HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-2023 PC Agenda Packet
Planning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, July 12, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
The City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission holds in-person meetings. Zoom participation will
not be supported at this time. 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) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Munoz-Morris 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 - MAY 24, 2023 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2023.
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 2223 MONTEREY STREET (ARCH-0327-2021) REVIEW OF A
REVISED PROJECT DESIGN FOR THE MOTEL INN, AN 83-ROOM
HOTEL WITH 27 BUNGALOW GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, POOL
AREA, INCLUDING AN EXCEPTION FROM WALL HEIGHT
STANDARDS FOR A NEW SOUND WALL
9
Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the revised project design for The
Motel Inn, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, and
approving an Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project.
4.b REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SAFE PARKING PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATOR PERMIT TO OPERATE A ROTATING SAFE
PARKING PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS A SAFE PLACE TO
TEMPORARILY PARK A VEHICLE OVERNIGHT (USE-0304-2023)
411
Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the project, 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 Deputy Community Development Director
Tyler Corey.
6.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for July 26,
2023 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) 781-7114 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
May 24, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioner Dave Houghton, Commissioner Bob Jorgensen,
Commissioner Steve Kahn, Commissioner Eric Tolle, Vice Chair
Justin Cooley, Chair Juan Munoz-Morris
Planning
Commissioners
Absent:
Commissioner Lindsay Ringer
City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, 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 May 24, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Munoz-Morris.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 26, 2023 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
Motion By Vice Chair Cooley
Second By Commissioner Kahn
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2023.
Ayes (6): Commissioner Houghton, Commissioner Jorgensen,
Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Tolle, Vice Chair Cooley, and Chair
Munoz-Morris
Absent (1): Commissioner Ringer
CARRIED (6 to 0)
Page 5 of 429
2
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.a 710 FIERO LANE UNITS 14 & 18 (USE-0534-2022) REVIEW OF
REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A WHOLESALING AND DISTRIBUTION USE
FOR DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN THE
BUSINESS PARK ZONING DISTRICT OF THE AIRPORT AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN
Associate Planner Callie Taylor presented the staff report and responded
to Commission inquiries.
The Applicant's representatives, Peter Blied and Alexandria Hren,
provided a brief overview of the project and responded to questions
raised.
Chair Munoz-Morris opened the Public Hearing
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Munoz-Morris closed the Public Hearing
Motion By Commissioner Houghton
Second By Vice Chair Cooley
Adopt the Draft Resolution approving the project, based on findings and
subject to conditions of approval.
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION GRANTING A USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A WHOLESALING AND DISTRIBUTION USE FOR DURABLE
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN THE BUSINESS PARK
ZONING DISTRICT OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN.
PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 24, 2023 (710 FIERO LN. UNITS 14 & 18,
USE-0534-2022)"
Ayes (5): Commissioner Houghton, Commissioner Jorgensen,
Commissioner Kahn, Vice Chair Cooley, and Chair Munoz-Morris
Noes (1): Commissioner Tolle
Absent (1): Commissioner Ringer
CARRIED (5 to 1)
Page 6 of 429
3
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided the
following update:
Currently, staff does not have any items scheduled for the June
14th or June 28th Planning Commission meetings, but that is
subject to change. If those meetings are cancelled, a notice will be
published one week in advance of the meeting date.
Tentatively scheduled for the July 12, 2023 Planning Commission
meeting, is review of a revised project design for a portion of the
Motel Inn project located at 2223 Monterey. Vice Chair Cooley
announced that he will not be able to attend the July 12 Planning
Commission meeting.
Information about an upcoming training opportunity was distributed
to the Planning Commissioners. The training is hosted by the
Institute for Local Government (ILG) covering a variety of important
topics and will be held virtually on June 23rd and is free to attend.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission is scheduled for June 14, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
_________________________
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2023
Page 7 of 429
Page 8 of 429
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 27 BUNGALOW
GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS,
INCLUDING AN EXCEPTION FROM WALL HEIGHT STANDARDS FOR A NEW
SOUND WAL
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 (Attachment A) approving the revised project design based on
findings and subject to conditions of approval, and approving an Addendum to the
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
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: 7/12/2023
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Page 9 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
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, and
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 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 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 4.0 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).
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to develop the property with an 83-room hotel comprised of a
restaurant and lobby building, 27 bungalow buildings providing guest accommodation,
Figure 1: Motel Inn - Remnant Facade (left) and belltower lobby
Page 10 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
maintenance and housekeeping outbuildings, and pool, garden and gathering area
amenities (see 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 buildin g.
Construction of the project is underway, under construction permits issued by the City.
Proposed Design Revision. The applicant proposes to modify the design of that portion
of the project situated at the east end of the project site, referred to as “Parcel 3” (see
Partial Site Plan, Sheet A-1.0 of Project Plans, Attachment C) replacing the RV sites and
Airstreams with guest bungalows, increasing the number of guest accommodations by
one, to provide a total of 27 guest rooms on Parcel 3, as summarized below:
Elimination of the 27 RV sites and Airstream trailer installations
Construction of 13 bungalow buildings with 27 guest rooms (10 single-story, 3 two-
story)
Installation of a 12-foot tall site wall for noise attenuation (from adjacent US Hwy 101)
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 recreational 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 11 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
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 (as described in Proposed Design Revision Summary above),
now carrying the Mission Revival style bungalow form throughout the entire project,
replacing the Airstream RV sites in the eastern portion of the site (Parcel 3) with guest
bungalows.
On June 27, 2022, the CHC reviewed 2 the proposed revised 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 12 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
On August 10, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed 4 the revised design and
continued consideration of the application to September 14th, and then again to a future
date, to allow time for staff to consider concerns that were raised in Agenda
Correspondence received immediately prior to the hearing, regarding environmental
review of the project. As explained in further detail in Section 6.0 (Environmental Review)
of this report, environmental review documentation prepared for this project has been
reviewed in light of the concerns raised, and a revised Addendum to the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provided for the Commission’s consideration.
The project architect has provided a description of the proposed revisions (Attachment B)
to accompany project plans (Attachment C), along with a depiction of exterior colors and
materials, and depictions of a sound wall proposed for this project (see
Attachments F& G).
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 firs t 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 and 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.
The revised project design replaces the Airstream RV installations on the eastern portion
of the site with guest bungalows 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.
4 PC Agenda Report (August 10, 2022) at: opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=162984
Page 13 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
Wall Height. The sound wall proposed along the northern property boundary with
Highway 101 is 12 feet in height, which 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. 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 G) depicting the relationship
between the wall and the adjacent sloped topography rising toward the highway, 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 an 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 22 feet
(new bungalows)
25 Feet
(near creek)
Max Lot Coverage 20% 75%
Max Wall Height (Sound Wall) 12 ft. 8 ft.
Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Number of Vehicle Spaces
EV Spaces
99 (10% Reduction)b
11 EV-Ready
28 EV-Capable
101
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 Zoning Regulations and Ordinances 1130 & 1516
b Parking Reduction approved for the project by Resolution PC-1004-16 (USE-1035-2015)
Page 14 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
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 area. The Ordinance was
amended in 2018 by adoption of Ordinance 1651, which updated the design criteria.
While the project design approved in 2017 was found to be consistent with these criteria,
the current design revision alters the configuration of development on Parcel 3, 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 Sheet A-1.0, in Project Plans, Attachment C)
Openings, Screening, Buffering, Lighting (Criteria 2 -4, 6, 7). New bungalows on Parcel 3
are oriented internally to a courtyard, with no building entrances facing south directly
toward the creek. Openings toward the creek are limited to a sm all number of windows,
treated with anti-glare tint, at the back of single-story bungalow buildings (except for
Buildings B 26 and B 27, which are two stories in height, but are also 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 buildings at this
portion of the site. 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 th e City’s
Engineering staff for conformance to Post Construction Stormwater and other water
quality requirements which will address these criteria.
Building Height (Criteria 9). The height of buildings closer to the creek setback are
restricted to a maximum of 25 feet in height by Ordinance 1651. Consistent with this
restriction, The two-story bungalows on Parcel 3 (B19, B26, B27) are designed to a height
of 22 feet (Attachment C, Sheet A-2.2) and the single-story bungalows are 16 feet in
height, as depicted in plans.
Other Criteria (14, 15, 16). No creekside trail, conference or convention center, or parking-
related openings is proposed with this revision.
Page 15 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration5 (MND) prepared according to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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 architectural i n 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.
As provided by the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines), when a lead agency has
adopted an IS/MND for a project, a subsequent IS/MND does not need to be prepared
for the project unless certain conditions are met (CEQA Guidelines § 15162), and
preparation of an Addendum6 to an IS/MND is appropriate where minor technical changes
to the previously adopted IS/MND are necessary (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). The
conditions under which a subsequent IS/MND would be required are summarized below:
Involvement of new significant environmental effects
Substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
New information showing the project will have significant effects not discussed
Previously-examined significant effects that would be substantially more severe
Mitigation measures or alternatives considered infeasible would in fact be feasible
Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different than those
previously analyzed would substantially reduce significant effects on the
environment
Shortly prior to the Commission’s consideration of the revised project design in August
2022, correspondence was received from Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney at Law (Agenda
Correspondence), drawing attention to discrepancies in the description of the revised
project, and raising concern about whether an Environmental Impact Report should be
prepared, to evaluate potential significant environmental impacts related to air quality,
noise, greenhouse gas emissions, utility and service systems, and effects related to
COVID-19.
In consultation with SWCA Environmental Consultants, all environmental issue areas
required to be evaluated pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines were
evaluated in light of the proposed changes to the project. The evaluation indicated that
there is no new information of substantial importance showing new significant impacts or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts, and that
none of the conditions that would call for preparation of a subsequent IS/MND or EIR
(pursuant to Guidelines § 15162) have occurred. Therefore, an Addendum to the 2016
IS/MND is appropriate to satisfy CEQA requirements for the revised project.
5 The 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document is available on the City’s website at:
www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/34313
6 An Addendum is a supplemental document that makes minor technical changes to a previously adopted
Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, as discussed in CEQA
Guidelines §15164.
Page 16 of 429
Item 4a
ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey)
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
Accordingly, an Addendum to the Initial Study and MND (IS/MND) was prepared for the
Commission’s consideration in taking action on the proposed revision, and is included as
attachment to this report (Attachment E). The analysis of the proposed changes, for each
of the issue areas, including those areas referenced by the above-described Agenda
Correspondence, is set out in detail in Section 4 of the Addendum. The Addendum also
includes a Conformity Review document providing a detailed impact analysis on which
the analysis and conclusions of the Addendum are based, as well as a copy of the 2016
IS/MND.
