasing ` The foregoing summary provides the scope of needed improvements to support the circulation needs and demands for the project. Some of these improvements will be installed as part of the project, as described below. Others will be implemented by the City and/or County as part of their capital improvement programs. The transportation improvements associated with each phase of the project based on information from the traffic study and project impacts are as follows: Phase 1 includes the, extension of Venture Road along the phase frontage through the Venture/Earthwood roundabout, and extension of Earthwood to Suburban , the extension of the Earthwood Collector (w/Class II) to Suburban, and a transit stop along Earthwood Extension. (MM TRANS 11a, 12). This phase would also include the modification of the Higuera/Suburban intersection per the traffic study (MM TRANS 7c). Phase 1 will also include pedestrian improvements on Suburban Road between Earthwood and Higuera, and pedestrian improvements along the east side of Higuera between Vachell and LOVR per the plans in Appendix F. (MM TRANS 10a, 10b, 10c Mitigation measures prescribed by the EIR for the project in Phase 1 include the following: a. Installation of an additional southbound left turn lane at Higuera and Tank Farm Road. (MM TRANS 7b). b. Extension of the northbound right turn lane at South and Higuera. (MM TRANS 6). Phase 2 This phase will include the extension of Buckley Road from Vachell to Higuera, and improvements to restrict left turns to and from Higuera and Vachell. As part of this phase, the Buckley Extension Class I bike path may be installed in an interim or permanent condition, subject to availability Page 228 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 81 of right of way and governmental approvals. (MM TRANS 7c). This phase would also include the Class I bike path from the Class II diversion on Buckley to Vachell, a pedestrian/bike bridge over Tank Farm Creek north of Buckley for Class I bike path and, a Class II bike lane bridge on south side of Buckley at the Buckley/Tank Farm Creek Bridge. This phase would also include the extension of frontage improvements and the extension of the Tank Farm Creek Class I bike path to Venture Lane. Phase 3 circulation improvements includes completion of in tract circulation, and the frontage improvements along Venture Lane. Phase 4 includes the development of the eastside circulation network for the project, including the construction of the vehicle and pedestrian bridge from Venture to Jespersen, the completion of Jespersen Road to Buckley, completion of Horizon Road from Venture to Suburban Road, project entry improvements on Buckley Road, and the Buckley frontage improvements. It would also include widening of the Buckley Road shoulders along the project frontage to meet minimum bikeway standards for road speed, slope other site conditions. Phase 4 would include the completion of the Tank Farm Creek Class I bike path to the Chevron open space, and the improvement of sidewalks and ADA crossings on Suburban between Horizon and Earthwood. Phase 4 would also involve the development of the second transit stop at the Town Center. Phase 5 circulation improvements include the development of in tract improvements, and the construction of the second bridge over Tank Farm Creek connecting to the Town Center. No added traffic improvements are planned. Phase 6 does not include the development of any additional traffic and circulation improvements. Page 229 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 82 Infrastructure Framework Domestic Water Existing City water main facilities slated to serve the site consist of an 18 -inch main in S. Higuera Street and an existing 12 -inch main in Suburban, and new potable and recycled water mains in Earthwood. Providing adequate domestic and fire flows to the Avila Ranch project will require extension to the new lines in Earthwood and eventual looping of the system. Main lines within the project will be looped through the individual phases to provide required flows and redundancy. Figure 31 shows the planned water system improvements. Construction of a 10-inch main line within the Earthwood Lane Phase I Right of Way has been completed. This line is stubbed approximately one-third of the way into the Earthwood subdivision project, with plans for a Phase II extension of the road to the north property line of Avila Ranch. The adjacent former Dioptics/currently Trust Automation building at 125 Venture Drive is served by water originating from an existing private offsite well and private water line which runs within Vachell Lane. The system, installed at that time, provided stubs for future water connection to a new main line in Vachell. The Avila Ranch project will provide connection to these laterals at the time a main line is extended within Vachell. The project proposes several features that meet and exceed the current water conservation and management regulations from the City or State agencies. Development in the Avila Ranch area is to be designed so that the projected annual residential water consumption for the project is 30 percent less than the city’s current average residential per-person annual community water consumption (estimated at 60 gallons per day per person). To meet this goal, the following performance standards are to be used: 1) turf shall not be permitted for individual yard landscaping. Landscape plans shall be developed which require lower water usage, and which require lower maintenance. Landscape plans shall reflect the local climate zones and local plant material; 2) turf may be used where it is associated with a common open space, parkways, sports field or other common area. Where feasible, these areas will be irrigated with recycled water supplies; 3) landscape and irrigation plans should use drip irrigation systems to the extent feasible. Overhead spray irrigation is discouraged; 4) residential units will be pre- plumbed for onsite water recycling; 5) plumbing fixtures shall comply with EPA “WaterSense” standards and to CalGreen flow standards; and 6) the project shall use “compact plumbing” strategies as described in Section 13 of the Design Framework. In its pre-development condition, the site uses approximately 90-95 acre-feet of ground water per year from a local irrigation well for agricultural purposes. This is based on one fourth of the site being planted in irrigated crops each year at an application rate of 30 inches per crop, with the balance of the site either fallow or in dry farmed crops. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project found that the ten-year average per capita water use for the City was 114.4 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) from 2005-2016. The 2015 residential water use for the community is currently 59 gpcd. Total City current water use is 4,990 AF/year, a ten percent reduction from the previous year. The Avila Ranch Page 230 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 83 water usage is estimated to be lower than current city average usage, with estimated residential water usage calculated to be 39 gallons per day per person per day. Avila Ranch’s projected usage is 0.7% of total supply and 2% of available water supply. Total projected water usage for the project according to the Water Supply Assessment for the Mitigated Project, is 127.7 acre-feet (AF), with 73 AF feet of that demand being met by potable water supplies, and 57.7 AF being met by city recycled water supplies. Recycled Water The City of San Luis Obispo continues to expand their recycled water system. New facilities to serve the Avila Ranch project will be extended from the existing line in Earthwood. Figure 31 shows the planned locations of the potable water and recycled water main lines. Approximately 82 percent of irrigation demand for the project site will be met with non-potable recycled water, a total of 57.7 acre feet± of recycled water. Sanitary Sewer The Avila Ranch property, as with all properties within the Airport Area Specific Plan, lies downstream of the existing Sewage Treatment Plant, requiring a system of force mains and/or lift stations to transport flows to the gravity lines which feed the plant. As part of the Avila Ranch project, a pump station will be constructed near the intersection of Vachell and Buckley to move flows to the north. This force main will run through Earthwood, Suburban, Short, Long, and Cross Street with eventual disposition into a gravity main in Tank Farm Road. The Avila Ranch project proposes to construct a system of gravity lines within the project to transport flows to the planned pump station and construct a force main system to transport those flows back up through the site, across an adjacent parcel to Suburban Road and easterly in Suburban, up Short, Long, and Cross Street to a point where a gravity line can be constructed to extend northerly to tie to the existing main line in Tank Farm Road which feeds into the Tank Farm Lift Station. Figure 32 shows the planned sewer mains, lift station, and force mains. Adjacent future development at Venture Lane was planned to be served by septic systems when initially approved by the County and the former Dioptics/current Trust Automation building, located @ 125 Venture Drive, pumps from the existing building to a leach field on the north side of their property. Revisions to that system, and extension of sewer mains, to this area are not a part of the planned improvements associated with Avila Ranch. Dry Utilities PG&E will provide underground extensions from existing facilities, from overhead lines along the west side of Vachell, and along the south side of the Suburban properties to the north. Final requirements will be confirmed with PG&E. Cable TV/Phone facilities exist along Vachell Lane and are planned to be extended to serve the site. Southern California Gas Company has an existing 16 -inch high-pressure main line which extends southerly in Vachell and easterly in Buckley. Page 231 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 84 Figure 31 Water Master Plan Page 232 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 85 Figure 32 Sewer Master Plan Page 233 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 86 Service for the Avila Ranch project may originate from this 16 -inch line, and would include the installation of pressure reducing stations to be designed by SoCal Gas. Storm water, Hydrology and LID Compliance The project is subject to the Low Impact Development requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Requirements. A drainage study has been prepared to analyze the project’s conformance with Water Board and City of SLO drainage requirements. Stormwater treatment and retention is planned for runoff from the new impervious areas associated with this project. Runoff from these areas will be directed to vegetated or underground facilities that are intended to retain and infiltrate the runoff from events up to the 95th percentile 24-hour rainfall event. For larger events, these vegetated facilities will overflow into standpipes that connect to storm drain conveyance pipes that discharge to Tank Farm Creek. Drainage for the planned development is shown in Figure 33 and described in the following sections. Northwest Portion of Site The portion of the site on the northwest side of Tank Farm Creek consists of Phases 1 through 3 and is comprised mostly of medium-density single-family residenceswith some high-density multi-family residences. Runoff from these areas will be directed to either onsite vegetated treatment facilities or underground facilities designed to meet treatment and retention requirements. For storms larger than the required onsite retention design storm, the vegetated facilities will overflow into various inlets that connect to a network of storm drain conveyance pipes in the streets that discharge to Tank Farm Creek at various locations. Runoff from the public sidewalks and streets is planned to be conveyed by surface flow in the gutters and streets to vegetated treatment facilities located in the small onsite parks and along the creek bank. These facilities will overflow into standpipes that connect to the storm drain pipe networks that discharge to the creek or a larger regional detention pond located north of Buckley Road. There is currently one detention pond planned for the site. This pond will be located at the southwest corner of the site and detain the runoff from the single-family residences and streets located in that portion of the site. This pond is adequate to handle the peak flow and storm drainage needs of Phases 1 through 3. Offsite runoff that enters the site from the north and west is planned to be collected and conveyed through the project site with underground pipe. Page 234 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 87 Figure 33 Storm Drain Master Plan Page 235 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 88 Southeast Portion of Site The portion of the site on the southeast side of Tank Farm Creek includes phases 4 through 6 and is comprised of low-density single-family residences,medium-high density multi-family residences, commercial development, and parks. Runoff from the imperious surfaces, including the public sidewalks and streets, is planned to be directed to vegetated treatment or underground facilities located at the backs of the sidewalks to meet treatment and retention requirements. For storms larger than the required onsite retention design storm, the vegetated facilities will overflow into standpipes that connect to a network of storm drain conveyance pipes in the streets that discharge to Tank Farm Creek at various locations. Because of the peak flows associated with the site, development of this portion of the project is dependent on the installation of a portion (but not all) of the storm drainage improvements being installed as part of the Chevron Remediation project. These improvements are those located in the southeast portion of the Chevron site immediately to the north of the project site. They would be installed either by Chevron as part of their planned remediation efforts, or, if unexpectedly delayed, under contract with Avila Ranch LLC. The project’s design features have been developed to comply with Performance Requirements 1 through 4. Performance Requirement 1 – Site Design and Runoff Reduction: Under this requirement there is limited disturbance to creeks and drainage features, avoidance of compaction on permeable soils, limited clearing and grading of vegetated areas, reduction in impervious surfaces, and other measures to limit offsite runoff. Tank Farm Creek will not be modified except for its realignment to its former natural course and connection to the Chevron detention basin. The project site soils exhibit a wide pattern of permeability and those adjacent to the creek show the most consistent pattern of moderate to rapid permeability, with soils influenced by historic water flows or occasional flooding showing the lowest permeability. Soils adjacent to the Tank Farm Creek will be used for open space, recreation, and for storm water infiltration/ detention. The project will also include many features to minimize the amount of impervious surfaces, and may include the use of pervious pavement and pavers for R-2 driveways, usage of pervious pavers/porous concrete on at least 20 percent of parking lot areas for multifamily/commercial and town center areas (in conjunction with v-gutters and French drains), and narrower streets sections consistent with other Specific Plans in the community. Streets and paved areas will be surfaced drained where possible to LID catchment areas. Performance Requirement 2 – Water Quality Treatment The site will have an integrated system of small filtration ponds that will retain the 85th percentile 24- hour storm. Figure 23 shows the distribution of these areas and the bioswales for the project. It is estimated that approximately five percent of the surface area is required to comply with the retention requirement. Page 236 of 349 Avila Ranch Development Plan (approved September 19, 2017) Page 89 Performance Requirement 3 – Runoff Retention The site will have an integrated system of small filtration ponds that will retain at least the 85th percentile 24- hour storm. Thirty-five percent of the site will be in open space or park uses, substantially reducing runoff from the project site. The ponds have a combined capacity of approximately 23 acre- feet, an amount adequate for retention of a 25-year storm, or detention for a 50-year storm. Performance Requirement 4 – Peak Management The onsite ponds and detention areas are designed to manage flows through the onsite ponds. The peak management strategy is to filter surface flows and to release these filtered flows into Tank Farm Creek ahead of upstream flows. The ponds have a combined capacity of approximately 23 acre-feet, an amount adequate for retention of a 25-year storm, or detention for a 50-year storm. Page 237 of 349 Page 238 of 349 Attachment B Page 239 of 349 Page 240 of 349 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 MONTEREY): REVIEW OF A REVISED PROJECT DESIGN FOR THE MOTEL INN, AN 83-ROOM HOTEL WITH 29 BUNGALOW GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, FOUR SMALL OUTBUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING AN EXCEPTION FROM WALL HEIGHT STAN BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166 Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org APPLICANT: Motel Inn, L.P. REPRESENTATIVE: Studio Design Group Architects RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the revised project design based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 1.0 SITE DATA The project site is a commercial parcel on the south side of Monterey Street at its intersection with U.S. Highway 101. The highway and its northbound onramp travel along the northern edge of the site. San Luis Obispo Creek flows along the south and east sides of the property, with a low-density residential neighborhood, situated along San Luis Drive, across the creek from the site. Tourist-serving businesses (e.g., Apple Farm Inn, La Cuesta Inn) operate to the west of the site, within a concentration of lodging and restaurants at the northern end of Monterey Street. Applicant Motel Inn, L.P. Representative Studio Design Group Architects General Plan Tourist Commercial Zoning Tourist Commercial and Special Considerations Overlay (C-T-S) Site Area 4.19 acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted in March, 2016; Addendum Prepared Meeting Date: 8/10/2022 Item Number: 4c Time Estimate: 45 Minutes Page 241 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 The property was developed with the Milestone Motel, built in 1924 -1925, designed by architects Alfred and Arthur Heineman in a Mission Revival architectural style, a nd claimed as the first place in the world to call itself a “motel.” It was included as a Master List Resource in the listing of historically significant properties resulting from the City’s 1983 Historic Resources Survey. Most of the original motel complex (most recently known as the Motel Inn), which had been significantly altered and no longer held historic significance, was demolished in the early 2000s due to extensive deterioration . The remaining historic portions consist of a façade wall from the original restaurant and portions of the lobby building which include a three-tiered bell tower with a copper dome (Figure 1, below). 2.0 SUMMARY The applicant proposes to develop the property with an 83-room hotel comprised of a restaurant and lobby building, 29 bungalow buildings providing guest accommodation, four maintenance and housekeeping outbuildings, along with pool, garden and gathering area amenities (see Project Description, Attachment B and Project Plans, Attachment C). Approved Project. The Planning Commission approved a development project for this site in 2017 (see Previous Review section, below), which included Recreational Vehicle (RV) and Airstream trailer components and a larger lobby and guest room building. Proposed Design Revision. The project design currently proposed under this application is a revision of the approved project design, with significant features summarized below:  Smaller lobby space in the existing historic building and façade; addition of a café  Guest accommodations within 29 Mission Revival bungalows (RV and Airstream trailer sites eliminated)  Four small accessory outbuildings for maintenance and housekeeping  Pool Area  Addition of a site wall for noise attenuation from the freeway Figure 1: Motel Inn - Remnant Facade (left) and belltower lobby Page 242 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 3.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW As provided by Zoning Regulations Section 17.106.030, the proposed project design modifications are subject to Moderate Development Review. Consideration of the proposed design modifications under this Architectural Review application is being referred by the Community Development Director to the Commission for review and final action because the original approval of this project was granted by the Planning Commission (see Section 3.0 below). The Commission will review the consistency of the proposed design revisions with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations, with the use limitations and design criteria set out in Ordinances No. 1130 and 1651 (Attachment D), applicable to development within the Special Considerations (S) Overlay Zone covering this southern portion of the Upper Monterey area, and with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Addendum to the MND prepared for the project (Attachment E). 4.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW In March 2016 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and approved a project for redevelopment of the Motel Inn site with a hotel and restaurant, with accommodations provided in Mission Revival Style “bungalow” buildings and several rec reational vehicle spaces, some with pre-sited Airstream trailers, finding it to be consistent with applicable design standards and guidelines. The Planning Commission subsequently approved the Use Permit associated with the project, with minor modifications to the project approved by the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission in 2017. Prior Advisory Body review is summarized in Table 1 below, with links to Advisory Body Materials (Agenda Reports, Meeting Minutes, and adopted Resolutions): Table 1: Prior Project Review Meeting and Date Action Cultural Heritage Committee January 25, 2016 (ARCH-2363-2015) Adopted Resolution CHC-1000-16 Hotel project: 52 rooms, 24 RV hookups Architectural Review Commission March 21, 2016 (ARCH-2363-2015) Adopted Resolution ARC-1002-16 Hotel project: 55 rooms, RV park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces Planning Commission March 23, 2016 (USE-1035-2015) Adopted Resolution PC-1004-16 Use Permit (Special Considerations Overlay Zone); Hotel project: 55 rooms, RV park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces, 10% parking reduction request Page 243 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 Community Development Director May 22, 2017 (ARCH-3741-2016) Approved by Administrative Action Design review of a modification to project; recreate Motel Inn and Restaurant along with other motor court amenities Planning Commission September 27, 2017 (USE-0580-2017) Adopted Resolution PC-1010-17 Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (USE- 1035-2015) for the Motel Inn Project: re-configure site design to accommodate Airstream trailers, a restroom building, bocce court, associated parking, landscaping, and site improvements (Special Considerations Zone) Revised Design (“A-Frame” Guestrooms). The applicant presented a revised project design to the City in 2021, in which the Mission Revival bungalow buildings were replaced by 33 "A-Frame" guestroom buildings. The City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) found that the proposed revision failed to preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property.1 Current Proposal. In response to direction provided by the CHC, the applicant further revised the project design, now carrying the Mission Revival style bungalow form throughout the entire project, replacing (as described in Summary above) the Airstream RV sites in the eastern portion of the site with single-story guest bungalows and breaking a larger lobby and guestroom building in the center of the site into four smaller-scale bungalow buildings. On June 27, 2022, the CHC reviewed2 the current proposed design and recommended that the Planning Commission find the revised project consistent with policies, standards, and guidelines for cultural and historical resources. And on July 18, 2022, the Architectural Review Commission also reviewed3 the revised design and recommended that the Planning Commission find it consistent with applicable design standards and policies. 1 CHC Meeting Minutes (June 28, 2021) at: opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=145353 2 CHC Agenda Report (June 27, 2022) at opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=161286 3 ARC Agenda Report (Jul 18 2022) at: opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=162190 Figure 2: Mission Revival "Bungalow" guest room buildings Page 244 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 The project architect has provided a Project Description (Attachment B) to accompany project plans (Attachment C), along with a depiction of exterior colors and materials, a comparison of the revised design with the approved project design, and depictions of the proposed sound wall (see Attachments F, G, and H). 5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS 5.1 General Plan The Tourist Commercial designation in the General Plan provides for uses that primarily serve the traveling public. Policies set out in the Land Use Element (LUE) promote the City as an attractive destination featuring its community character, natural qualities, historic resources, and its educational and cultural facilities. Visitor-serving uses are described as being especially appropriate along upper Monterey Street (LUE Policy 3.6). At the same time, the protection of residential neighborhoods is a first priority at boundaries between residential and nonresidential uses (LUE Policy 2.3.3), and creek corridors are identified as particularly valuable resources (Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.2.2). Proposed revisions to the project design are limited to architectural changes to structures providing guest accommodations, without modification of the business itself, which remains a visitor-serving Hotel. Similarly, and as described in greater detail in Section 5.3 of this report, the guest bungalows conform to the design criteria set out in Ordinances 1130 and 1651, specifically intended to protect the residential atmosphere of the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood and the natural values of the San Luis Obispo Creek corridor bounding the subject site to the south. 