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, the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Addendum, or
other policy documents.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft PC Resolution Approving Revised Design for Motel Inn
B - Description of Revisions
C - Project Plans – Motel Inn (Studio Design Group)
D - Ordinances 1130 and 1651
E - Addendum to Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Motel Inn)
F - Exterior Colors and Materials
G - Sound Wall Depictions
Page 17 of 429
Page 18 of 429
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-23
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 AND INSTALLATION OF A
VEGETATED SOUND WALL, AND APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO
THE PREVIOUSLY-ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(MND), AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 12, 2023 (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 Cham ber 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 19 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
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 continued consideration of the
application to the September 14, 2022 Planning Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 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 continued consideration of the
item to a date uncertain to allow additional time for staff and the applicant to review and
address certain items related to the information and analyses set out in the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum for the project; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2023, 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.
Page 20 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
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 12 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.
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 and in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the revised proejct, 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
Page 21 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 4
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.
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 miti gation
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
Page 22 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 5
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 sta te
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.
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:
Page 23 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 6
Planning Division
1. Conformance to Approvals. Final project design and construction drawings
shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by t he
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
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).
Page 24 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 7
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 Utilit ies 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.
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
Page 25 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 8
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.
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.
Page 26 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 9
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 fo r 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 finalize d 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 wate r runoff
from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street
Page 27 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 10
and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within
recorded easements or existing waterways.
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
Page 28 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 11
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.
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 in cluding
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/o r 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 Ordinance 1130, as amended by Ordinance 1651, to the
satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and City's Attorney's Office.
Page 29 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 12
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.
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 30 of 429
Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 13
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 _____________________ 2023.
________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 31 of 429
Page 32 of 429
June 29, 2023
Walter Oetzell
Assistant Planner
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: ARCH-0327-2021, Motel Inn (2125 Monterey Street) – Parcel 3
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
Enclosed are revised plans for Parcel 3 of the Motel Inn project (previously approved under
USE-0580-2017), for architectural review of minor revisions to the design portions of the
project.
The revision to Parcel 3 proposes to replace the approved 26 Airstream hotel rooms and 1
airstream spa trailer with 13 one and two story bungalows containing 27 guest rooms. The
addition of a sound wall adjacent to the freeway is also planned along the NE property
line. Refer to Exhibit A (attached) for additional project data comparisons.
Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Ariana Melendez
Project Architect
Studio Design Group Architects Inc.
Page 33 of 429
June 2, 2023
ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification
2
EXHIBIT A – Project Comparison Table
PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017) CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2023)
SITE PLAN (27) Airstreams with decks including spa
airstream.
(1) small outbuilding
(10) 1-story & (3) 2-story bungalows
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
6,696 SF (Airstreams) 14,000 SF
UNIT TYPE Airstreams & outbuilding. Bungalows
UNIT COUNT 26 27
PARKING 26 27
ARCHITECTURE
Airstreams Site-built structures in Mission Revival style
HEIGHT 12'-0" 25' (2-story bungalows), 16' (1-story)
CREEK
SETBACK
20'-0" 20'-0" (No change)
CREEK
ORDINANCE
1130/1651
No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek
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 submittal)
All glazing facing the creek ordinance zone
will be non-operable with anti-glare tint
Page 34 of 429
Page 35 of 429
Page 36 of 429
Page 37 of 429
Page 38 of 429
Page 39 of 429
Page 40 of 429
Page 41 of 429
Page 42 of 429
MOTEL INNSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA3/18/22KEYNOTE LEGEND1 PATIO WITH DECORATIVE PAVING2 YARD GAMES (CORNHOLE, PING PONG)3 ENHANCED ENTRY LANDSCAPING3 ENHANCED ENTRY LANDSCAPING4 LOBBY ENTRY PATIO5 IN-GROUND POOL (27’x42’)6 HOT TUB (10’x12’)7 SUN DECK WITH LOUNGE CHAIRS8 LAWN AREA (GRASS CRETE AT FIRE TRUCK HAMMERHEAD)9 5’ TALL NO-CLIMB POOL SECURITY FENCE WITH GATES10 TIERED WATER FOUNTAIN11 GARDEN PATIO WITH DECORATIVE PAVING12 RAISED PLANTER WITH SPECIMEN CANOPY TREE13 LINEAR WATER FOUNTAIN14 UNIT’S PRIVATE PATIO15 FIRE TRUCK HAMMERHEAD (FLUSH GRADE, GRASS CRETE TURF)16 PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY17 NOT USED18 NATIVE SCREEN PLANTINGS WITHIN CREEK SETBACK19 SOLID FENCING AT TOP OF CREEK BANK, WITH PLANTS20 NATIVE SCREEN PLANTINGS ALONG SLOPE21 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN22 PARKING LOT ISLAND WITH CANOPY SHADE TREE, TYP.15816161818181816212121212121212121212116161620332016281510112222222211111111776411LOBBY / CAFELOBBLOBBLOBBLOBBBLOBBY / Y / YY / Y / YCAFECAFECAFECAFECAFECANN/B N/B N/B N/BN/BN/BHWY HWY HWYHWYHWYHWY1011011011010110101SSAN SANSAN SAN ANLUISLUISLUISLUISLUISOBIOBIOBIOBIOBIOBSPO SPOSPOSPOSPO SPO SPOOCCREECREECREECREECREECREEKKKKKKKTO MOTO MTO MTO MTO MTO MTOOONTEONTEONTEONTEONTEONTEREY REYREYREYREYREYEYST.ST.ST. ST.ST.ST.B1BB1B1B1B1B1B1B1BB3BB3B3BB3B3B3BB2BB2B2B2B2B2B2B4B4B4B4B4B4B4B4B4BBB7B7B7B7B7B7B7B6B6B6B6B6B6B6B5B555B55B5B5B5B5B8B8B8B8B8B8BB9B9BB9B9B9B9B99MMMAINMTMAINMAINMAINMMAINMAINMAINMMT.T.T.T.T.T.B10B1B10B10B10B10B10B10B14B14B14B14B14B14B14B14B13B13B1313B13B13B13B13BB11B11B11B11B11B11B12121B12B12B12B12B1212HSKPHHSKPHSKPHSKPHSKPHSKPHSKP....BBBB15B15B15B15B15B15B2B22B2B22B22B22B22B22B22B16B16B16B16B16B16B16B16B16B23B23B23B233B23B23B1777B17B17B17B17B17B17B24B244B2424B24B24B2424B18B18BB18B18B18B18B18B18B19B19B19B19B19B19B19B19B26B26B26B26B26B26B2B202B20B20B20B20B20B200B27272B27B2727B27B27B27B21B21B21B21B21B21B2121HSKPKKGHSKPHSKPKSKPHSKPHSKPHSKPPGGGGGGGB29B292B29B29B29B29B29B29B299B28B28B28B28B28B28B288B25B25B25B2B25B25B2591212191919131312141414141412LANDSCAPE INSPIRATIONAL IMAGESHARDSCAPE MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTSTTTTTTL-121E. LAUNDRYE. LE. LE. LE. LE. LAUNDAUNDAUNDAUNDAUNDUNDRYRYRYRYRYDDYRYRYRYRRYCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE VISIONTHE 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 PLANPARCELS 1 & 2 NOT A PARTPage 43 of 429
MOTEL INNSAN LUIS OBISPO, CAPLANT PALETTE, NOTES, WATER USE3/18/22PROPOSED PLANT PALETTEBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZE WUCOLS* DESCRIPTIONEVERGREEN TREESARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE24” BOX L FLOWERING; REDDISH BARKCITRUS SPS. / CITRUS (ORANGE, LEMON, LIME) 15 GAL L EDIBLE FRUITOLEA EUROPAEA ‘SWAN HILL’ / FRUITLESS OLIVE 36” BOX VL FRUITLESS VARIETYTRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX X24” BOX M REDDISH BARK; UPRIGHT FORMPHOENIX CANARIENSIS / CANARY ISLAND PALM 12’ BTH L ICONIC PALMDECIDUOUS TREESGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS ‘MORAINE’ / MORAINE LOCUST 24” BOX L GREEN LACY FOLIAGELAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CLTVS. / CRAPE MYRTLE 24” BOX L FLOWERINGCASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA / GOLD MEDALLION TREE 24” BOX M FLOWERINGJACARANDA MIMOSIIFOLIA / JACARANDA A15 GAL M CANOPY SHADE; FLOWERINGPISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE 24” BOX L FALL COLORSHRUBS / SUCCULENTSSUCCULENTS / AEONIUM, AGAVE, ALOE, KALANCHOE, ETC. 1 GAL L SUCCULENT; LOW WATER USECALLISTEMON ‘LITTLE JOHN’ / DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL L RED FLOWERSDRACAENA DRAGO / DRAGON TREE 15 GAL L ACCENTDIANELLA CAERULEA ‘CASSA BLUE’/ BLUE FLAX LILY 5 GAL M BLUE/GREY STRAP-LIKE LEAVESEONYMUS JAPONICA CLTVS. / EVERGREEN EUONYMUS 5 GAL L HEDGE PLANTOLEA EUROPAEA ‘LITTLE OLLIE’ / DWARF OLIVE 5 GAL VL DWARF OLIVEPITTOSPORUM ‘SILVER SHEEN’ / SILVER SHEEN KOHUHU 5 GAL M UPRIGHT FORMPHORMIUM CLTVS. / NEW ZEALAND FLAX X5 GAL L COLORFUL ACCENTPRUNUS ‘BRIGHT N TIGHT’ / CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL 5 GAL L UPRIGHT FORMROSA ‘ICEBERG’ / ICEBERG ROSES 5 GAL M VARIOUS FLOWERSSALVIA SPS. / SAGE 5 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USEWESTRINGIA ‘MORNING LIGHT’/ COASTAL ROSEMARY 5 GAL L VARIEGATED LEAVESGROUND COVERLANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / TRAILING LANTANA A1 GAL L WHITE FLOWERS;ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS CLTVS. / ROSEMARY 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USEROSA ‘FLOWER CARPET’ / FLOWER CARPET ROSE 5 GAL M FLOWERINGPERENNIALS / ACCENTSACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM ‘MOONSHINE’ / YARROW 1 GAL L YELLOW FLOWERS;ANIGOZANTHOS CLTVS. / KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USECORDYLINE VARS. / CABBAGE PALM 5 GAL M GRASS-LIKE ACCENTKNIPHOFIA UVARIA / RED HOT POKER 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USELAVANDULA SPS. / LAVENDER 1 GAL L PURPLE FLOWERS.LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘BREEZE’ / BREEZE MAT RUSH 1 GAL L GREEN FOLIAGENATIVE SCREENINGBACCHARIS ‘CENTENNIAL’ / COYOTE BRUSH 1 GAL L SPREADINGHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON 5 GAL L RED BERRIES;RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA ‘EVE CASE’ / COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL L ROUNDED FORMRIBES 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.()()ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXWATER CONSERVATION STATEMENTTHE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, CONCURRENT WITH THE PLANTING ANDIRRIGATION 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, ENABLINGSTRONG 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 REGIONAND SITE; TOLERANCE OF WIND; TOLERANCE OF DROUGHTCONDITIONS; LONGEVITY; SCREENING CAPABILITIES; ANDOVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM WATEREFFICIENCY AND SHALL INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER,BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, AND LOW-GALLONAGE HEADS FOR TURF AND LARGE GROUND COVER AREAS. A DRIP-TYPESYSTEM SHALL BE USED WHERE APPROPRIATE. TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE BUBBLER SYSTEMS. 3. PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, NARRATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, SITEDETAILS, AND MATERIAL DEFINITIONS WILL BE DETERMINED ANDNOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. PLANT PHOTOSA B C D E FG H I J K LM N O P Q RS T U V W XL-2PRELIMINARY MAWA / ETWU CALCULATIONSPage 44 of 429
MOTEL INNSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA3/18/22L-3TREE INVENTORY PLAN5HPRYHPARCELS 1 & 2 NOT A PARTPage 45 of 429
Page 46 of 429
Page 47 of 429
Page 48 of 429
Page 49 of 429
Page 50 of 429
Page 51 of 429
Page 52 of 429
Page 53 of 429
Page 54 of 429
Page 55 of 429
Page 56 of 429
Page 57 of 429
Page 58 of 429
Page 59 of 429
Page 60 of 429
Addendum to the Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Motel Inn & RV Park Project,
San Luis Obispo, California
(PR-0113-2015)
JUNE 2023
PREPARED FOR
City of San Luis Obispo
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Page 61 of 429
Page 62 of 429
ADDENDUM TO THE
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
MOTEL INN & RV PARK PROJECT,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
(PR-0113-2015)
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Brian Leveille
Prepared by
SWCA Environmental Consultants
3426 Empresa Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 71167.01
June 2023
Page 63 of 429
Page 64 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
i
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Purpose of Addendum .......................................................................................................................... 1
3 Revised Project Description................................................................................................................. 2
4 Environmental Impacts Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5
4.1 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................................. 6
4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 7
4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 10
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 13
4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 14
4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 15
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................................... 16
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 19
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 21
4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 22
4.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.13 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 23
4.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 24
4.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 25
4.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 27
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 28
4.20 Wildfire ....................................................................................................................................... 29
5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 30
6 References ........................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendices
Appendix A. Motel Inn Conformity Review
Page 65 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
ii
Figures
Figure 1. Project Location Map. ................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Revised Project Site Plan. .............................................................................................................. 4
Tables
Table 1. Construction Emissions Summary .................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. Operational Emissions Summary .................................................................................................... 9
Table 3. Revised Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan............................................... 18
Page 66 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
1
1 INTRODUCTION
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo
(City) Planning Commission on March 23, 2016 (2016 IS/MND), to evaluate potential environmental
impacts from the construction of a restaurant; a 55-unit hotel, which included 15 guestrooms within the
main building and 40 additional guestrooms among 12 detached bungalow units; 13 recreational vehicle
(RV) spaces; 10 Airstream trailer spaces; and 121 parking spaces, which includes an approved 10%
parking reduction (Applications ARCH-2363-2015 and USE-1035-2015) (Approved Project) in the city
of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1).
Following adoption of the 2016 IS/MND, modifications to the original project were approved in May
2017 by administrative action of the City Community Development Department Director under
Application ARCH-3741-2016. As a result, two additional guestrooms were added to the main building,
for a total of 17 guestrooms in the building, adding approximately 3,088 square feet of floor area, for a
total of 14,558 square feet. In addition, two of the detached bungalow units were eliminated, resulting in
10 bungalow buildings containing 38 guestrooms. These modifications resulted in a total of 55 proposed
guestrooms. There was no change in the number of RV or Airstream spaces. A finding for approval
determined that the proposed modifications were consistent with 2016 IS/MND.
On September 27, 2017, the City Planning Commission considered a further modification to the approved
project design. The revision replaced the 13 RV spaces with Airstream trailer installations, for a total of
26 Airstream trailers for guest accommodations, with one additional Airstream trailer for use as a spa.
Revisions also included a new restroom building, bocce court, and related site improvements. The
Planning Commission found the revised project design to be consistent with the adopted 2016 IS/MND
and approved the revisions by adoption of Resolution No. PC-1010-17. The City has issued building
permits (BLDG-5952-2016, GRAD-0247-2018) to construct the project as described under Resolution
No. PC-1010-17, which is the baseline for proposed changes to the project.
Currently, the project design includes 27 Airstream trailer installations (26 guestrooms and one spa
trailer) and one single-story outbuilding on that portion of the project site described as Parcel 3. Further
changes to the project design, proposed in April 2022, would replace all of the Airstream trailer
installations on Parcel 3 with construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows
accommodating 27 guestrooms (Revised Project). As such, the only change to the project would be the
construction of permanent buildings on Parcel 3 rather than semi-permanent Airstream trailers and
elimination of the spa trailer.
2 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with proposed
changes to the Approved Project. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, when a lead agency has adopted an IS/MND for a project, a subsequent IS/MND
does not need to be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the
following conditions are met:
1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous
IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken that require major revisions to the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
Page 67 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
2
3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous IS/MND was adopted shows
any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
IS/MND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified
in the previous IS/MND;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or
alternatives.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, preparation of an Addendum to an IS/MND is
appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor
technical changes to the previously adopted IS/MND are necessary.
3 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed changes to the project design would result in the construction of ten single-story, 16-foot-tall
bungalows and three two-story, up to 25-foot-tall bungalows instead of the 27 Airstream trailer
installations on Parcel 3 (Figure 2), increase the total floor area of the buildings on Parcel 3 from
approximately 6,700 square feet to 14,000 square feet, and marginally increase the number of guestrooms
on Parcel 3 from 26 to 27 guestrooms. The newly proposed bungalows would be arranged around a court
similar to the bungalows to be constructed on Parcel 2 of the project site, and a 12-foot-tall sound wall
would be constructed at the northern boundary of the site to enhance the guest experience.
With the Revised Project design, the Acoustical Analysis: Motel Inn, 2223 Monterey St, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401 (45dB Acoustics, LLC 2022) was conducted to determine the transportation noise impacts on
the proposed project, particularly those associated with the adjacent U.S. Route 101 (US 101), and
whether a sound wall along the northern boundary of the site (see Figure 2) would be sufficient to
mitigate the noise at the exterior of the property. Based on the conclusions of the study, a wall of at least
12 feet in height was recommended for additional noise reduction.
Construction of the project under the revised design would result in a total of approximately 58,960
square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance, including approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and
1,100 cubic yards of fill with a maximum excavation depth of 5 feet. Construction activities would extend
approximately 20 months beginning in early 2024.
Page 68 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
3
Figure 1. Project Location Map.
Page 69 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
4
Figure 2. Revised Project Site Plan.
Page 70 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
5
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
The 2016 IS/MND evaluated the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
These issues, and all other issue areas required to be evaluated pursuant to Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Wildfire, are
evaluated for the Revised Project below.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the Revised Project would result in any new
significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 2016
IS/MND for the Approved Project. Any future development outside the scope of this IS/MND Addendum
would need to be evaluated for consistency with the 2016 IS/MND and, at that point, a CEQA
determination, separate from this IS/MND Addendum, would be made. A detailed impact analysis was
performed by SWCA Environmental Consultants through the preparation of a Conformity Review, which
is included in Appendix A. The following analysis and conclusions are based on that detailed Conformity
Review.
4.1 Aesthetics
Section 1, Aesthetics, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential to impact aesthetic
resources as a result of the construction of a new motel and RV park, with a maximum building height of
32 feet. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not have the potential to
adversely affect scenic vistas and would not affect scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings.
Further, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not degrade the existing visual
character of the site and its surroundings because the project design would be required to comply with the
City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, which address compatibility of proposed
development on the site and in relation to surroundings, as well as Ordinance No. 1130, as amended by
Ordinance No. 1651, which contains specific design criteria for new development on sites within the
Special Consideration (S) district overlay. The design criteria include specifications that limit building
openings onto the creek and address lighting, screening between land uses, riparian corridor protection,
building height, and grading limitations. In addition, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved
Project would not result in a new source of light or glare because new sources of light would be required
to comply with Ordinance No. 1130, as amended by Ordinance No. 1651, and the City’s Night Sky
Ordinance (City Municipal Code Section 17.23) to ensure that lighting remains on-site and does not
produce glare. Therefore, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-
than-significant impacts related to aesthetic resources, and no mitigation measures were identified.
Page 71 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
6
The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city, within the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone.
According to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE),
the project site is located in an area that provides scenic views of the hillsides to the east of the city. The
project site is immediately surrounded by US 101, San Luis Obispo Creek, single-family residences, and
tourist commercial uses. Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California
Scenic Highways online mapping tool, the segment of US 101 located adjacent to the project site is
eligible for State Scenic Highway designation but is not officially designated. This segment of US 101
provides views of scenic hillsides located to the southeast of the project site from the northbound lane.
The Revised Project would eliminate the proposed Airstream trailers and result in the construction of
10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would increase the height and massing
of buildings on the project site. The Revised Project also includes the construction of a 12-foot-tall sound
wall. The natural grade of the project site is approximately 10 to 12 feet lower than US 101 to the north
and single-family residences to the south; therefore, the proposed soundwall would appear to be
approximately 2 feet tall as viewed from the US 101 northbound lanes. The proposed cottage buildings
would be blocked from the viewshed of US 101 by the soundwall. Further, the proposed soundwall would
be concealed by landscaping and there are existing trees and landscaping that would further impede views
of the soundwall from US 101. Existing trees and vegetation located on the southern portion of the project
site would impede views of the project site from existing residences and roadways located south of the
project site. Based on the existing natural grade of the project site and existing trees surrounding the
project site, the Revised Project would not block views of the scenic landscape or degrade views from US
101.
The City’s COSE states that urban development should reflect its architectural context. It does not
necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices that acknowledge human
scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with historical
and architectural resources. The Revised Project would be consistent with the allowable height, minimum
setbacks, maximum floor to area ratio, and minimum lot area for the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone per
City Municipal Code Section 17.34.020. As described above, the Revised Project would be primarily
blocked from the viewshed of surrounding areas because the proposed cottage buildings and soundwall
would be lower in elevation than surrounding areas and would be concealed by existing trees located
along the northern and southern portions of the project site as well as proposed landscaping along the
soundwall. Since views of the project site would be predominately blocked from surrounding public
areas, the Revised Project would be consistent with the scale of surrounding development. Thus, the
Revised Project would be consistent with the protection of scenic resources identified in the City’s COSE.
The Revised Project is required to comply with the City’s Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance
(City Municipal Code Section 17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and new development, which
include, but are not limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and directed
away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, requirements for minimum levels of lighting
consistent with public safety standards, and limitations for hours of lighting operation. Based on required
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the Revised Project would not introduce a new source of
substantial light or glare. Based on the proposed design of the Revised Project, existing topography and
vegetation, and required compliance with City requirements, the Revised Project would not create new or
more severe impacts to aesthetic resources than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no
mitigation is required.