5.2 Zoning Regulations The Motel Inn site is within the Tourist Commercial (C-T) Zone, which is intended to provide accommodations and services for the traveling public an d to implement General Plan Land Use Policies 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 promoting the City as an attractive destination. Hotels are, naturally, a permitted use within the Zone. It is worth noting that RV Parks may only operate in the Zone under Use Permit control, t o ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, but that Hotels and Motels are permitted “as of right,” indicating that elimination of the RV sites from the project design further enhances compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. The revised project design introduces single-story guest bungalows to the eastern portion of the site, in replacement of the Airstream RV installations, sited and designed in a manner conforming to applicable development standards. As summarized in Table 2 below, the overall project continues to meet or exceed the Development Standards set out in Zoning Regulations. Wall Height. The vegetated sound wall added along the northern property boundary at its boundary with Highway 101 exceeds the height limit set out in standards for Fences, Walls, and Hedges (Zoning Regulations (§ 17.70.070 (D)). These standards are intended to enhance the community appearance, visual image of the streetscape, overall character of neighborhoods, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air, and public safety. Page 245 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 Walls are limited to a maximum height of eight feet, and exceptions to this standard may be considered, subject to required findings described in Zoning Regulations Section 17.108 regarding consideration of neighborhood character and potential adverse effects. Because the wall is located at the interface between the project site and a major highway, and covered with screening vegetation, it will not have the potential to affect the streetscape or neighborhood character, or to impair light, air, or public safety. The applicant has provided Sound Wall Depictions (Attachment H) depicting the relationship between the wall and the adjacent sloped topography rising toward the highw ay, where the difference in grade reduces the apparent height of the wall as it may be viewed from the highway, and showing the screening provided by existing vegetation between the wall and highway. The required findings for approving and exception from the wall height limit are included in the Draft Resolution (Attachment A). Table 2: Project Statistics Site Details Proposed Standardb Setbacks Front N/A N/A Side, Rear (North, East) 10 – 15 feet None Side, Rear (South) Min. 20 feet 20 feet Maximum Height of Structures Max 25 feet (new bungalows) 25 Feet (near creek) Max Lot Coverage 20% 75% Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Number of Vehicle Spaces EV Spaces 101 11 EV-Ready 28 EV-Capable 99 (10% Reduction)b 11 EV-Ready 28 EV-Capable Number of Bicycle Spaces Short-term Long-term 8 4 4 8 (1/10 guestrooms) 4 (50%) 4 (50%) Environmental Status Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment E) a 2019 Zoning Regulations and Ordinances 1130 & 1516 b Parking Reduction approved for the project by Resolution PC-1004-16 (USE-1035-2015) 5.3 Ordinances 1130 and 1651 In 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1130, applying a Special Considerations (S) Overlay Zone to property along the south side of the upper portion of Monterey Street. The Ordinance was intended to address land use compatibility concerns between commercial and residential land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek, and to set out certain design criteria for new or expanded development in the a rea. The Ordinance was amended in 2018 by adoption of Ordinance 1651, which updated the design criteria. Page 246 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 While the project design approved in 2017 was found to be consistent with these criteria, the current design revision alters the configuration of deve lopment in the eastern portion of the site, some of which is adjacent to the creek area, where a single -family neighborhood (along San Luis Drive) exists across the creek corridor. Staff finds the design revision is also consistent with these design criteria, as summarized below: Creek Setback (Criterion 1). Development continues to provide the required 20-foot creek setback depicted in plans (see Area Plan, Sheet A-1.1, in Project Plans, Attachment C) Openings, Screening, Buffering, Lighting (Criteria 2 -4, 6, 7). New bungalows at the eastern portion of the site are oriented internally to a courtyard, with no building entrances facing south toward the creek. Openings toward the creek are limited to a small number of windows, treated with anti-glare tint, at the back of single-story bungalow buildings (except for Building B 29, which is two stories in height, but also is provided with limited anti-glare windows facing the creek area). Screening continues to be provided by a 6 -foot tall solid wood fence with landscaping, which will substantially screen the single-story buildings at this portion of the site. The location of the pool and other gathering areas on the interior of the site remains unchanged, with site buildings used as a buffer between these areas and the creek. A Preliminary Lighting Plan (Attachment C, Sheet A-4.0) depicts use of “Dark Sky Compliant” lighting fixtures, consistent with the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards (see CDG § 6.1 (C)). Site Drainage (Criteria 7, 10). Final plans required for construction permits to complete the project will include Grading and Drainage Plans subject to review by the City’s Engineering staff for conformance to Post Construction Stormwater and other water quality requirements which will address these criteria. Building Height (Criteria 9). Buildings closer to the creek setback are restricted in height, to as little as 25 feet. The new single-story bungalows in the eastern portion of the site are less than 16 feet in height and the two-story building in this area (B29) is designed to a height of 22 feet, as depicted in plans (Attachment C, Sheet A-2.3). Other Criteria (14, 15, 16). No creekside trail, conference or convention center, or parking- related openings are proposed with this revision. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted on prior approval of the project by the Planning Commission (March 23, 2016). As revised, the project remains consistent with the adopted MND because the changes are primarily architect ural in nature and do not result in a change in use or intensification in scale of the project as previously assessed in the Initial Study associated with the MND. An Addendum to the Initial Study and MND, reflecting the minor revisions to the project desc ription, are included as attachments to this report, to be considered with final action on the revised project design. Page 247 of 349 Item 4c ARCH-0327-2022 (2223 Monterey) Planning Commission Report – August 10, 2022 7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The proposed design revisions have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal, Transportation Division (Public Works), Natural Resource Manager, Utilities Department, and the Building & Safety and Engineering Divisions (Community Development). Prior conditions of approval set out in the Resolutions granting prior project approvals (Resolution CHC- 1000-16, Resolution ARC-1002-16, and Resolution PC-1010-17) remain in effect and have been confirmed to be applicable to the revised project design. To reinforce applicability of these prior conditions, Condition of Approval #1 of the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) incorporates them by reference as conditions of this approval as well. The Utilities Department has provided additional comments regarding the placement and installation of utility services and landscaping details which have been incorporated into added conditions of project approval 2 through 7. 8.0 ALTERNATIVES 8.1 Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues 8.2 Deny the application, based on findings establishing that the revised project design is not consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Draft PC Resolution (ARCH-0327-2022) B - Project Description (ARCH-0327-2022) C - Project Plans (ARCH-0327-2022) D - Ordinance No. 1130 and 1651 E - Draft Addendum to Motel Inn Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration F - Exterior Colors and Materials (ARCH-0327-2022) G - Comparison with Previous Approval H - Sound Wall Depictions (ARCH-0327-2022) Page 248 of 349 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN OF THE MOTEL INN PROJECT, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF GUEST ACCOMMODATIONS IN AIRSTREAM TRAILER STRUCTURES WITH ACCOMMODATIONS IN SMALL MISSION REVIVAL STYLE BUNGALOWS, REPLACEMENT OF A LOBBY AND GUEST ROOM BUILDING WITH FOUR BUNGALOW GUEST BUILDINGS, INSTALLATION OF A VEGETATED SOUND WALL, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, WITH CONSIDERATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY - ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE MODIFIED PROJECT REMAINS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED MND, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST 10, 2022 (2223 MONTEREY STREET, ARCH-0327-2021) 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, a Use Permit for the Motel Inn project, 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, on September 27, 2017, 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 considering application USE-0580-2017, a modification to Use Permit USE-1035-2015 for the Motel Inn project, reconfiguring the site design of the eastern portion of the site to accommodate Airstream trailers for guest accommodations, a restroom building, bocce court, and associated parking, landscaping, and site improvements, and adopted Resolution No. PC-1010-17 approving the modification and determining that the modified project was consistent with the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the Cultural Heritage Committee 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, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-0327-2021, Motel Inn, L.P., applicant, and provided a positive recommendation as to the consistency of proposed modifications to the design of the Motel Inn project with applicable historical preservation policies and standards; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2022, the Architectural Review 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, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-0327-2021, Motel Inn, L.P., applicant, and provided a positive recommendation as to the consistency of the proposed modifications to the design of the Motel Inn project with applicable design standards and guidelines; and Page 249 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2 R _____ WHEREAS, on August 10, 2022, 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, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-0327-2021, Motel Inn, L.P., applicant, to consider modifications to the design of the Motel Inn project proposed under this application; and WHEREAS, notices of said 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. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the project. 1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. That the proposed project, as modified, 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 City’s General Plan, the site' s zoning and property development standards, the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series), as amended by Ordinance No. 1651 (2018 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, as amended by Ordinance No. 1651. 4. That approval of an exception from standards for Fences, Walls, and Hedges (Zoning Regs. § 17.70.070 (B)) to allow the proposed vegetated sound wall at the northern boundary of the property at 16 feet in height (where standards typically limit wall height to eight feet) is consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning Regulations and applicable General Plan policies, consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties. While site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the maximum Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, or the project nonetheless conforms with the intent of these Regulations. The proposed wall will not affect the streetscape or neighborhood character because it is located at the interface between the subject property and US Highway 101, with the grade differential between the site and highway reducing the apparent height of the wall as seen from Highway 101, and screening provided by existing vegetation along the highway shoulder. Page 250 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3 R _____ SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission hereby finds that: 1. 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. 2. 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 in light of the modifications to the design of the project: AIR QUALITY MITIGATION 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 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. e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment into the drainage/creek system. Page 251 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 4 R _____ 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 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 AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MITIGATION 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. Page 252 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 5 R _____ 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 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-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November 2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application ARCH-0327-2022, based on the findings set out in Section 1 of this Resolution, subject to the following conditions: Planning Division 1. Conformance to Approvals. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission under this Architectural Review application and shall comply with mitigation measures and conditions of approval documented in Resolution CHC-1000-16, Resolution ARC-1002-16, and Resolution PC-1010-17. 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. Colors and Materials. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide final design details for the trash enclosure(s). Final designs shall be consistent with the overall theme of the project and shall incorporate screening plantings, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall 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. Page 253 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 6 R _____ 5. 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. 6. The locations of all lighting, including wall-mounted lighting and bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. The lighting schedule for the buildings shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cutsheets on the submitted building plans, demonstrating conformance to City’s Night Sky Preservation standards Zoning Regulations § 17.70.100). a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.100 (B) (1) (c). 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, any lighting provided along the creek shall be of a bollard style (rather than pole mounted lighting). 7. 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. 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 area. Caltrans approval may be required dependent on location of landscape plantings relative to property lines. 8. 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. Engineering 9. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance. Page 254 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 7 R _____ 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. Resolution No. ARC-1002-16 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 drip line of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 17. 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. 18. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking per M.C. Section 17.72.070, Table 3-6, 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. Page 255 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 8 R _____ 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. 19. 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. 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structures shall be underground. Undergrounding to the new structures and facilities shall be completed without a net increase of utility poles within the public right of- way unless specifically approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 21. 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. 22. 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 feet above the BFE may result in additional savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 23. 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. 24. 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. Page 256 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 9 R _____ 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City's Website. 28. 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 storm water conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. 29. 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). 30. 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. 31. 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. Page 257 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 10 R _____ 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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 drip line 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. 37. 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. Natural Resources 38. The riparian open space area shall be encumbered by a permanent open space easement, per Ordinances 1130 and , to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and City's Attorney's Office. Utilities Department 39. 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. 40. 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. Page 258 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 11 R _____ 41. 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. 42. 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. 43. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards in effect during the time a building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable alignments and clearances needed for maintenance. 44. All foundations, structures, and overhangs shall have a minimum horizontal clearance of ten feet (10’-0”) to all public sewer mains running along the existing easement. 45. Building permit submittal shall clarify size of existing and proposed water services and water meters for the project. Water meters shall be adequately sized to serve the project. 46. The sewer lateral serving the property shall be made with HDPE material and shall be installed per the City’s engineering design standards. 47. The building permit submittal shall include a completed Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) form based on the final landscape design plan and a hydrozone table with a summary of Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) and the corresponding irrigation window. 48. The landscape plan submitted with the building permit shall incorporate smaller trees within the existing water line easement along the northern property boundary, such that the trees and associated root structure will not impact the underlying water line. Page 259 of 349 PC Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 12 R _____ Indemnification 49. 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. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2022. ____________________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Planning Commission Page 260 of 349 June 9, 2022 Walter Oetzell Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn (2223 Monterey Street) Dear Mr. Oetzell, Enclosed are revised plans for the Motel Inn project for consideration under Moderate Architectural Review as a modification to the previously approved USE-0580-2017 permit. The Motel Inn is a new hotel honoring the history and Mission Revival architecture of the original inn that was built on the site in 1925. The proposed hotel maintains portions of the design from the original historic inn such as a bungalow court and the remaining existing historic structures including the bell tower, while updating the design to meet current standards and trends. The Motel Inn will feature guest rooms in one and two story bungalows, a pool, garden and gathering areas located on the interior of the site. The proposed plans comply with Ordinance 1651 by adhering to creek setbacks, minimizing building openings facing the creek, focusing active uses in the center of the site, proposing low-scale development and providing screening between the buildings and creek. The permitted Restaurant Building that incorporates the existing historic structures remains largely unchanged and will serve as the hotel Lobby/Café. It was not a part of the original application or a part of this revised application. Revisions from the previous Use Permit include exchanging the 2-story Guestroom/Lobby Building for additional 2-story bungalow guest units. The previously proposed airstream units have been eliminated in favor of single-story bungalow guest units arranged around a court on the east end of the site. All improvements are now proposed to be permanent structures per CBC and permitted under City of SLO jurisdiction. • Previously approved application: (55) guestrooms in Bungalows and Hotel Lobby Building, (26) guest Airstreams and (1) spa Airstream. Total of 81 guestroom units. • Revised application: (83) guestrooms in one and two story Bungalows. Refer to Exhibit A (attached) for additional project data comparisons. Page 261 of 349 June 8, 2022 ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification 2 Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, SDG Ariana Melendez Project Architect Page 262 of 349 June 8, 2022 ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification 3 EXHIBIT A – Project Comparison Table PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017) CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2022) SITE PLAN 2-story lobby building (with guestrooms) N/A (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Restaurant - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (10) 2-story bungalows (15) 2-story bungalows (27) Airstreams with decks (14) 1-story bungalows (4) small outbuildings (4) small outbuildings (2) pool areas (1) pool area SQUARE FOOTAGE 33,724 SF (Lobby building, outbuildings, & bungalows) 45,000 SF (Bungalows & Outbuildings) 6,696 SF (Airstreams) N/A 10,750 SF (Restaurant - not a part) 9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part) 51,170 SF (Total) 54,000 SF (Total) UNIT TYPE Mix of hotel rooms, freestanding bungalows, & Airstreams All bungalows UNIT COUNT 81 83 PARKING 121 required/121 provided* 99 required/101 provided* ARCHITECTURE Site-built structures in Mission Revival style plus Airstreams Site-built structures in Mission Revival style HEIGHT 33'-0" (2-story lobby building) 28' (2-story bungalows) CREEK SETBACK 20'-0" 20'-0" (No change) CREEK ORDINANCE 1130/1651 No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek Outdoor recreation activities located on the interior of the site Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Split rail fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Windows facing the creek have been minimized (and significantly reduced from previous approval) Glazing facing the creek will be non-operable with anti-glare tint *Previous approval parking calculation included a full restaurant in the historic infill structure. The current submittal assumes a smaller "café" in its place, with fewer parking spaces required. Page 263 of 349 Page 264 of 349 Page 265 of 349 Page 266 of 349 Page 267 of 349 Page 268 of 349 Page 269 of 349 Page 270 of 349 Page 271 of 349 Page 272 of 349 Page 273 of 349 Page 274 of 349 Page 275 of 349 Page 276 of 349 Page 277 of 349 Page 278 of 349 MOTEL INN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 3/18/22 KEYNOTE LEGEND 1 PATIO WITH DECORATIVE PAVING 2 YARD GAMES (CORNHOLE, PING PONG) 3 ENHANCED ENTRY LANDSCAPING 4 LOBBY ENTRY PATIO 5 IN-GROUND POOL (27’x42’) 6 HOT TUB (10’x12’) 7 SUN DECK WITH LOUNGE CHAIRS 8 LAWN AREA (GRASS CRETE AT FIRE TRUCK HAMMERHEAD) 9 5’ TALL NO-CLIMB POOL SECURITY FENCE WITH GATES 10 TIERED WATER FOUNTAIN 11 GARDEN PATIO WITH DECORATIVE PAVING 12 RAISED PLANTER WITH SPECIMEN CANOPY TREE 13 LINEAR WATER FOUNTAIN 14 UNIT’S PRIVATE PATIO 15 FIRE TRUCK HAMMERHEAD (FLUSH GRADE, GRASS CRETE TURF) 16 PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY 17 NOT USED 18 NATIVE SCREEN PLANTINGS WITHIN CREEK SETBACK 19 SOLID FENCING AT TOP OF CREEK BANK, WITH PLANTS 20 NATIVE SCREEN PLANTINGS ALONG SLOPE 21 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN 22 PARKING LOT ISLAND WITH CANOPY SHADE TREE, TYP. 1 5 8 16 16 18 18 18 18 16 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 16 16 16 20 3 3 20 16 2 8 15 10 11 22 22 22 22 11 11 11 11 7 7 6 4 11 LOBBY / CAFE N/B H W Y 1 0 1 SAN LUIS OBISPO C R E E K TO MONTE R E Y S T . B1 B3 B2 B4 B7 B6 B5 B8 B9 MAINT. B10 B14 B13 B11 B12 HSKP. B15 B22 B16 B23 B17 B24 B18 B19 B26 B20 B27 B21 HSKPG B29 B28 B25 9 12 12 19 19 19 13 13 12 14 14 14 14 14 12 LANDSCAPE INSPIRATIONAL IMAGES HARDSCAPE MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS L-1 E. LAUNDRY CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE VISION THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN SEEKS A BALANCE BETWEEN THE HISTORICAL USE OF THE SITE, BLENDED WITH A MORE CONTEMPORARY FEEL. MEANDERING PATHWAYS LEAD THROUGH INTIMATE GARDENS AND DECORATIVE PATIOS, WITH SEMI-PRIVATE PATIOS ACCESSED FROM EACH BUGALOW. VARIOUS WATER FEATURES, FOCAL ELEMENTS, AND SPECIMEN TREES ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. THE PLANT PALETTE CONSISTS OF A COMBINATION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT, CALIFORNIA NATIVE, AND MEDITERRANEAN SPECIES. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Page 279 of 349 MOTEL INN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA PLANT PALETTE, NOTES, WATER USE 3/18/22 PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS* DESCRIPTION EVERGREEN TREES ARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24” BOX L FLOWERING; REDDISH BARK CITRUS SPS. / CITRUS (ORANGE, LEMON, LIME) 15 GAL L EDIBLE FRUIT OLEA EUROPAEA ‘SWAN HILL’ / FRUITLESS OLIVE 36” BOX VL FRUITLESS VARIETY TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX 24” BOX M REDDISH BARK; UPRIGHT FORM PHOENIX CANARIENSIS / CANARY ISLAND PALM 12’ BTH L ICONIC PALM DECIDUOUS TREES GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS ‘MORAINE’ / MORAINE LOCUST 24” BOX L GREEN LACY FOLIAGE LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CLTVS. / CRAPE MYRTLE 24” BOX L FLOWERING CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA / GOLD MEDALLION TREE 24” BOX M FLOWERING JACARANDA MIMOSIIFOLIA / JACARANDA 15 GAL M CANOPY SHADE; FLOWERING PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE 24” BOX L FALL COLOR SHRUBS / SUCCULENTS SUCCULENTS / AEONIUM, AGAVE, ALOE, KALANCHOE, ETC. 1 GAL L SUCCULENT; LOW WATER USE CALLISTEMON ‘LITTLE JOHN’ / DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL L RED FLOWERS DRACAENA DRAGO / DRAGON TREE 15 GAL L ACCENT DIANELLA CAERULEA ‘CASSA BLUE’/ BLUE FLAX LILY 5 GAL M BLUE/GREY STRAP-LIKE LEAVES EONYMUS JAPONICA CLTVS. / EVERGREEN EUONYMUS 5 GAL L HEDGE PLANT OLEA EUROPAEA ‘LITTLE OLLIE’ / DWARF OLIVE 5 GAL VL DWARF OLIVE PITTOSPORUM ‘SILVER SHEEN’ / SILVER SHEEN KOHUHU 5 GAL M UPRIGHT FORM PHORMIUM CLTVS. / NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL L COLORFUL ACCENT PRUNUS ‘BRIGHT N TIGHT’ / CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL 5 GAL L UPRIGHT FORM ROSA ‘ICEBERG’ / ICEBERG ROSES 5 GAL M VARIOUS FLOWERS SALVIA SPS. / SAGE 5 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USE WESTRINGIA ‘MORNING LIGHT’/ COASTAL ROSEMARY 5 GAL L VARIEGATED LEAVES GROUND COVER LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / TRAILING LANTANA 1 GAL L WHITE FLOWERS; ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS CLTVS. / ROSEMARY 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USE ROSA ‘FLOWER CARPET’ / FLOWER CARPET ROSE 5 GAL M FLOWERING PERENNIALS / ACCENTS ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM ‘MOONSHINE’ / YARROW 1 GAL L YELLOW FLOWERS; ANIGOZANTHOS CLTVS. / KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USE CORDYLINE VARS. / CABBAGE PALM 5 GAL M GRASS-LIKE ACCENT KNIPHOFIA UVARIA / RED HOT POKER 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USE LAVANDULA SPS. / LAVENDER 1 GAL L PURPLE FLOWERS. LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘BREEZE’ / BREEZE MAT RUSH 1 GAL L GREEN FOLIAGE NATIVE SCREENING BACCHARIS ‘CENTENNIAL’ / COYOTE BRUSH 1 GAL L SPREADING HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON 5 GAL L RED BERRIES; RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA ‘EVE CASE’ / COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL L ROUNDED FORM RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED FLOWERING CURRANT 5 GAL L FLOWERING; *WUCOLS (WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES) IS A GUIDE TO HELP IDENTIFY IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF PLANT SPECIES. DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2000. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENT THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, CONCURRENT WITH THE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLAN INSTALLATION, RELATED SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES, QUALIFIES THIS PROJECT AS ONE WHICH EMBRACES THE FOLLOWING CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY AND METHODOLOGIES: 1. UTILIZATION OF STATE OF THE ART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER(S) ALLOWING FOR PRECISION INCREMENTAL WATER SCHEDULING IN ALL HYDROZONES. 