4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Section 2, Agriculture Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential
impacts related to agricultural resources. As identified in the 2016 IS/MND, the project site is located on
Page 72 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
7
land designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP). Further, the project site is not located on land designated or zoned for Agricultural Uses and is
not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Further, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved
Project would not result in other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of
agricultural land and may relieve pressure to develop similar uses outside of the City’s Urban Reserve
Land (URL). As such, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that no impacts to agricultural resources would occur,
and no mitigation measures were identified.
The Revised Project would be limited to the footprint of the Approved Project. As identified in the 2016
IS/MND, the project site and surrounding land uses are designated as urban and built-up land by the
FMMP, are not located on land designated or zoned for Agricultural Uses and are not subject to a
Williamson Act Contract; therefore, the Revised Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural uses. In addition, the project site is within the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zoning
designation and does not include zoning for forest land or timberland; therefore, the project would not
conflict with or cause rezoning of forestland or land for timber production. The project site is surrounded
by built-up land used for tourist commercial and residential uses. There is no agricultural land located
within close proximity to the project site. The Revised Project would be consistent with surrounding uses
and with existing zoning designation for the project site and would not adversely affect agricultural water
supplies or other agricultural support facilities. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in other
changes to the environment that could result in the conversion of agricultural land or forest land to non-
agricultural or non-forest use. Therefore, the Revised Project would not create new or more severe
impacts to agricultural and forestry resources than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no
mitigation is required.
4.3 Air Quality
Section 3, Air Quality, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to
air quality. As discussed in the 2016 IS/MND, the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
(SLOAPCD) reviewed the Approved Project, identified potential impacts associated with the construction
and operational phases of the project, and identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which reduces identified
impacts. The 2016 IS/MND determined that with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measure,
impacts related to air quality would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (2001 CAP), a
project must be consistent with the land use planning and transportation control measures (TCMs) and
strategies outlined in the 2001 CAP. TCMs are primarily intended to reduce vehicle use by promoting and
facilitating the use of alternative transportation options. The Revised Project includes infill development
that would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation of the site. The
Revised Project would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would result in a
marginal increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site. Based on the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) Screening Map, the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average
VMT less than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in
VMT generation below the City’s adopted thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600
feet west of the project site and there are bicycle lanes leading up to the project site from the west, which
would facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation by guests. Although not required to reduce
impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation
Measure AQ-1, comply with all construction and operational mitigation measures and recommended
actions provided by the SLOAPCD in their letter dated November 17, 2015. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Revised Project would be consistent with the land use policies and TCMs
identified in the 2001 CAP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.
Page 73 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
8
4.3.1 Construction and Operational Emissions
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter less
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) under state ambient air quality standards. Construction of the Revised
Project would result in emissions of ozone precursors, including reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). During operation, the Revised Project would result in
emissions of ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions and other stationary sources.
4.3.1.1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The Revised Project would require approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance,
including approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill. This would result in the
generation of construction dust as well as short-term construction vehicle emissions, including diesel
particulate matter (DPM), ROG, NOX, and PM10. Based on estimated construction phase length, grading
volumes, and other factors, estimated construction-related emissions that would result from the Revised
Project were calculated and compared to applicable SLOAPCD thresholds (Table 1).
Table 1. Construction Emissions Summary
Criteria Pollutant
Highest Daily/Quarterly
Emissions SLOAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
33.8 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.04 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
13.23 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.04 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Quarterly Construction Emissions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
1.01 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.07 ton/quarter 0.13 ton/quarter No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.08 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No
Notes: lbs = pounds
All calculations were made using the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod). DPM is equal to combined exhaust PM10 and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and dust is equal to fugitive PM10 from CalEEMod.
As shown in Table 1, estimated daily and quarterly construction emissions would not exceed
SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance. However, SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to sensitive receptors, that require
implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce DPM and fugitive dust. Due to the
location of surrounding residential areas approximately 190 feet southeast from the western property
boundary, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires compliance with all
construction and operational mitigation measures and recommended actions provided by the SLOAPCD,
including implementation of standard diesel idling and fugitive dust reduction measures to reduce
potential air quality impacts associated with construction of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or
more severe impacts related to construction emissions would occur.
Page 74 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
9
4.3.1.2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The Revised Project would result in an increase in vehicle trips, energy use, and architectural coating off-
gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Long-term operational emissions were also
calculated using the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod) and are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Operational Emissions Summary
Criteria Pollutant
Highest Daily/Annual
Emissions
(without TDM) SLOAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Daily Operational Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
1.93 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.97 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.02 lb/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.18 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Daily Operational Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
1.84 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.65 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.02 lb/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.18 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
0.35 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.03 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Notes: lbs = pounds
All calculations were made using the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod). DPM is equal to combined exhaust PM10 and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and dust is equal to fugitive PM10 from CalEEMod.
As shown in Table 2, operational emissions of criteria air pollutants would not exceed SLOAPCD’s
recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with
SLOAPCD thresholds for operational criteria pollutant emissions. Although not required to reduce
operational criteria pollutant emissions, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which
requires the implementation of standard operational requirements (i.e., residential wood burning, SLO Car
Free Program, etc.) to further reduce operational air pollutant emissions. Therefore, no new or more
severe impacts related to operational emissions would occur.
4.3.1.2.1 Sensitive Receptors
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located approximately 190
feet southeast from the western property boundary. Construction activities such as excavation, grading,
vegetation removal, staging, and building construction would result in temporary construction vehicle
emissions and fugitive dust that may affect nearby sensitive receptors. Construction activities within
1,000 feet of sensitive receptors require standard dust and DPM reduction measures, which have been
identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the 2016 IS/MND. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
Page 75 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
10
AQ-1 from the 2016 IS/MND, the Revised Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations, and no new or more severe impacts would occur.
4.3.1.2.2 Odors and Other Emissions
Construction of the Revised Project would generate odors associated with construction smoke, dust, and
equipment exhaust and fumes. Proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those
resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be short-term in nature and
limited to the construction phase of the Revised Project and would not be expected to disturb nearby land
uses. The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Map indicates the project site is located
within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to be present; therefore, proposed ground-
disturbing activities have the potential to release NOA if present within soils at the site. Pursuant to
SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section
93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and
comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. These requirements have been incorporated
as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the 2016 IS/MND. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1
from the 2016 IS/MND, the Revised Project would not result in other adverse emissions, and no new or
more severe impacts would occur.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not create new or more severe impacts
to air quality than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new mitigation is required.
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.
4.4 Biological Resources
Section 4, Biological Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts
related to biological resources based, in part, on the findings of the Motel Inn – Apple Farm
Redevelopment Project USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] Protocol Survey for CRLF [California
Red-Legged Frog] & Nesting Raptor Survey (King Ventures 2003) and a field visit conducted by the
City’s Natural Resources Manager. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not
result in impacts to special-status plant species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities,
wetlands, or wildlife corridors because these resources do not occur on the project site. However, it was
determined that South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (DPS)
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) may be present within the portion of San Luis Obispo Creek located adjacent to
the eastern and southern portion of the project site. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 was identified to
require the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with
erosion control best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the potential for erosion and other pollutants
from entering San Luis Obispo Creek and disturbing steelhead habitat. In addition, this portion of San
Luis Obispo Creek is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance No. 1130, as amended by
Ordinance No. 1651 (1989 Series) for the Commercial Tourist with Special Consideration overlay
(C-T-S) and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-5) zones at this location. On its western bank, which occurs
on the project site, the creek channel is vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and
groundcovers. However, it was concluded that all proposed structures and other improvements would be
constructed above the established top of bank and would not disturb the creek channel or associated
resources. Based on review of the Approved Project, the City’s Natural Resources Manager
recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires a planting plan intended to
Page 76 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
11
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. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-
than-significant impacts related to biological resources.
The project site consists of the undeveloped eastern portion of a 4.19-acre parcel in the western portion of
the city of San Luis Obispo. The project site is an infill site in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone and
consists of relatively flat topography and previously disturbed areas. Surrounding land uses include
US 101 to the north, single-family residences to the west and south, and hotel buildings to the west.
Construction activities associated with approved development under ARCH-2363-2015 are located
adjacent to the western portion of the project site. San Luis Obispo Creek runs in an east–west direction to
the south and east of the project site. There are existing trees and landscaping surrounding the northern,
eastern, and southern portions of the project site.
Based on an updated review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the following
special status plant and animal species have been previously recorded within the San Luis Obispo,
California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle:
• Special-Status Plants
o Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense)
o adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima)
o Cuesta Pass checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala)
• Special-Status Animals
o tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
o Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii)
o vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
o monarch -California overwintering population (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1)
o steelhead – South-Central California Coast DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9)
o foothill yellow-legged frog – South Coast DPS (Rana boylii pop. 6)
o California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
Based on previous and ongoing disturbance within the project area, special-status plant species are not
expected to occur within the project site. San Luis Obispo Creek is located adjacent to the southern and
western portions of the project site and supports natural areas and habitat conditions that could provide
suitable habitat for special-status plant species; however, the Revised Project includes a 20-foot setback
from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to the natural areas associated with San Luis
Obispo Creek, including special-status plant species if present. Therefore, the Revised Project would not
disturb special-status plant species.
In addition, based on previous and ongoing disturbance, the project site does not support natural areas,
connectivity, or suitable habitat for special-status animal species. The project site is an infill site and is
immediately surrounded by US 101 and existing development; therefore, the project site does not provide
habitat connectivity for terrestrial species. There are existing trees and vegetation within the vicinity of
the project site that may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory bird species; however, the Revised
Project includes the limited removal of one palm tree and would not reduce the availability of nesting
habitat for migratory or other bird species. Therefore, the Revised Project would not interfere with the
movement of migratory or other resident species. As identified in the 2016 IS/MND, steelhead are known
to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek in the vicinity of the project area and have been documented upstream
of the project site. As previously identified, the Revised Project includes a 20-foot setback from the top of
Page 77 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
12
bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to the creek channel and steelhead if present during project
activities. Further, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) General Construction Permit
requirements, which require preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) with construction best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control, including, but not
limited to, silt fencing, straw wattles, and berms. Based on the lack of suitable habitat and required
compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the Revised Project would not adversely affect
special-status animal species.
San Luis Obispo Creek is located adjacent to the southern and western portions of the project site. San
Luis Obispo Creek supports riparian vegetation; however, there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities located on the project site. According to the City’s COSE, San Luis Obispo Creek is
designated as a wildlife corridor. The Revised Project includes a 20-foot setback from the top of bank,
which would avoid direct disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek and associated riparian areas. As
previously identified, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code
and Central Coast RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements, which requires preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP with construction BMPs to address erosion control at the project site to
avoid indirect disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek and associated riparian areas. Based on the proposed
design of the Revised Project and required compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the
Revised Project would not result in adverse impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek, including the associated
riparian habitat and wildlife corridor.
There are existing trees and vegetation surrounding the project site; however, the Revised Project does not
include the removal of native trees that could conflict with the City’s Municipal Code. The City’s COSE
includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the
City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protecting listed species and Species
of Special Concern, preserving existing wildlife corridors, protecting significant trees, and maintaining
development setbacks from creeks. Based on the proposed design of the Revised Project and required
compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the Revised Project would not result in a
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. Further, the
Revised Project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not create new or more severe impacts
to biological resources than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no mitigation is required.
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.
Page 78 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
13
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the
creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the
drainage/creek system.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek
restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native
vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts
related to historical resources based on the findings of the Historic American Building Survey of the Motel
Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) (Hall n.d.). As identified in the 2016 IS/MND, the Approved Project is located on
a site that is designated locally as a Master List Historic Property. However, the 2016 IS/MND concluded
that the Approved Project would not result in adverse impacts to the Historic Motel Inn Property because
the design of the Approved Project would incorporate the defining elements of the Historic Motel Inn
Property and would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
to ensure consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior
(SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Further, it was concluded that the Approved
Project would result in the continuation of tourist-oriented use, which is consistent with the historic,
visitor-serving purpose of the property. As such, the 2016 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to
historical resources would occur.
In addition to the evaluation of potential impacts related to historic resources, Section 5, Cultural
Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND included an evaluation of the Approved Project’s potential impacts to
archaeological, paleontological, and human resources based on the Findings of the Extended Phase 1
Testing Report for 2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA (Bertrando and Bertrando 2002). As stated
in the 2016 IS/MND, the project site is located in an Archaeologically Sensitive Area because it is within
200 feet of the top of bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Although the project site is located in an
Archaeologically Sensitive Area, no archaeological deposits were identified on-site. However, there is
still potential for previously unidentified archaeological, paleontological, and/or human resources to be
uncovered during proposed ground-disturbing activities. As such, Mitigation Measure CR-1 was
identified to require archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities and identifies the
protocol to be implemented in the event of inadvertent discovery. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure CR-1, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to cultural resources.
The project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any structures that could be considered a
historic property. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. As stated in the 2016 IS/MND, the project
site is located in an Archaeologically Sensitive Area because it is within 200 feet of the top of bank of San
Luis Obispo Creek. Further, the project site is located within a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure
1 of the City’s COSE. Based on the Extended Phase 1 Testing Report, no archaeological deposits have
been identified within the project area (Bertrando and Bertrando 2002). In addition, no human remains are
known to exist within the project site. However, based on the sensitivity of the project site, there is
potential to uncover previously unidentified cultural archaeological resources and/or human remains
during proposed ground-disturbing activities. The Revised Project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measure CR-1, as identified in Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND to address
potential impacts related to inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. Therefore, the Revised Project
would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to cultural resources than were previously
Page 79 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
14
analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new mitigation is required. An evaluation of the Revised Project’s
potential to result in impacts associated with paleontological resources is provided in Section 4.7,
Geology and Soils.
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.
4.6 Energy
At the time the 2016 IS/MND was prepared and certified, CEQA did not yet require the evaluation of a
proposed project’s impacts associated with consumption of energy resources. A 2016 court case, Ukiah
Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (248 Cal.App.4th 256), first confirmed that environmental
documents must include an energy analysis. In 2019 Energy was added to the State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, as a standalone section.
During construction of the Revised Project, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by
construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in
nature and would be typical of other similar construction activities in the city. Further, federal and state
regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as
diesel idling, which would reduce the potential for wasteful energy consumption during construction.
The Revised Project would eliminate the 27 Airstream trailers, including the spa trailer, and would
construct 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would result in an increase in
energy use. The Revised Project would result in an overall increase in operational consumption of energy
resources associated with vehicle trips, natural gas, and electricity usage by project occupants. The project
includes an operational commitment to Central Coast Community Energy (3CE). By using electricity
from 3CE, the project would reduce the long-term use of non-renewable energy resources. Natural gas
would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which has committed to
replacing 20% of its traditional natural gas supply with renewable natural gas by 2030 (Sempra 2019).
Proposed building design would be required to adhere to Title 24 of the California Energy Code and
California Building Code (CBC) 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards to further reduce operational
energy use through implementation of green building and energy-efficient building design.
The Revised Project would result in a marginal increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site.
Based on the City’s VMT Screening Map, the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that would
Page 80 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
15
result in average VMT less than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area
would result in VMT generation below the City’s adopted thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop
approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are bicycle lanes leading up to the project site
from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation by guests. Although
not required to reduce operational energy consumption, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure
AQ-1, which requires compliance with all construction and operational mitigation measures and
recommended actions provided by the SLOAPCD, including participation in the SLO Car Free Program
to incentivize guests to utilize car-free transportation within the city.
The Revised Project would not generate a significant amount of VMT and would comply with existing
building codes; therefore, the Revised Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of short- or long-term energy resources.
In addition, the Revised Project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE
associated with use of best available practices in energy conservation, encouraging energy-efficient
building design and the use of pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. The Revised Project would not
conflict with other goals and policies set forth in the City’s City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan
for Community Recovery (2020 Climate Action Plan Update) associated with renewable energy or energy
efficiency. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of short- or long-term energy resources or conflict with a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. The Revised Project would not result in any new impacts related to energy
consumption, and no mitigation is necessary.
4.7 Geology and Soils
Section 6, Geology and Soils, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts
related to geology and soil resources. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would be
located in a seismically active region and would be subject to seismic effects at some point(s) during the
lifetime of the Approved Project; however, potential effects associated with seismic activity would be
reduced through required compliance with Seismic Design Criteria established in the CBC and the City’s
Municipal Code. The 2016 IS/MND also concluded that the Approved Project would not result in
substantial effects associated with ground-failure because the Approved Project would be subject to
existing regulatory requirements, which require preparation of a soils engineering report and
implementation of recommendations included in the report to avoid risk associated with potential ground-
failure events to occupants and structures. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would
not result in the loss of topsoil because the Approved Project includes infill development on a previously
developed site. Further, the Approved Project included connections to the City’s sewer system; therefore,
no impacts related to the installation of on-site septic systems or alternative wastewater systems were
identified. Based on required compliance with the CBC, the City’s Municipal Code, and other existing
regulations, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to geology and soils, and no mitigation measures were identified.
Based on the California Department of Conservation (CDOC) Fault Activity Map and the City’s Climate
Adaptation and Safety Element Regional Faults and Seismic Hazard Designation Area Map, the project
site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone. The nearest faults are the late
quaternary Cambria Fault, approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the project site, and the late quaternary
Oceanic Fault, approximately 1.15 miles northeast of the project site (CDOC 2022). Consistent with the
Approved Project, due to the highly seismic nature of the region, it is highly likely that the Revised
Project would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point(s) during the life of the Revised
Project. Based on the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element Liquefaction Risk Areas and
Landslide Susceptibility Classes maps, the project site is not located within an area with risk of
liquefaction and is not located in an area with high risk of landslide. There is a landslide risk area
Page 81 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
16
associated with Reservoir Canyon, located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project site. According
to USGS data, the project site is not located in an area of historical or current land subsidence. Based on
the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by
Concepcion loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, which consists of loam, clay, and sandy clay loam (Natural
Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2023). Typically, soils that are comprised of clay have potential
for expansion, and soils at the project site contain clay materials and would have potential for expansion.
The proposed development would be required to be designed in full compliance with seismic design
criteria established in the most recent CBC to adequately withstand and minimize the risk of loss, injury,
or death associated with the level of seismic activity expected to occur in the project region, including
seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslide as well as potential ground-failure events, including
soil expansion and other unstable soil conditions. Based on required compliance with existing CBC and
City regulations, the Revised Project would not result in risk of loss, injury, or death associated with
seismic activity or other unstable soil conditions.
The Revised Project would require approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance,
including approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill. Ground-disturbing
construction activities have the potential to result in erosion or loss of topsoil. In accordance with the
City’s Municipal Code and Central Coast RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements, the
Revised Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP with construction BMPs for
erosion control, including, but not limited to, silt fencing, straw wattles, and berms. During operation, the
Revised Project would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in
the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central
Coast Region. Following project completion, the project site would be developed with buildings,
hardscapes, and landscaping, which would preclude the potential for substantial long-term erosion or loss
of topsoil at the project site.
The Revised Project includes a new connection to the City’s sewer system; therefore, no septic tanks or
alternative wastewater treatment systems are proposed on-site.
The project site is underlain by alluvial valley deposits from the late Holocene era (Qa), which has a low
paleontological sensitivity because it is typically too young to yield significant fossilized resources. There
are no known fossils or other paleontological resources in the project area. Further, the Revised Project
would not require excavation of steep slopes or disturbance of bedrock that may result in the discovery of
unknown fossils at the project site. In the event an unknown paleontological resource is identified on-site,
the Revised Project would be required to comply with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5,
which prohibits the removal or disturbance of paleontological resources without permission of the
jurisdictional agency.
Based on required compliance with existing regulatory requirements, the Revised Project would not result
in any new or more severe impacts related to geology and soil resources than were previously analyzed in
the 2016 IS/MND, and no new mitigation is required.
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential
impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved
Project would result in infill development located in close proximity to existing transit centers and City
amenities and would be consistent with City policies related to infill development and efficient use of the
City’s existing infrastructure. In addition, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ-1, as identified in Section 3, Air Quality, of the 2016 IS/MND, would further reduce GHG
emissions during the construction and operational phases of the Approved Project. Therefore, the 2016
Page 82 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
17
IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
GHG emissions, and no additional mitigation measures were identified.
During construction of the Revised Project, fossil fuels and natural gas would be used by construction
vehicles and equipment. The Revised Project would be required to comply with federal and state
regulations in place that require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities,
such as idling of diesel-fueled vehicles, which would reduce the potential to generate substantial GHG
emissions during construction.
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was assigned a GHG-reduction target of 11%
from transportation sources by 2035. In June 2019, SLOCOG adopted the 2019 Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), which includes the region’s Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and meets the
requirements of SB 375 (SLOCOG 2019). In September 2018, the City Council directed City staff to
develop a climate action plan with a reduction target of carbon neutrality by 2035. A carbon neutrality by
2035 target would require achieving a far greater reduction than the SB 32 requirements by 2030, as
identified in the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan. On July 20, 2020, SLOCOG issued a letter that determined
the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update was consistent with the GHG reduction noted in the SCS for
meeting the State’s 2030 GHG-reduction target. As a result, determination of consistency with the 2020
Climate Action Plan Update would ensure consistency with the GHG-reduction targets identified in the
RTP/SCS.