2. USE OF DRIP-TYPE AND/OR MICROSPRAY SYSTEMS ONLY. 3. INTEGRATED PLANT DESIGN. PLANT PALETTES HAVE BEEN FORMED TO REFLECT PARALLEL WATERING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN EACH HYDROZONE GROUP. 4. PLANTS INSTALLED WITH MOISTURE RETENTIVE SOIL AMENDMENTS, ENABLING STRONG ROOT AND PLANT GROWTH, WITH THE USE OF LESS WATER. 5. 3” DEEP MULCHING OF ALL PLANT BASINS AND PLANTING AREAS, INHIBITING EVAPORATION. 6. USE OF LOW WATER USE PLANTS. CONCEPT NOTES 1. PLANT MATERIAL WAS CHOSEN FOR ITS COMPATABILITY WITH THE MACRO/MICROCLIMATIC CONDITIONS OF THE REGION AND SITE; TOLERANCE OF WIND; TOLERANCE OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS; LONGEVITY; SCREENING CAPABILITIES; AND OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM WATER EFFICIENCY AND SHALL INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER, BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, AND LOW-GALLONAGE HEADS FOR TURF AND LARGE GROUND COVER AREAS. A DRIP-TYPE SYSTEM SHALL BE USED WHERE APPROPRIATE. TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE BUBBLER SYSTEMS. 3. PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, NARRATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, SITE DETAILS, AND MATERIAL DEFINITIONS WILL BE DETERMINED AND NOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. PLANT PHOTOS A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X L-2 PRELIMINARY MAWA / ETWU CALCULATIONS Page 280 of 349 MOTEL INN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 3/18/22 L-3TREE INVENTORY PLAN Page 281 of 349 310 312 29 0290298298 285295 308 305 306307 308 2 9 3 303 304 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291292 293 294 283 284 JC-6.1 LOBBY/CAFE FF=300.87 (FF=298.61) 300.60 TC 300.10 FS (303.91 TW) (301.6 EG) (304.45 TW) (301.5 EG) (304.85 TW) (302.0 EG) (305.40 TW) (302.5 EG) (305.98 TW) (303.3 EG) (306.03 TW) (303.2 EG) (306.71 TW) (305.8 EG) (306.83 TW) (304.1 EG) 300.00 TC 299.50 FS 299.15 TC298.65 FL 300.87 FF 300.85 FS 298.88 FS 298.61 FF 298.59 FS 298.59 FS 298.59 FS 302.16 TC 301.50 FS 302.30 TC 301.80 FS 303.40 TC 302.90 FS 302.90 TC 302.40 FS 302.50 TC 302.00 FS 300.10 FL 300.60 TC/FS 313.80 TW 302.9 FG 300.85 FS 298.00 FS 294.20 FS 294.60 TG 294.00 TG 292.80 TG 29429529 6 297298UNITS 15 FF=303.2 UNITS 22 FF=301.9 300.3 FG 300.9 FG UNIT B12 FF=300.8 UNIT B11 FF=299.6 UNIT B10 FF=299.1 UNIT B9 FF=297.4 UNIT B8 FF=296.4 UNIT B6 FF=295.6 UNIT B5 FF=295.5 UNIT B4 FF=297.1 UNIT B3 FF=298.1 UNIT B1 FF=298.6 UNIT B2 FF=298.00 300.85 FS 300.45 FS 298.00 FS UNIT B7 FF=296.4 299.30 TC 298.55 TG 293.90 TC 293.40 FS (292.6 TW) (289.8 BW) (293.39 EC) (294.2 EG) (295.0 EG) 294.95 TC 294.45 FS 295.00 TC 294.50 FS 296.00 TC 295.50 FS (296.2 EG) 1.5%MI N 5% M A X (296.46 EG)296.50 TC 296.00 FS (297.72 EG) (299.35 EG) 297.90 TC 297.40 FS 298.30 TC/FS 299.30 TC 298.80 FS 298.85 TC 298.35 FS 298.10 FS 296.25 TC 295.75 FL 298.10 FL 295.90 TC 295.40 FS 298.50 TC 298.00 FL 292.95 TC 292.20 TG 295.65 TC 295.15 FL 295.75 TC 295.25 FL 294.20 FL 296.50 TC 296.00 FS 298.10 TC 297.50 FS 298.10 TC 297.50 FS 299.40 TC 298.90 FL 293.50 TC 293.00 FS 293.20 TC 292.70 FS 5% MAX 1.5% 299.25 TC298.75 FL BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE BIO-RETENTION BASIN (750 SF) AREA DRAINS (TYP.) SAN LU I S O BI S P O C R E E K EX. BUILDING TO REMAIN (294.2 FF) MON T E R E Y ST. US HWY 1 0 1 EX. TOP OF BANK (TYP.) APPROX. LIMITS EX. 100-YR. FLOOD PLAIN (TYP.) CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP NEW FIRE HYDRANT 300.45 FS UNIT B13 FF=300.8 UNIT B14 FF=300.3 294.40 TG 298.00 TG 297.5 FG 301.20 FS 299.60 FS 294.15 TC 293.82 FS 294.15 TC 293.65 FS 294.10 TC 293.60 FS 297.75 TC 297.25 FL 298.50 FS 297.00 FS 296.20 FS 296.20 FS 294.3 FL 298.2 FL 298.4 FG RIDGE 300.00 FL 302.31 TC 301.65 FS 300.60 TC/FS 300.10 TC/FS 300.85 FS 301.00 TC/FS 300.60 TC/FS 300.75 TC/FS 300.35 FL 298.35 TC/TG 301.80 TC 299.40 FS 302.70 TC 302.20 FL 301.10 TC 300.60 FL 8% RAM P 2%MAX300.85 FS 301.10 TC 300.60 FS 302.20 TC 301.70 FL 302.50 TC 302.00 FL 303.20 TC 302.70 FS 304.70 TC 303.20 FS303.50 TC 303.00 FS 302.30 TC 301.80 FS 301.00 FS 300.85 FS 300.85 FS 300.85 FS 300.85 FS 2%MAX5%MAX300.40 FS 298.90 FS 5%MAX300.50 FL 2% MAX 306.47 TW 302.9 FG 303.80 TW 302.6 FG 300.50 FS 300.30 FL 299.70 TG 300.60 TC/FS 300.70 TC/FS 300.60 TC/FS 298.00 TG 300.45 TC/FS 300.30 FS 302.45 TC 301.95 FS 302.70 TC 302.20 FS 302.90 TC 302.40 FS 299.10 FS 299.40 FS 313.80 TW 302.8 FG 313.80 TW 302.6 FG 313.80 TW 302.9 FG 313.80 TW 302.4 FG 313.80 TW 303.0 FG 313.80 TW 303.5 FG 315.80 TW 303.8 FG 296.10 TG CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP M & H UNIT FF=296.7 M & H UNIT FF=299.6298.58 FS 298.08 FS 298.08 FS 297.08 FS 297.08 FS 295.48 FS 294.48 FS 300.28 FS 300.78 FS 300.78 FS 295.80 TG 295.60 TG 298.00 FS 296.60 FS 298.80 FS 296.90 FS5%MAX295.00 FS 295.50 FS 294.70 FS 295.08 FS 295.38 FS 294.60 TG 294.90 FS 296.10 FS 296.20 FS 298.40 FS 298.78 FS 300.10 FS 300.70 FS1.5%MIN5% MAX2%MAX1.5%MIN5% MAX2%MAX1.5%MIN5% MAX2% MA X 5%MAX5%MAX301.80 FS 1.5%MI N 5% M A X1.5%MI N 5% M A X 294.50 FS 294.60 FS 295.40 FS 296.20 TG 297.38 FS 296.30 TG 295.38 FS 301.00 TC 299.90 FS 298.42 TC/TG 5%MAX298.25 TC/FS 297.95 FL 296.00 TG 1.5% M I N 5% M A X 1.5% M I N 5% M A X 1.5% M I N 5% M A X 1.5%MIN 5% MAX 293.40 TC 292.90 FL 293.70 TC 293.20 FS 294.48 FS 299.20 FS 298.30 FS (4) 4" THRU-WALL DRAIN PIPES 302.2 FL 302.70 TC 302.20 FS (303.5 EG) 12' HIGH RETAINING & SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS 12' HIGH RETAINING & SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS 313.80 TW 302.9 FG 300.50 FL 300.60 FS298.70 FS 298.60 FS 299.60 TC 299.10 TG 299.60 FL 297.55 TC 296.95 FS 294.25 TC 293.75 FS 295.35 TC 294.85 FS 296.20 TC 295.70 FS TRENCH DRAIN ( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 10 2020 20 400 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANPLOT BY: AGE04PLOT DATE: Jul 20, 2022 - 1:19pmDrawing name: N:\2022\22029-MotelInn\Civil\Condocs\Sheetfiles\22029-C1.1-PGD.dwgDESIGNED: SHEET: DATE: JOB NUMBER: C-1.1 ENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE:NO.REVISIONDATEDRAWN BY:MOTEL INN2125 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CASJSDWB 22029 July 20, 2022MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET C-1.2293 294 295 296 298 297 300 299 Page 282 of 349 311 290300295295 300 290 285290 285305 306 307 308 310 301302283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 29 4 29 5 29 6 297 298 299 291295300304302.30 TC 301.80 FS 303.40 TC 302.90 FS 315.80 TW 304.7 FG 300.3 FG RIDGE 300.2 FG 298.6 FG 299.5 FG 300.1 FG RIDGE 300.6 FG RIDGE 301.7 FL 301.3 FL 299.9 FL 302.6 FL304.70 FS 302.3 FG RIDGE 302.0 FG RIDGE 300.8 FG RIDGE 304.0 FL 302.3 FG RIDGE 302.9 FG RIDGE (304.3 FG) RIDGE 302.90 TC 302.40 FS 2972982993003013 0 2 3 0 3 30 4 305 UNIT 29 FF=306.2 UNITS 23 FF=306.2 UNITS 28 FF=305.2 UNIT 27 FF=304.8 UNITS 20 FF=305.3 UNITS 19 FF=304.6 UNITS 26 FF=304.1 UNITS 25 FF=303.2 UNIT 24 FF=302.7 UNITS 18 FF=304.2 UNITS 17 FF=303.7 UNITS 16 FF=303.5UNITS 15 FF=303.2 UNITS 22 FF=301.9 UNITS 23 FF=302.5 304.2 FG 303.7 FG 302.1 FG 302.4 FG 303.0 FG 301.6 FG 302.9 FG302.2 FG 301.6 FG 301.7 FG 301.1 FG 301.5 FG 300.9 FG 300.3 FG 300.9 FG 300.3 FG 300.9 FG UNIT B12 FF=300.8 BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE BIO-RETENTION BASIN (750 SF)SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEKUS HWY 101 EX. TOP OF BANK (TYP.) APPROX. LIMITS 100-YR. FLOOD PLAIN (TYP.) NEW FIRE HYDRANT BIO-RETENTION BASIN (1290 SF) BIO-RETENTION BASIN (290 SF) 303.50 FS 305.2 FG 304.3 FG 304.8 FG 300.1 FG 298.00 TG 297.5 FG BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE 299.80 TG 299.3 FG BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE 299.90 TG 299.4 FG 303.6 FG 303.2 FG302.7 FG302.5 FG302.2 FG 301.8 FG 301.20 FS 302.2 FG 302.4 FG 302.9 FG 302.80 FS 304.0 FG 303.3 FG 298.2 FL 298.4 FG RIDGE 301.8 FG RIDGE 301.00 TC/FS 300.60 TC/FS 300.75 TC/FS 300.35 FL 317.13 TW 305.5 FG 317.13 TW 305.5 FG 315.80 TW 304.3 FG (304.4 EG) (306.6 EG) 299.70 TG 300.60 TC/FS 298.00 TG 300.45 TC/FS 300.30 FS 302.45 TC 301.95 FS 299.10 FS 299.40 FS 313.80 TW 302.6 FG 313.80 TW 302.9 FG 313.80 TW 302.4 FG 313.80 TW 303.0 FG 313.80 TW 303.5 FG 315.80 TW 303.8 FG CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP M & H UNIT FF=299.6 M & H UNIT FF=306.2 300.78 FS 298.40 FS 300.70 FS 1.5%MIN5% MAX2%MAX301.80 FS 302.60 FS301.70 FS 302.30 FS 302.40 FS 302.60 FS 304.9 HP/FL 12' HIGH SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS (4) 4" THRU-WALL DRAIN PIPES 302.2 FL 302.70 TC 302.20 FS 317.13 TW (305.3 EG) (303.5 EG) 12' HIGH RETAINING & SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS 12' HIGH RETAINING & STRUCTURAL DETAILS ( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 10 2020 20 400 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLANPLOT BY: AGE04PLOT DATE: Jul 20, 2022 - 1:19pmDrawing name: N:\2022\22029-MotelInn\Civil\Condocs\Sheetfiles\22029-C1.1-PGD.dwgDESIGNED: SHEET: DATE: JOB NUMBER: C-1.2 ENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE:NO.REVISIONDATEDRAWN BY:MOTEL INN2125 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CASJS DWB 22029 July 20, 2022MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET C-1.1299 300 301 302 303 304 305 Page 283 of 349 310 312 29 0290298298 285295 305 306307308 2 9 3 303 304 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291292 293 294 JC-6.1 FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FO FOFOFOFOFOFOFOWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W G G GGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G (287.4 INV) 293.30 TG 287.7 INV 285.6 INV UNDERGROUND STORAGE(294.8 INV) (289.8 INV) (E) 42" RCP SD SD 290.0 INV SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS285.8 INV 294.10 RIM 286.8 INVout 287.0 INVinSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 29429529 6 297SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS294.43 RIM 288.8 INV 296.30 RIM 292.6 INV WW WWSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD292.20 TG 289.7 INV 295.60 TG 293.6 INV 298.00 TG 294.8 INV 294.60 TG 292.0 INV 294.00 TG 290.4 INV 293.50 TG 290.1 INV 291.0 INVout 286.0 INVINV = 286.0 298.55 TG 294.4 INV 287.5 INV (292.7 INV) (292.5 INV) 300.90 TG 298.0 INV SS SS SS SS294.40 RIM 288.2 INV 294.80 RIM 291.5 INV SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSS294.6 INV 300.5 RIM 293.6 INV UNIT B12 FF=300.8 UNIT B11 FF=299.6 UNIT B10 FF=299.1 UNIT B9 FF=297.4 UNIT B8 FF=296.4 UNIT B6 FF=295.6 UNIT B5 FF=295.5 UNIT B4 FF=297.1 UNIT B3 FF=298.1 UNIT B1 FF=298.6 UNIT B2 FF=298.00 UNIT B7 FF=296.4 15S2.0UNDERGROUND STORAGE-INFILTRATION CHAMBERS (6,910 CF) OVERFLOW STORM DRAIN BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE BIO-RETENTION BASIN (750 SF) AREA DRAINS (TYP.) SAN LUI S O BI S P O C R E E K EX. BUILDING TO REMAIN (294.2 FF) MON T E R E Y S T. US HWY 1 0 1 CONNECT TO EX. STORM DRAIN SPILLWAY EX. TOP OF BANK (TYP.) APPROX. LIMITS EX. 100-YR. FLOOD PLAIN (TYP.) CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP NEW FIRE HYDRANT UNIT B13 FF=300.8 UNIT B14 FF=300.3 294.40 TG 291.3 INV SD SD SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS294.4 INV 296.3 INV 294.3 INV SDSDSD SD SD SD SD 298.00 TG 294.7 INV 295.80 TG 293.3 INV SDSDSDSDSD291.2 INV 292.7 INV UNDERGROUND STOR A G E INV = 291.2 299.70 TG 297.2 INVout WWWW W W W W W W W W W W W WWW W W W W W WWW W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W WWW W W W W W W W SS SS SS 290.8 INV 289.2 INV WWWWWWWWWWW W W W W SDSDSDSD296.10 TG 293.5 INV UNDERGROUND STORAGE-INFILTRATION CHAMBERS (3,730 CF) CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP CATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP M & H UNIT FF=296.7 M & H UNIT FF=299.6 294.60 TG 292.0 INV SD SD 296.20 TG 293.7 INV 296.30 TG 294.0 INV W W 296.00 TG 287.7 INV 292.0 INV 286.0 INV 287.5 INV SD SD SD 300.60 TG 298.0 INV APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER MAIN (TYP.) 12' HIGH RETAINING & SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS 12' HIGH RETAINING & SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER MAIN (TYP.)SDSDSDSD298.35 TG 286.8 INV 299.10 TG 287.6 INV 298.42 TG 287.0 INV TRENCH DRAIN ( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 10 2020 20 400 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANPLOT BY: AGE04PLOT DATE: Jul 20, 2022 - 1:10pmDrawing name: N:\2022\22029-MotelInn\Civil\Condocs\Sheetfiles\22029-C2.1-PUT.dwgDESIGNED: SHEET: DATE: JOB NUMBER: C-2.1 ENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE:NO.REVISIONDATEDRAWN BY:MOTEL INN2125 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CASJSDWB 22029 July 20, 2022MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET C-2.2Page 284 of 349 311 290300295295 300 290 285290 305 306 307 308 310 301302283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 29 4 29 5 29 6 297 298 299 290291295300304G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 297298299300301302 3 0 3 30 4 305 298.3 INV 298.00 TG 294.8 INV UNIT 29 FF=306.2 UNITS 23 FF=306.2 UNITS 28 FF=305.2 UNIT 27 FF=304.8 UNITS 20 FF=305.3 UNITS 19 FF=304.6 UNITS 26 FF=304.1 UNITS 25 FF=303.2 UNIT 24 FF=302.7 UNITS 18 FF=304.2 UNITS 17 FF=303.7 UNITS 16 FF=303.5UNITS 15 FF=303.2 UNITS 22 FF=301.9 UNITS 23 FF=302.5 300.5 INV 295.7 INV SS SSSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 294.6 INV 300.5 RIM 293.6 INV UNIT B12 FF=300.8 BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE BIO-RETENTION BASIN (750 SF)SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEKUS HWY 101 EX. TOP OF BANK (TYP.) APPROX. LIMITS 100-YR. FLOOD PLAIN (TYP.) NEW FIRE HYDRANT BIO-RETENTION BASIN (1290 SF) BIO-RETENTION BASIN (290 SF) SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 299.80 TG 296.8 INV BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE 299.90 TG 297.4 INV BIO-RETENTION OVERFLOW STRUCTURE 297.6 INV SD SD 298.00 TG 294.7 INV SDSDSDSDSD291.2 INV 292.7 INV UNDERGROUND STO R A G E 299.70 TG 297.2 INVout W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WCATCH BASIN / SAND TRAP M & H UNIT FF=299.6 M & H UNIT FF=306.2 12' HIGH SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS 304.0 INV (4) 4" THRU-WALL DRAIN PIPES SD SD SD 300.60 TG 298.0 INV APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER MAIN (TYP.)35S2.015S2.07.60'12' HIGH RETAINING & SOUND WALL PER STRUCTURAL DETAILS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER MAIN (TYP.) ( IN FEET ) 1 INCH = FT. 10 2020 20 400 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANPLOT BY: AGE04PLOT DATE: Jul 20, 2022 - 1:10pmDrawing name: N:\2022\22029-MotelInn\Civil\Condocs\Sheetfiles\22029-C2.1-PUT.dwgDESIGNED: SHEET: DATE: JOB NUMBER: C-2.2 ENGINEER OF RECORD: DATE:NO.REVISIONDATEDRAWN BY:MOTEL INN2125 MONTEREY STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CASJSDWB 22029 July 20, 2022MATCHLINE, SEE SHEET C-2.1Page 285 of 349 3'-6" 2'-0"1'-6"12"4'-8"12"18"8"FINISH GRADE12'-0"VARIES (4"-0" MAX)1 1+/-4'-0"PROPERTY LINE +/- 7'-6" 16"Ø WATER MAIN18"24"Ø CASSION SEE DETAIL 24/S2.0 15"x18" GRADE BEAM w/3-#5 CONT. TOP & BOTTOM w/ #3 TIES @ 12"o.c. 12" CONC. BLK. W/ #5 HORIZ. EA. FACE @ 8"o.c. & #4 4'-8"8'-0"8" CONC. BLK. W/ #4 HORIZ. EA. FACE @ 8" o.c. & #4 VERT. @ 24"o.c. 4"Ø PERF. DRAIN PIPE PILE CAP (BEYOND)12'-0"EXISTING 16"Ø WATER MAIN FINISH GRADEPROPERTY LINE+/- 4'-6" INDICATES 24"Ø CAISSON35 S2.0 15 S2.0 15 S2.0 +/- 60'-0" CAISSON SUPPORTED SOUND WALLTYPICAL WALL TYPICAL WALL WHERE WATER MAIN CENTERLINE IS LOCATED CLOSER THAN 7'-6" FROM PROPERTY LINE, USE CAISSON SUPPORTED SOUND WALL NOTES: (#) 1.SEE FRAMING/FOUNDATION PLAN AND NOTES 2.SEE SHEARWALL SCHEDULE AND NOTES 24"Ø CAISSON w/ 8 - #7 VERT. BARS & #3 SPIRAL TIES (1 1/2" PITCH) 24" 15" 24" x 30" x 18" THK. PILE CAP W/ 3-#5 EA. WAY @ TOP & BOTT. 23 S2.0 PROPERTY LINE 16"4"12"234" CLR.12" CMU WALL W/ #5 @ 8" O.C. (HORIZ-FRONT FACE) AND #5 @ 8" O.C. HORIZ REAR FACE 16"x16" CMU PILASTER W/ 3-#6 VERT EA FACE & #3 TIES @ 8" O.C. 24"Ø CAISSON (BELOW) #4 @ 24"o.c. VERT STAGGERED #4 HOOKS @ 8"o.c. 3" 18" 6" LINE OF 8" CMU WALL ABOVE Sheet Contents: Sheet Number:Motel Inn2125 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CAJob Number: 1474 SSG Job No. S22197 Engineer:MFS Date:05/20/2022 SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 240 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.439.2110 smithstructural.com DATE SIGNED: F I F S MICHAE L .SMI THNo. 35470 C V I LSTATEOCAL IFORNIAREGISTEREDPROFESIONALENGINEER 1 2 3 5 SOUND WALL SECTIONS S-2.0 Page 286 of 349 San Luis Obispo, California These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. Previous Design Overlay Sheet Contents:Sheet Number:Date: 7/21/15File name: Motel Inn 1.11.vwxA A4.0 A A4.0 B A4.0 B A4.0 A A4.1 Jul 21, 2015APPROVED 2003 PLAN INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE Page 287 of 349 APPROVED PC (10/4/17) INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE Page 288 of 349 APPROVED PC (10/4/17) INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE Page 289 of 349 APPROVED PC/ARC 2016 INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE Page 290 of 349 APPROVED PC/ARC 2016 INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE Page 291 of 349 Page 292 of 349 Page 293 of 349 Page 294 of 349 Page 295 of 349 Page 296 of 349 Page 297 of 349 Page 298 of 349 Page 299 of 349 Page 300 of 349 Page 301 of 349 Page 302 of 349 Page 303 of 349 Page 304 of 349 Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Motel Inn Project (PR-0113-2015) 1. Project Title: Motel Inn Project 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: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner 805-781-7176 4. Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Applicant and Representative Name and Address: Motel Inn, L.P. Covelop Holdings, LLC PO Box 12910 PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Studio Design Group Tim Ronda, Principal Architect Ariana Melendez, Project Architect 762 Higuera Street, Suite 212 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial Page 305 of 349 7. Zoning: C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with “Special Consideration” Overlay due to San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property) 8. Description of the Project: The previously approved Motel Inn project consisted of a 55-unit hotel including guestrooms and bungalow units, a restaurant, 26 Airstream trailers (for guests), and one Airstream spa trailer (ARCH-3741-2016 and USE-0580-2017). The proposed project consists of a modification to the previously approved Motel Inn project, and would consist of 29 bungalow guestroom buildings. Four accessory structures, consisting of restroom and housekeeping/maintenance buildings, are proposed. The project does not propose any changes to the previously approved restaurant building, which incorporates the remaining portions of the Master List Historic Motel Inn, and would include a restaurant and lobby for guests. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Design Review 10. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: 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. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Construction within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way would require an encroachment permit. 12. Previous Environmental Review On March 23, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Motel Inn project. On September 27, 2017, the Planning Commission considered and approved a modification to the Motel Inn project (specific to the substitution of the recreational vehicle spaces with Airstream trailers), and found the modification consistent with the adopted IS/MND (Resolution No. PC-1010-17). All adopted mitigation measures remain in effect and will apply to the proposed project. Page 306 of 349 Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an IS/MND when “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. In addition, the lead agency is required to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which requires subsequent EIRs when proposed changes would require major revisions to the previous EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” The evaluation below discusses the issue areas covered by the Motel Inn IS/MND and concludes that in each case no new environmental effects are created and that there is no increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Environmental impacts associated with the Motel Inn project were evaluated in the adopted IS/MND. As addressed below, the proposed modifications would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the adopted IS/MND and would not increase the severity of any impact identified in the adopted IS/MND. Aesthetics No significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the adopted IS/MND. The proposed modifications would not increase the height or massing of the project, and would not adversely affect any scenic vistas. Site development would occur consistent with development and lighting standards, and design criteria identified in Ordinance 1651 (associated with the “Special Consideration” overlay). Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, and impacts would remain less than significant. Agricultural Resources No impacts to agricultural resources were identified in the adopted IS/MND. Based on the location of the project, underlying zoning, and lack of Farmland, no impact would occur. Air Quality The adopted IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts related to the construction and operational phases of the project, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. At the time, the project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and mitigation measures recommended by the APCD were incorporated into the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the previously- approved project. The proposed project would increase the total lodging units by only two (from 81 to 83), and would therefore not result in an increase in operational emissions. All adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Page 307 of 349 Biological Resources San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the project site, and proposed project complies with the required 20-foot creek setback (applicable to structures) identified in Ordinance 1651. Conditions within the upland portion of the project site (where development is proposed) has not changed, and continues to lack any biologically sensitive or jurisdictional habitats. The adopted IS/MND identified construction-related impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required (Mitigation Measure BIO-1), which would mitigate the impact to less than significant. In addition, a creek restoration and enhancement plan, including the removal of non-native vegetation and replacement with native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers is required (Mitigation Measure BIO-2), which would enrich the creek habitat. As the proposed project does not increase the size or intensity of the previously- approved project, would continue to provide a minimum 20-foot creek setback, and would comply with adopted mitigation measures, the proposed project does not create any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Cultural Resources The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List Historic Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) was constructed in the 1924- 1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style. Building permits issued under previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the façade remaining from the original restaurant building. The previously approved building at the entrance to the property contains the two significant historic elements of the old Motel Inn including portions of the historic lobby building with the three-tiered bell tower and a portion of the façade from the original restaurant building. This portion of the project will not change. The project proposes construction of 29 bungalow guestroom buildings. A restroom building and three accessory housekeeping and maintenance buildings are proposed southeast and southwest of the existing remnants of the Motel Inn and previously approved restaurant building and would be constructed with a Mission Revival style similar to the previously approved project. The primary changes, as compared to the previously proposed project, are the elimination of a 2-story lobby building with guest rooms, to be replaced by five new two-story bungalow guestroom buildings, and elimination of a 23-space recreational vehicle park at the eastern portion of the site, to be replaced with 14 one-story bungalow guestroom buildings. The bungalow guestrooms would be approximately 15 feet in height (one-story buildings) and 25 feet in height (two-story buildings). Proposed materials include plaster siding, red clay tile roofing, exposed timber decorative features, and wrought iron railings and trim. The guestroom buildings would be located south and southeast of the restaurant building. A recreational area with swimming pool, spa, and garden patio would be located between the restaurant and guestrooms. The style and materials proposed for the guestroom buildings reflect those of the original Motel Inn’s Mission Revival architectural style, achieving consistency with the property’s historical character. These buildings are located behind the future restaurant/lobby building which Page 308 of 349 incorporates the only remaining historically significant components of the original Milestone Mo- Tel, and are set back from the structure across pedestrian pathways. The proposed architectural style of the accessory restroom and housekeeping buildings, which would be located to the southeast and southwest of the remaining historic features and future building, also incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the original Motel Inn architectural style. Based on the location and scale of the proposed structures, the proposed project would not block views towards, nor visually distract from the remaining historic features to be incorporated into the future lobby and restaurant building. The new construction would not destroy any of the character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved building, and because they are designed in a compatible Mission Revival style and at a modest scale, the buildings would 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resources, would not create any new impacts to historical resources, and would not increase the severity of any identified impact. Regarding archaeological resources, an Extended Phase 1 Testing Report (Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002) prepared for the previous project concluded that no archaeological deposits were identified; however, it is possible that resources could be uncovered during project excavation and grading. The adopted IS/MND identifies a potentially significant impact related to resource discovery, and Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires preparation and implementation of an archaeological monitoring plan. As the proposed project would not increase the area of depth of ground disturbance, and compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required, no new impacts would occur, and the project would not increase the severity of any identified impact. Potential impacts would remain less than significant with required mitigation. Geology and Soils The adopted IS/MND did not identify any significant geology or soils impacts. The proposed project would not increase the size or intensity of development, and would be required to comply with applicable Building Codes. Therefore, the project would not result in any new impacts, and would not increase the severity of any identified impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction-related greenhouse gas emisisons would be similar (or less than the previously- approved project, due to the modular nature of the A-frame units). The proposed project would reduce the total lodging units from 81 to 76, and would therefore not result in an increase in operational greenhouse gas emissions. All adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1), which would reduce potential emissions. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Page 309 of 349 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The adopted IS/MND identified a potentially significant impact due to the potential for underground storage tanks. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant by compliance with recommendations identified in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and remediation of any potential contamination to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). The proposed project would not increase the area of disturbance or include any elements that require the use or storage of hazardous materials beyond standard, legal use. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with required mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the previously-approved project, the proposed revised project is required to comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual of the Waterway Management Plan, Post Construction Requirements for stormwater, and Floodplain Management Regulations (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.78). The proposed project would result in a marginal increase in the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and would not increase water demand compared to the previously approved project. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Land Use and Planning The proposed project remains consistent with the General Plan, as the site is designated for tourist commercial land uses, the proposed use of the property would not change (lodging), and the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Mineral Resources No mineral resources are present onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Noise The project site is located south of Highway 101 and immediately east of the Monterey Street/U.S. 101 ramps. Noise sensitive uses (single-family residential neighborhood) are present to the south, across San Luis Creek. The proposed project remains a lodging project, with most of the proposed guestroom buildings located behind the future “restaurant” building, and 14 of the buildings behind a sound wall to be located along the northern property boundary. The total number of proposed units would marginally increase from 81 to 83, and consistent with Ordinance 1651, no balconies, outdoor use areas, or operational windows would face the creek corridor and adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Page 310 of 349 Population and Housing Similar to the previously approved, project, the proposed project consists of a similar use (lodging) and would not induce growth nor displace existing house. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Public Services and Recreation The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and would be adequately served by municipal services. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Transportation/Traffic The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and payment of Transportation Impact Fees is required. Similar to the previously approved project, access to the site would be provided from Monterey Street, and a roadway channelization project (subject to approval by both the City and Caltrans) is required to be completed by the applicant to address geometric concerns related to the proximity of the project access point and the U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps (Mitigation Measure TT-1). Therefore, based on compliance with the adopted mitigation measure, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83. Since the project was initially approved, the City has initiated the expansion of and improvements to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The WRRF is designed for an average dry- weather flow of 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and treated an average of 2.9 mgd during 2020. The average dry weather flow of wastewater is expected to reach 5.4 mgd at the WRRF once the City reaches its 2035 build-out population identified in the General Plan. Upon completion in 2024, the WRRF modifications will increase treatment capacity at the facility to 5.4 mgd, which is planned to accommodate wastewater flows in the City under full buildout of the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City sewer infrastructure and the WRRF. Regarding water, the City maintains adequate, diverse water supply (and excess supply) to meet Citywide water demands during single- and multiple-dry years through 2035 (build-out of the General Plan). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City water infrastructure and water supply. The proposed project reduces the number of lodging units, and would be adequately served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the area, and has a remaining capacity of 13,000,000 cubic yards (maximum permitted capacity is 24,000,000 cubic yards). Page 311 of 349 Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the adopted IS/MND for the Motel Inn project is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because: 1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental document: a. The project changes do not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the IS/MND. c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. Attachment: 1. Motel Inn Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 312 of 349 City of San Luis Obispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM USE-1035-2015 (PR-0113-2015) February 24, 2016 1.Project Title: Motel Inn & RV Park 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner (805)781-7176 mcarloni@slocity.org 4.Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Motel Inn L.P. P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 6.General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7.Zoning: C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with "Special Consideration" Overlay due to the San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property.) ATTACHMENT 1 Page 313 of 349 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 8.Description of the Project: The proposal is to construct a new motel with a total of 55 rooms spread across a main hotel/lobby building and 12 detached "bungalow" units. A recreational vehicle (RV) park (23 spaces) is also proposed on the easterly portion of the project site. The property address is 2223 Monterey Street. The vicinity map is shown on the right. Total floor area for the buildings will be approximately 34,500 square feet. The property is approximately 4.19 acres in area and is situated at the northerly terminus of Monterey Street. The project site also includes remnants Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated of the Historic "Motel Inn" which includes a fa9ade and portions of the original lobby. Portions of the original historic Motel Inn are under construction and will be incorporated into an already approved building which was issued a building permit under prior entitlements, and is not a part of the current project under evaluation. 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: North: East: West: South: Highway 101 San Luis Creek Apple Farm Inn Motel San Luis Creek and San Luis Drive residential neighborhood 10.Project Entitlements Requested: The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and the issuance of a use permit from the Planning Commission. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ATTACHMENT 1 Page 314 of 349 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 and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). of ATTACHMENT 1 Page 315 of 349 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant 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 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 of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signaturn� Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Printed Name February 24, 2016 Date For: Michael Codron Community Development Director No Impact x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 316 of 349 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 317 of 349 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 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 318 of 349 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 Conclusion: a-c) No Impact. Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 3,4,5 X quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?1-----+------+---X---+-----+--------<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 of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 319 of 349 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 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-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse, complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species. (e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the project site is not 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 pro_ject: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 10, 11, x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 320 of 349 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 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 fa9ade remaining from the original restaurant building. That said, these remaining building remnants from the historic Motel Inn are not a part of the currently proposed project and will be incorporated into a building which is currently under construction pursuant to building permits issued under previous entitlements. a)The proposed project includes the construction of a lobby building with 12 attached hotel rooms, a mix of one and two story detached bungalows with a total of 40 hotel rooms, and a 1.6 acre site with 25 RV hookups. Due to the fact that the applicant has a current, approved building permit regarding partial construction of those elements of the project which are of historic value, no further evaluation is required for that part of the project. However, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will still need to review the remaining components of the project to insure that the entire project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines of the City and the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed development requires an evaluation of the projects compatibility with the remaining character defining elements of the historic Motel Inn which are incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building which is under construction. The project's compatibility with the approved restaurant building (including the remaining historic lobby building and fa9ade 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 321 of 349 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 xb)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?17 1--��-+-���--+����---1����-+���� 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 322 of 349 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 also includes measures to reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions which are also produced with operational and construction phase emissions discussed in the Air Quality analysis. These characteristics of the proposal coupled with the requirement to address APCD comments finds the project consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will result in less than significant impacts. Conclusion: a, b) Less than significant impact. 8.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 323 of 349 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 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 324 of 349 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? t)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 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? i)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 20.21 20,21 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), t) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off and the proposed project does not increase impervious surface area. If applicable, plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. The project will be subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. These regulations address both water quantity and water quality. The project will be required to retain and/or treat the runoff from the impervious surfaces including parking areas, drive aisles, and roofs. A water quality upgrade is expected from this previously developed site. City Engineering Standards address point source controls for solid waste and materials storage areas. Less than significant impact. g), h), i) The project site is located within the 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 JOO-year floodplain that are not located within the Mid-Higuera or special Floodplain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are met. Furthermore, the project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (flood ordinance). The engineer ofrecord has modeled the project to show that the structures are located outside the SFHA and that the project will not impact adjoining properties. A Letter of Map Change will be processed as a condition of building permits. The project will be required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1-foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation at the time, or for ATTACHMENT 1 Page 325 of 349 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 commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of FEMA "flood-proofing" measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The new structures and improvements will be located away from the top of creek bank in accordance with the Creek Setback Ordinance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? 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 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 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 present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No Impact. 12.NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 326 of 349 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 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 327 of 349 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 project: 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 ob_jectives 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 328 of 349 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 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 Service D (LOS D)as the maximum acceptable level of traffic congestion during PM peak hour conditions outside the downtown. The Circulation Element does not prescribe any modifications to Monterey Street northeast of its intersection with Grand Avenue. Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) on the more intensive but similar motel project at this site, 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 1, 148 vehicle trips per day, with 29 trips entering the project site and 52 trips departing during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips entering and 35 trips departing during the PM peak hour. The TIS forecasted how this additional traffic would be distributed to the following intersections and evaluated its impact on the traffic level of service (LOS). (The traffic impacts of the current, proposed project will be significantly less based on an average daily trip generation of 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 Off Ramp 6.Monterey Street at Apple Farm Inn Driveway 7.Monterey Street at La Questa Motor Inn Driveway The TIS concluded that under "existing + Project" conditions, area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (generally at LOS C or better), in compliance with Circulation Element standards. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 329 of 349 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 Cumulative Traffic Impacts: The prior traffic impact study also considered the prior project's contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at build-out of the City's general plan land uses. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis showed that intersections 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 listed above will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For intersection 2 (Garfield @ Monterey), the Garfield approach to Monterey would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, without that project's traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization would not meet Caltrans warrants but that actual conditions should be monitored as traffic conditions change to determine the future need for a signal, or possibly all­ way traffic controls. Under build-out conditions, the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp (intersection 5, above) would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, without project traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization of this intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants, but like the Garfield intersection, monitoring should be undertaken and signalization may be warranted in the future. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. (Note: This project will pay city Transportation Impact Fees as required by ordinance. Revenues from these fees are used to pay for mitigating area-wide traffic conditions as those mitigations become necessary. Payment of the fee constitutes this project's fair share contribution toward mitigating potential, future substandard traffic conditions.) Traffic Geometrics Concerns d)Access to the Motel Inn site is challenging due to its immediate proximity to the northbound on ramp and southbound off­ ramp of Highway 101. Therefore, a traffic study was conducted by Omni-Means (November, 2015) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed new traffic to the area and identify the most reasonable measures to mitigate road and driveway geometric issues. The study was conducted in partnership with Caltrans. The study recommends: (1) restricting southwest (SW) left turns for approximately 120 feet of the Northbound (NB) 101 off ramp; (2) providing a west-bound (WB) left turn refuge/acceleration lane for hotel traffic; (3) realigning the Monterey Street curb line; and (4) making minor adjustment to affected motel driveways along Monterey Street. A conceptual graphic of the recommended mitigation is shown below. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 330 of 349 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 Source: Omni-Means Mitigation Measure: MM-I Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as recommended in the traffic study which is depicted above, and as approved by the City and Caltrans. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. c)The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns. No Impact. e)The site has been reviewed by City emergency services and found to comply with requirements for emergency access. No impact. 17.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro·ect: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable x Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 28 x or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water x drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 28 x from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate x ca_pacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to ATTACHMENT 1 Page 331 of 349 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 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 332 of 349 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. NIA c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. 20.SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 1130, 1989 2. Project Plans 3. Municipal Code 4. Response Letter from Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2015 5. APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook 6. Ecological Analysis of Apple Farm II, 8/20/02, Levine-Fricke 7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek Setback ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations) 8. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, 2006 9. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory, December, 1983 10. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines, 2010 11. Historical Resources Inventory of Property, Bertrando, September 2000 12. Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of the Motel Inn, August 2004 13. Archaeological Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002 14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, 1995 15. Extended Phase I Testing Report, Bertrando, 2002 16. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, State Geologist (Alquist-Priolo Map), 1990 17. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984 18. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates, October, 1999 19. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, 2014 20. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005C) 21. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan, Above Grade Engineering, San Luis Obispo, November 2015 22. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 23. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element & Guidebook 24. Noise Investigation , Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 333 of 349 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, 9 th Edition, 2012 26. Motel Inn Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, March 2002 27. Traffic Report, Omni-Means, November 2015 28. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations 29. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, 1994 Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: 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 AO-I: Prior to issuance of building permits, all m1t1gations 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 A0-1: 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 334 of 349 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 2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 335 of 349 Historic American Building Survey of the Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) 2223 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo CA 1.Architectural History 2.Reproductions of Historic Photos 3.Photo-documentation of Existing Conditions 4.As-Built Drawings (24 x 36 on mylar) Historic Documentation .... -��.. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 336 of 349 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-40-041013) 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 assoc iated 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 ta 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 Arthur S. 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 337 of 349 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 mafn 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 eastern 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 undoubted ly 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 until 1937 [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 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 338 of 349 3 Street respectively [Ceres 1999:9]. The Motel lnn was 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 building 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 until 1955 [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 Stre et [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, many 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 O; 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 theMotel Inn 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 1991 J. 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 Mission 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 Mission Santa Barbara and other California missions. Design details included plaster scroll work on the towers, and at some of the windows and entrances. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 339 of 349 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 fems, 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 340 of 349 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-40-041013) {Milestone Mot-tel). On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara. 2000b Primary Record P-40-041013 On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Informat ion 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 fife, 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 341 of 349 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 342 of 349 A. SW-6385 "Dover White" Flat Exterior Finish Main Plaster Body EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIAL S B. SW-7542 “Naturel” Flat Exterior Finish Cast stone trim and mouldings C. SW-7515 “Homestead Brown” Flat Exterior Finish Exposed timber throughout D. TBD - Dark Gray Pre-finished Surface Window exteriors F. Traditional Spanish Red 2-part clay tile non-mudded San Luis Obispo, California Apr 4, 2022E. SW-7675 “Sealskin” Semi-Gloss Exterior Finish Wrought iron railings and trim Page 343 of 349 Page 344 of 349 3/31/22 PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL (2021) for reference only CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2022) 2-story lobby building (with guestrooms)N/A N/A (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Restaurant - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (10) 2-story bungalows (33) A-Frame guest units (15) 2-story bungalows (27) Airstreams with decks (43) Airstreams with decks (14) 1-story bungalows (4) small outbuildings (2) Outbuildings + Maintanence Bldg (4) small outbuildings (2) pool areas (1) pool area (1) pool area 33,724 SF (Lobby building, outbuildings, & bungalows) 24,910 SF (A-Frames & Outbuildings)45,000 SF (Bungalows & Outbuildings) 6,696 SF (Airstreams)8,901 SF (Airstreams)N/A 10,750 SF (Restaurant - not a part)9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part)9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part) 51,170 SF (Total Gross)42,811 SF (Total Gross) or 16% reduction 54,000 SF (Total Gross) or 5.5% increase UNIT TYPE Mix of hotel rooms, freestanding bungalows, & Airstreams Mix of A-Frame guest units and Airstreams All bungalows UNIT COUNT 81 76 83 PARKING 121 required/121 provided [1]76 required/82 provided [2]99 required/101 provided [3] ARCHITECTURE Site-built structures in Mission Revival style plus Airstreams Prefabricated A-Frame units and Airstreams. Site- built maintanence bldgs in Mission Revival style. Site-built structures in Mission Revival style HEIGHT 33'-0" (2-story lobby building)20'-0" (A-Frames)28' (2-story bungalows) CREEK SETBACK 20'-0" 20'-0" (No change)20'-0" (No change) No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek Outdoor recreation activities located on the interior of the site Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Split rail fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Windows facing the creek have been minimized (and significantly reduced from previous submittal) All glazing facing the creek will be non-operable with anti-glare tint All glazing facing the creek ordinance zone will be non-operable with anti-glare tint SITE PLAN SQUARE FOOTAGE [1] Previous approval parking calculation included a full restaurant, open to the public, in the historic infill structure. [2] 2021 submittal assumed the cafe served the hotel guest only and was not open to the public (requiring no additional parking spaces). [3]The current submittal assumes a smaller "café", open to the public, with fewer parking spaces required than the previous approval. CREEK ORDINANCE 1130/1651 Page 345 of 349 Page 346 of 349 0 20 40 6/13/22Motel Inn 4.18 ARC Rev.vwxSITE SECTION A +/-302' +/-314' PROPOSED +/-16' TALL SOUND WALL 101 FREEWAY PL (E) DENSE FOLIAGE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY JP SIG 310 312 311 290300295 295 300 290 2 9 8 298285 295 305 306 307 308 305 306 307 308 310 303 304 301302 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291292 293 294 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 29 0 29 1 29 2 293 2 9 4 2 9 5 2 9 6 297 298 299 291295300304A YELLOW LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF SOUND WALL B C 1 2 3 San Luis Obispo, California Jun 13, 2022SITE MAP: N.T.S. *NOTE: APPROX TOPO BASED ON CITY OF SLO CONTOUR MAP Page 347 of 349 0 20 40 6/13/22Motel Inn 4.18 ARC Rev.vwxSITE SECTION C +/-306' +/-318' PROPOSED +/-16' TALL SOUND WALL 101 FREEWAY PL (E) DENSE FOLIAGE PROPOSED BUNGALOWS San Luis Obispo, California Jun 13, 2022SITE SECTION B +/-304' +/-316' PROPOSED +/-16' TALL SOUND WALL 101 FREEWAY PL (E) DENSE FOLIAGE PROPOSED BUNGALOWS *NOTE: APPROX TOPO BASED ON CITY OF SLO CONTOUR MAP Page 348 of 349 6/13/22Motel Inn 4.18 ARC Rev.vwxSan Luis Obispo, California Jun 13, 2022VIEW 1 - INTERIOR LOT VIEW 2 - SOUTHBOUND VIEW 3 - NORTHBOUND (E) DENSE FOLIAGE 10' POLE @ PROPERTY LINE (FOR REFERENCE) (E) DENSE FOLIAGE APPROX LOCATION OF SOUND WALL (BEHIND FOLIAGE) APPROX LOCATION OF SOUND WALL (BEHIND FOLIAGE) Page 349 of 349