The City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update identifies six pillars, each of which includes long-term
goals, measures, and foundational actions for reducing GHG emissions throughout the city. The pillars
include:
1. Leading by Example: Create a Municipal Action Plan by 2020 and achieve carbon neutral
government operations by 2030.
2. Clean Energy Systems: Achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020.
3. Green Buildings: Generate no net new building emissions from on‐site energy use by 2020 and
achieve a 50% reduction in existing building on‐site emissions (after accounting for 3CE) by
2030.
4. Connected Community: Achieve the General Plan mode split objective by 2030 and have 40%
VMT by electric vehicles by 2030.
5. Circular Economy: Achieve 75% diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 and 90% by 2035.
6. Natural Solutions: Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban
Forest through compost application-based carbon farming activities and tree planting to be
ongoing through 2035.
Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the City’s
2020 Climate Action Plan Update can utilize the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance
Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update’s GHG emissions
reduction strategy. The demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the 2020 Climate Action Plan
Update are based on the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and City of San
Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element. If a plan or project is consistent with the existing
2014 General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site, then the project would be
considered consistent with the demographic forecasts and the land uses assumptions of the applicable
Climate Action Plan. The Revised Project consists of infill development in the Tourist Commercial (C-T)
zone and is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designation and would be consistent with the
demographic and land use assumptions used for the development of the 2020 Climate Action Plan
Update. The Revised Project would not result in an increase in employment or population estimates that
Page 83 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
18
would conflict with those used for development of the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update or
SLOCOG’s RTP/SCS.
The Revised Project would implement all-electric building design in compliance with the CBC, including
applicable green building standards, which would reduce long-term GHG emissions at the project site.
The Revised Project would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would result in a
negligible increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site. As previously identified, the Revised
Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average VMT less than or equal to 85% of the
regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in VMT generation below the City’s adopted
thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are
bicycle lanes leading up to the project site from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative
modes of transportation by guests. Although not required to reduce impacts related to consistency with
applicable GHG-reduction plans, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires
the Revised Project to participate in the SLO Car Free Program to incentivize guests to utilize car-free
transportation within the city.
The City has prepared a CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for plans and projects to
ensure that they are consistent with the pillars of the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update. Table 3
summarizes the Revised Project’s consistency with the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update.
Table 3. Revised Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan
Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency
Clean Energy Systems
Does the Project include an operational commitment to participate in
Central Coast Community Energy?
Consistent. The Revised Project includes participation
in 3CE.
Green Buildings
Does the Project exclusively include “All-electric buildings”? For the
purpose of this checklist, the following definitions and exemptions
apply:
All-electric building. A new building that has no natural gas plumbing
installed within the building and that uses electricity as the source of
energy for all space heating, water heating, cooking appliances, and
clothes drying appliances. An All-Electric Building may be plumbed for
the use of natural gas as fuel for appliances in a commercial kitchen.
Specific exemptions to the requirements for all-electric buildings
include:
Commercial kitchens
a. The extension of natural gas infrastructure into an industrial
building for the purpose of supporting manufacturing
processes (i.e., not including space conditioning).
b. Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to an existing
single-family home. Essential Service Buildings including,
but not limited to, public facilities, hospitals, medical centers
and emergency operations centers.
c. Temporary buildings.
d. Gas line connections used exclusively for emergency
generators.
e. Any buildings or building components exempt from the
California Energy Code.
f. Residential subdivisions in process of permitting or
constructing initial public improvements for any phase of a
final map recorded prior to January 1, 2020, unless
Consistent. The Revised Project includes the
development of an all-electric building and would be
required to be in full compliance with the City’s Energy
Reach Code.
Page 84 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
19
Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency
compliance is required by an existing Development
Agreement.
If the proposed project falls into an above exemption category, what
measures are applicants taking to reduce onside fossil fuel
consumption to the maximum extent feasible? If not applicable (N/A),
explain why this action is not relevant.
Connected Community
Does the Project comply with requirements in the City’s Municipal
Code with no exceptions, including bicycle parking, bikeway design,
and EV charging stations?
Consistent. The Revised Project has been designed
to comply with the requirements in the City’s Municipal
Code and would be required to demonstrate
compliance with applicable Municipal Code
requirements related to bicycle parking, bikeway
design, and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.
Is the estimated Project-generated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
within the City’s adopted thresholds, as confirmed by the City’s
Transportation Division?
Consistent. Based on the City’s VMT Screening Map,
the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that
would result in average VMT less than or equal to 85%
of the regional average, meaning a project in this area
would result in VMT generation below the City’s
adopted thresholds.
If “No,” does the Project/Plan include VMT mitigation strategies and/or
a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approved by the
City’s Transportation Division?
Does the Project demonstrate consistency with the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan?
Consistent. The Revised Project would provide 8
bicycle parking spaces, which is consistent with City
requirements. In addition, there are bicycle lanes
leading up to the project site from the west, which
would facilitate the use of alternative modes of
transportation by guests.
Circular Economy
Will the Project subscribe all units and/or buildings to organic waste
pick up and provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with
the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Development Standards
for Solid Waste Services? Please provide a letter from San Luis
Garbage company verifying that the project complies with their
standards and requirements for organic waste pick up.
Consistent. Limited, if any, organic waste is
anticipated during operation of the site. In addition, San
Luis Garbage would provide solid waste services to the
Revised Project in accordance with applicable solid
waste standards and requirements.
Natural Solutions
Does the Project comply with Municipal Code requirements for trees? Consistent. The Revised Project would retain existing
trees and dense foliage within the project area.
As shown in Table 3, the Revised Project would be consistent with the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update;
therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with applicable GHG-reduction plans.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe
impacts related to GHG emissions than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new
mitigation is required.
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s
potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials based, in part, on the findings of the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment: Apple Farm Inn (Phase I ESA) (Ceres Associates 1999). The 2016
IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials and would not result in impacts associated with hazardous materials use. The Phase I
ESA identified the potential for underground tanks associated with the previous on-site service station
Page 85 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
20
may be present at the project site. In addition, the Approved Project required demolition that could disturb
asbestos-containing material (ACM). Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 was identified to require the
Approved Project to implement all recommendations included in the Phase I ESA to reduce risks
associated with the release of potential contaminants. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the project site
is not located within 0.25 mile of a school, within an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), within 2 miles of an
airport, or within a wildland interface zone. In addition, the 2016 IS/MND determined that based on
review by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD), the Approved Project would not
interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
The Revised Project would be located within the footprint of the Approved Project; therefore, the Revised
Project would not be located within an ALUP, within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip, or
within 0.25 mile of a school. Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project does not include
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances. Construction activities associated with the
Revised Project are anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including
gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, and paints, transported, stored, and used according to
federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous
materials. Construction contractors would be also required to comply with applicable federal and state
environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management Standard
(California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 29.1910.119), which includes requirements for
preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials.
As identified in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the project site is within an area identified as having a potential
for NOA to occur. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant is required to provide a geologic evaluation
prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. These
requirements have been incorporated as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the 2016 IS/MND. The Revised
Project would not require demolition or other activities that could release ACM. As previously identified,
the site previously was used as a service station and there may be underground tanks remaining in place
(Ceres Associates 1999). Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, as identified in the 2016 IS/MND, requires the
Revised Project to incorporate all recommendations included in the Phase I ESA to reduce risk associated
with the release of potential contaminants.
Aerially deposited lead (ADL) from the historical use of leaded gasoline, exists along heavily traveled
roadways throughout California (i.e., Principal Arterial roadways, freeways, and expressways). Typically,
ADL is found within 30 feet of the edge of pavement associated with these roadways, with the highest
concentrations occurring in the top 6 inches of soil within 10 feet of the edge of pavement. In some cases,
lead is as deep as 2 to 3 feet below the surface and can extend 20 feet or more from the edge of pavement.
US 101, a freeway, is located adjacent to the northern portion of the project site. The Revised Project
includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows, three two-story bungalows, and a soundwall on
the project site; however, ground disturbance for the proposed development would be located greater than
30 feet from the edge of pavement associated with US 101 and would not be expected to disturb ADL if
present within soils at the project site.
The project site is located in an urban area adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone associated
with Reservoir Canyon. The Revised Project would result in 10 single-story bungalows and three two-
story bungalows on a flat parcel. The Revised Project would be required to meet all applicable standards
for fire prevention pursuant to the CBC and California Fire Code. Therefore, the Revised Project would
not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to substantial pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project site would be accessed by a proposed
Page 86 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
21
driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2 (ARCH-2363-2015). The proposed driveway and
internal roadways would be constructed in accordance with City Public Works Department requirements
to provide fire and other emergency vehicles adequate long-term access to the project site. The Revised
Project would increase the guestroom count from 26 to 27, which would result in a marginal increase in
vehicle trips along Monterey Street and, therefore, would not increase vehicle congestion in a manner that
could interfere with emergency response or evacuation efforts within the project area. Any breaks in
utility service would be temporary and would not conflict with any emergency plans. Therefore, the
Revised Project would maintain adequate public and emergency access during project activities and
would not conflict with emergency plans.
Based on required compliance with existing regulatory requirements, the Revised Project would not result
in any new or more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials than were previously
analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new mitigation is required.
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.
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential
impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project
would not result in adverse impacts to surface or groundwater quality or drainage conditions because the
Approved Project would be subject to the City’s Drainage Design Manual and Waterway Management
Plan and the RWQCB Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) for stormwater control. The 2016
IS/MND determined that the project site is located within a 100-year flood zone and would be required to
comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual, Waterway Management Plan, and Flood Ordinance, and
would be required to have a finished floor elevation of 1 foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation.
In addition, the Approved Project would be constructed outside of the top of bank associated with San
Luis Obispo Creek. As such, the 2016 IS/MND found that the Approved Project would result in a less-
than-significant impact related to location within the 100-year flood zone. In addition, the 2016 IS/MND
concluded that the Approved Project would not include the use of groundwater and would not deplete
groundwater levels. Based on compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the 2016
IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation measures were identified.
San Luis Obispo Creek runs along the southern boundary of the project site. The Revised Project includes
a 20-foot setback from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to the creek channel. The
Revised Project would require approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance,
including approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill, which has the potential to
increase erosion at the project site. In addition, the Revised Project would require the use of construction
equipment and vehicles that could release pollutants at the project site. The Revised Project would be
required to comply with City Municipal Code (Chapter 12.08) and RWQCB General Construction Permit
requirements, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with construction BMPs for
pollutant control. The City has adopted additional requirements for projects that are subject to a State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Permit. Additionally, the Revised Project would be
required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan for short- and long-term erosion control in
compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The Revised Project is required to comply with the
Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management
Page 87 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
22
Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Physical improvement of the project
site is 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. As part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set of minimum
designated BMPs and Pollution Prevention Methods. BMPs are steps taken to minimize or control the
number of pollutants and runoff. Pollution Prevention Methods are strategies to eliminate the use of
polluting materials and/or exposure of potential pollutants to rainwater or other sources of runoff.
Following project construction, the project site would be developed with buildings, hardscapes, or
otherwise landscaped areas, precluding the potential for substantial long-term erosion. Therefore, based
on required compliance with existing requirements, the Revised Project would not violate water quality
standards or interfere with existing drainage conditions at the project site.
Based on the San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area
with potential for inundation by a tsunami. Further, the project site is not located within close proximity
to a standing body of water with the potential for a seiche to occur. According to Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06079C1067G (effective date
11/16/2012), the southern portion of the project site is in Zone AE, an area with a 1% chance of annual
flood. The Revised Project would result in approximately 14,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces
that could increase the rate of flood flows at the site. Due to the project site’s location within a flood zone,
the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Floodplain Regulations to reduce any
effects of flood water displacement affecting other properties. As previously identified, the Revised
Project would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast
Region and the City’s Waterways Management Plan for long-term maintenance of drainages at the project
site, which would reduce the potential for pollutant release due to flood inundation. Therefore, the
Revised Project would not be expected to impede or redirect potential flood flows.
Per the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy
A2.2.1, the City has four primary water supply sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas
Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation). Groundwater serves as a fifth
supplemental source. The Revised Project would be supplied water by the City, which has ample water
supply based on diversification of its water resources. Water supply analysis is further discussed in
Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems. The City has moved away from using groundwater as a
primary water supply source, which is consistent with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA) and the San Luis Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan. In addition, the San Luis Obispo
Valley Groundwater Basin (SLO Basin) encompasses approximately 12,700 acres and supports a vast
amount of area that allows for groundwater recharge; therefore, new impervious surfaces within the
project site would not substantially decrease the ability for groundwater recharge within the SLO Basin.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not conflict with the SGMA, San Luis Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or
groundwater supplies.
Based on required compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the Revised Project would
not result in any new or more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality than were previously
analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new mitigation is required.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Section 10, Land Use and Planning, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential
impacts associated with division of an established community and inconsistency with land use plans,
policies, and zoning. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in impacts
Page 88 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
23
related to land use and planning because the Approved Project would result in infill development that is
consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning and would not physically divide an established
community. As such, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that no impacts to land use and planning would occur,
and no mitigation measures were identified.
The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story
bungalows with 27 guestrooms on an existing parcel in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone. Consistent
with the Approved project, the Revised Project consists of infill development and would be consistent
with the General Plan land use designation. The Revised Project will not physically divide an established
community or conflict with any land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any
new or more severe impacts related to land use and planning than were previously analyzed in the 2016
IS/MND, and no mitigation is required.
4.12 Mineral Resources
Section 11, Mineral Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts
related to mineral resources. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not impact
mineral resources because no known mineral resources are located at the project site and the project site is
not designated for mineral resources by the City’s General Plan or other applicable planning documents.
As such, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that no impacts to mineral resources would occur, and no
mitigation measures were identified.
The Revised Project would not result in any impacts to mineral resources because no known mineral
resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely due
to the urbanized nature of the city. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in new or more severe
impacts related to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
4.13 Noise
Section 12, Noise, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential impacts related to
noise based, in part, on the findings of the Noise Study for the Apple Farm/Motel Inn, San Luis Obispo,
California (Asquith 2001). The 2016 IS/MND identified potential impacts related to the location of the
Approved Project in relation to US 101 but concluded that the existing topography of the site would
reduce noise levels from US 101 at the project site. Further, the 2016 IS/MND determined that noise
levels would be further reduced at the project site because outdoor areas would be situated on the opposite
side of the proposed buildings, which would attenuate freeway noise levels to acceptable levels for
outdoor areas, and proposed buildings would be required to comply with standard building techniques
identified in the City’s Noise Guidebook to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels. Further, RV
uses are not identified as noise-sensitive land use in the City’s General Plan and would not be subject to
interior noise reduction measures. Based on the design of the Approved Project and required compliance
with existing City requirements, the Approved Project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess
of City standards. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not increase ambient
noise levels within the vicinity of the project. It was concluded that short-term construction activities for
the Approved Project could temporarily increase ambient noise levels above City standards but would be
required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which would ensure short-term construction noise
would be consistent with City standards. As stated in the 2016 IS/MND, the project site is not located
within an ALUP or within 2 miles of an airport and would not result in impacts related to excessive
aircraft noise. Therefore, based on required compliance with existing City regulations, the 2016 IS/MND
determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to noise, and
no mitigation measures were identified.
Page 89 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
24
During construction of the Revised Project, noise from construction activities may intermittently
dominate the noise environment in the immediate area. The Revised Project would require the use of
typical construction equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, etc.) for land preparation and development of the
new building. Construction activities would be similar to other construction activities within the city and
would not introduce a new, inconsistent source of noise within the project area. However, the nearest
sensitive noise receptors are located approximately 190 feet southeast from the western property
boundary. Construction activities for the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City's
Noise Ordinance, which regulates the time of construction activities and maximum noise levels that may
be generated; therefore, construction of the Revised Project would be consistent with the City’s noise
thresholds. Further, the Revised Project does not include pile driving or other high-impact activities that
would generate substantial noise or groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment
would generate groundborne noise and vibration; however, there are no buildings that surround the
project site (i.e., historical buildings and occupants of surrounding buildings) that would be substantially
affected by this groundborne vibration. Based on the proposed construction activities, groundborne
vibration is expected to be imperceptible at adjacent properties.
The Revised Project would be consistent with surrounding land uses and does not include components
that would significantly add to long-term ambient noise in the project vicinity. Upon completion of
construction activities, the Revised Project would include the use of a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system; however, the HVAC would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient
noise levels due to compatibility with the existing noise environment. Typically, a doubling of traffic is
needed to produce an increase in noise that is audible to the human ear. The Revised Project would
increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would not result in a doubling of traffic trips;
therefore, no substantial increase in mobile source noise would occur. No balconies, outdoor use areas, or
operational windows would face the creek corridor or the adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore,
operational components of the Revised Project would be consistent with the City’s noise thresholds.
The project site is located adjacent to US 101. Based on the findings of the Acoustical Analysis: Motel
Inn, 2223 Monterey St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (45dB Acoustics, LLC 2022), the proposed design of
the Revised Project includes the installation of a 152-foot-long and 12-foot-tall soundwall along the
northern portion of the project site to minimize noise impacts from US 101 at the project site. Therefore,
the Revised Project would not expose project occupants to substantial mobile-source noise associated
with US 101. In addition, the Revised project would be located within the footprint of the Approved
Project and would not be located within 2 miles of an airport, within an ALUP, or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip; therefore, the Revised Project would not expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels.
Based on required compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and installation of the proposed
soundwall, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to noise than
were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new mitigation is required.
4.14 Population and Housing
Section 13, Population and Housing, of the 2016 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to
population and housing would occur because the Approved Project is located in an urbanized area and
would not introduce new land uses or infrastructure that could directly or indirectly induce population
growth. In addition, the Approved Project does not require the demolition or removal of existing housing
or construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that no
impacts to population and housing would occur, and no mitigation measures were identified.
Page 90 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
25
Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project does not require the demolition or removal of
existing housing and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Revised
Project does not include the construction of new residential land uses that could directly contribute to
population growth within the city. The Revised Project would result in 27 new guestrooms, which is
consistent with the intended uses of the parcel and, therefore, would be consistent with growth
assumptions included in the City’s General Plan. Short-term construction activities may increase
temporary construction-related employment opportunities; however, temporary employment opportunities
generated by the Revised Project are anticipated to be filled by the local workforce and would not result
in a substantial population increase within the city. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in
substantial or unplanned population growth. No new or more severe impacts related to population and
housing would result under the Revised Project, and no additional mitigation is necessary.
4.15 Public Services
Section 14, Public Services, of the 2016 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to public services
would occur because the Approved Project would be limited to tourist-oriented land use and would not
require the provision of public facilities such as parks or schools. The 2016 IS/MND also determined that
there would be adequate capacity of water, sewer, police, and fire protection to service the Approved
Project. Therefore, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that no impacts to public services would occur, and no
mitigation measures were identified.
Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be limited to tourist-oriented land use
and would not require the provision of public facilities such as parks or schools. The Revised Project
includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would
result in 27 guestrooms and a marginal increase in demand on fire and police protection services. The
Revised Project is consistent with the intended uses of the parcel and, therefore, would be consistent with
growth assumptions included in the City’s General Plan. In addition, the Revised Project would be subject
to the payment of Development Impact Fees to address the marginal increase in demand on fire protection
services associated with new development. Based on the limited population growth and required payment
of Development Impact Fees, the Revised Project would not increase demand on existing fire or police
protection services in a manner that would require expansion or construction of new facilities. Therefore,
no new or more severe impacts related to public services than were evaluated in the 2016 IS/MND would
occur, and no mitigation would be required.
4.16 Recreation
Section 15, Recreation, of the 2016 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to recreation would occur
because the Approved Project would not include permanent residential units and based on the transitory
nature of hotel guests, the Approved Project would not substantially increase use of nearby recreational
facilities in a manner that could result in physical deterioration. Further, the Approved Project does not
include construction of new recreational facilities. Therefore, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that no
impacts to recreational facilities would occur, and no mitigation measures were identified.
Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project does not include the construction of new
recreational facilities that could result in adverse environmental impacts. The Revised Project includes the
construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would result in 27
guestrooms and does not include development of residential or other land uses that could result in a
substantial increase in the use of existing public recreational facilities. As the Revised Project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan designation and underlying zoning, any indirect population
growth resulting from the Revised Project would be consistent with the projected population growth for
the city. In addition, the Revised Project would be subject to the payment of Development Impact Fees to
Page 91 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
26
address the marginal increase in demand on public recreational facilities. Therefore, the Revised Project
would not generate substantial population growth in a manner that could increase the use of existing
public recreational facilities and result in substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to recreation
than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no mitigation is necessary.
4.17 Transportation
Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluates the Approved Project’s potential
impacts associated with traffic and transportation based, in part, on the findings of the Motel Inn Remodel
Traffic Analysis Report (Higgins Associates 2002) and 2223 Monterey Street Motel Inn Access Study
Technical Memorandum (Omni-Means 2015). The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project
would not conflict with the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element because there are
no improvements or modifications identified on the portion of Monterey Street within the project area. In
addition, the 2002 Traffic Analysis concluded that the Approved Project 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 2002 Traffic
Analysis concluded that with the increase in vehicle trips, proximate roadways would continue to operate
at acceptable levels of service (LOS) (generally at LOS C or better). The Approved Project would be
subject to the payment of Traffic Impact Fees for maintenance of City-operated roads. Therefore, the
2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with the City’s Circulation
Element or other applicable planning documents. Because the project site is located in close proximity to
the US 101 northbound on-ramp, the 2015 Access Study identified roadway design measures to mitigate
potential impacts associated with geometric issues, which were incorporated into the 2016 IS/MND as
Mitigation Measure MM-1. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-1, the 2016 IS/MND
determined that the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to roadway
design. Further, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would not result in impacts to
traffic air patterns or emergency access. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-1
and payment of Traffic Impact Fees, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the Approved Project would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to traffic and transportation.
The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story
bungalows, which would result in 27 guestrooms. The project site would be accessed by a proposed
driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2 (ARCH-2363-2015), which would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City Public Works Department safety design standards and reviewed
by the City Transportation and Engineering Divisions to ensure proposed driveways would not contain
dangerous curves, short sight distance, or other dangerous design features and would provide fire and
other emergency vehicles adequate long-term access to the project site. In addition, the Revised Project
would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would result in a negligible increase in
vehicle trips along Monterey Street and other proximate roadways; therefore, the Revised Project would
not increase vehicle congestion in a manner that could interfere with emergency response efforts within
the project area. The Revised Project would be subject to the payment of the City’s standard Traffic
Impact Fees for maintenance of existing roads and other transportation infrastructure. As noted, there is a
transit stop located approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are bicycle lanes leading up
to the project site from the west, which are consistent with goals for alternative transportation methods
identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Therefore, the Revised
Project would be consistent with applicable City plans and policies related to the circulation system and
would not result in hazardous roadway design or inadequate emergency access.
The 2018 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Senate Bill (SB) 743 Technical
Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent substantial evidence
Page 92 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
27
indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with an
SCS or a general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be
assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. The Revised Project would increase the
number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would result in a negligible increase in vehicle trips along
Monterey Street and other proximate roadways. Based on the City’s VMT Screening Map, the Revised
Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average VMT less than or equal to 85% of the
regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in VMT generation below the City’s adopted
thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are
bicycle lanes leading up to the project site from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative
modes of transportation by guests. Although not required to reduce VMT, Mitigation Measure AQ-1, as
identified in the 2016 IS/MND, requires the Revised Project to participate in the SLO Car Free Program
to incentivize guests to utilize car-free transportation within the city. Therefore, the Revised Project is not
anticipated to generate VMT at a rate that is inconsistent with local and regional thresholds pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and no new impacts would occur.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe
impacts related to transportation than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no mitigation is
necessary.
Mitigation Measure: MM-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
construct the roadway channelization project as recommended in the
traffic study which is depicted above, and as approved by the City and
Caltrans.
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Assembly Bill (AB) 52, approved by the Governor of California on September 25, 2014, requires public
agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated
with the geographic area of proposed projects subject to CEQA. At the time the 2016 IS/MND was
prepared and certified, CEQA did not yet require the evaluation of a proposed project’s impacts
associated with tribal cultural resources as an independent section under State CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Further, this IS/MND Addendum does not require public
circulation and would not be subject to tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52.
The project site is located in an Archaeologically Sensitive Area because it is within 200 feet of the top of
bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Further, the project site is located within a Burial Sensitivity Area
identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE. Based on the Extended Phase 1 Testing Report, no
archaeological deposits have been identified within the project area (Bertrando and Bertrando 2002).
However, based on the sensitivity of the project site, there is potential to uncover previously unidentified
tribal cultural resources during proposed ground-disturbing activities. The Revised Project would be
required to implement Mitigation Measure CR-1, as identified in Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the
2016 IS/MND to address potential impacts related to inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources.
Further, the Revised Project would be subject to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, which identifies the protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of
human remains. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts
related to tribal cultural resources than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and no new
mitigation is required.
Page 93 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
28
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Section 17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the 2016 IS/MND evaluated the Approved Project’s potential
impacts related to utilities and service systems, including wastewater treatment, expansion of water and
wastewater facilities, new stormwater and drainage facilities, water supply, wastewater treatment
capacity, and solid waste. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WWRF) and existing sewers would have adequate capacity to provide for the Approved Project,
and the Approved Project would be required to install sewer laterals in compliance with the City’s
Uniform Plumbing Code to connect to the City’s existing system. In addition, the Approved Project
would be subject to the payment of Sewer Impact Fees for maintenance of the WWRF. The 2016
IS/MND determined that there would be sufficient water supply to serve the Approved Project because
development of the site is consistent with the planned development of the site and the Approved Project
would be subject to Water Impact Fees to contribute its fair share of the cost of constructing the water
supply, treatment, and distribution facilities. The 2016 IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to solid waste because the Approved Project would
be required to include recycling facilities to reduce the waste stream generated by the Approved Project.
Based on required compliance with existing City regulations, the 2016 IS/MND determined that the
Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems, and
no mitigation measures were identified.
Consistent with the Approved Project, the City’s existing water supply and wastewater infrastructure
would have adequate capacity to provide for the Revised Project; therefore, the Revised Project would not
require the construction of new or expansion of existing utility facilities. Any installation of expanded
utility infrastructure (e.g., sewer laterals, water lines electric lines, etc.) at the project site would be within
the disturbance footprint of the Revised Project and would be subject to mitigation measures identified
throughout this IS/MND Addendum to reduce potential environmental impacts associated with ground-
disturbing and other construction activities for installation of utility infrastructure on-site. Therefore, the
Revised Project would not result in adverse environmental impacts associated with installation of utility
infrastructure at the project site.
Based on the City’s water demand and wastewater generation factors, hotels/motels generate
approximately 70 gallons of water per room per day. Therefore, the Revised Project would result in a
potable water demand of approximately 1,890 gallons per day. Based on the City’s wastewater generation
factors by land use, the 27-room motel would generate wastewater flows of 1,890 gallons per day. Thus,
the Revised Project would result in an incremental increase in demand on the City’s water supply,
WRRF, and water and wastewater conveyance infrastructure.
As introduced in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the City has four primary water supply
sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water
(for irrigation). Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water
sources in the last several decades has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even
following the driest years on record. The total water available for the City in the 2022 water year (July 1,
2021–June 30, 2022) was 10,140 acre-feet per year, which included 259 acre-feet per year of recycled
water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual
yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this
analysis. The City’s water demand for 2021 was 5,228 acre-feet per year; therefore, the Revised Project’s
potable water demand of 1,890 gallons per day would be accommodated by the City’s existing water
supply. Water for any additional short-term use for construction activities or site revegetation would also
be provided by the City’s supply only if non-potable water supply trucks and/or network available
through the City. In addition, development of this site is consistent with the City’s long-range planning
documents and, thus, has been anticipated by the City’s water and wastewater supply planning. The
Page 94 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
29
Revised Project would also be required to pay standard Development Impact Fees to offset the Revised
Project’s incremental contribution to demand on the City’s water and wastewater infrastructure.
Therefore, the City’s existing water and wastewater facilities would have adequate capacity to serve the
Revised Project.
Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Revised
Project would generate approximately 54 pounds of solid waste per day. Operational solid waste and
recycling would be serviced by San Luis Garbage Company and disposed of at Cold Canyon Landfill.
Short-term construction-related waste would also likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill,
which has a maximum daily permitted intake capacity of 1,650 tons per day and a remaining capacity of
13,000,000 cubic yards as of August 31, 2020. Based on these capacities, the Cold Canyon Landfill is
expected to remain operational through at least 2040. The Revised Project would be required to prepare
garbage and recycling plan for review and approval by San Luis Garbage Company in compliance with
the City’s COSE policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE Policy 5.5.3), and
the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. In addition, the Revised Project would be
consistent with the projected buildout of the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone and is not anticipated to
generate an excessive amount of solid waste in a manner that could exceed existing capacity of Cold
Canyon Landfill or interfere with solid waste-reduction requirements.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe
impacts related to utilities and service systems than were previously analyzed in the 2016 IS/MND, and
no new mitigation is required.
4.20 Wildfire
At the time the 2016 IS/MND was prepared and certified, CEQA did not yet require the evaluation of a
proposed project’s impacts associated with wildfire as an independent section under State CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. However, the Approved Project’s potential
impacts associated with exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires were evaluated in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the 2016
IS/MND. The 2016 IS/MND determined that the project site is not located within a wildland interface
zone. In addition, the 2016 IS/MND determined that based on review by the SLOFD, the project would
not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the 2016 IS/MND concluded that
the Approved Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to wildfire and emergency
access and evacuation efforts.
The project site is located in an urbanized area adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
associated with Reservoir Canyon. Surrounding land uses include US 101 to the north, single-family
residences to the west and south, and hotel buildings to the west. There are existing trees and landscaping
surrounding the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the project site. The Revised Project would
result in 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows and includes the installation of water,
emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy extensions and connections to City infrastructure.
The Revised Project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention pursuant to the
CBC and California Fire Code. Therefore, the Revised Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, result
in substantial temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment as a result of wildfire, or expose people
or structures to significant post-fire risk associated with new development.
The project site would be accessed by a proposed driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2
(ARCH-2363-2015). The proposed driveway and internal roadways would be constructed in accordance
with City Public Works Department requirements to provide fire and other emergency vehicles adequate
long-term access to the project site. The Revised Project would increase the guestroom count from 26 to
Page 95 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
30
27, which would result in a negligible increase in vehicle trips along Monterey Street and, therefore,
would not increase vehicle congestion in a manner that could interfere with emergency response or
evacuation efforts within the project area. Any breaks in utility service would be temporary and would not
conflict with any emergency plans. Therefore, the Revised Project would maintain adequate public and
emergency access during project activities and would not conflict with emergency plans.
Based on required compliance with existing CBC, California Fire Code, and City Public Works
Department requirements, the Revised Project would result in less-than-significant related to wildfire.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts associated with
wildfire, and no new mitigation is required.
5 CONCLUSION
The evaluation of all impact areas presented in Section 4 of this IS/MND Addendum indicate that the
proposed modifications associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new
information related to new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 IS/MND.
In summary, the analysis concludes that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State
CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent IS/MND have occurred, and, thus, an
Addendum to the 2016 IS/MND is appropriate to satisfy CEQA requirements for the Revised Project. The
evaluation presented in this IS/MND Addendum supports the finding that no circumstances or conditions
requiring the preparation of a subsequent IS/MND are present in this case.
Page 96 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
31
6 REFERENCES
45dB Acoustics, LLC. 2022. Acoustical Analysis: Motel Inn 2223 Monterey St San Luis Obispo, CA
93401. May 9.
Asquith, Donald, Ph.D. 2001. Noise Study for the Apple Farm/Motel Inn, San Luis Obispo, California.
Prepared for King Ventures. March 14.
Bertrando, Betsy, and Ethan Bertrando. 2002. Extended Phase 1 Testing Report for 2223 Monterey Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared at the request of King Ventures. January.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Area Designation Maps / State and National. December.
Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-
designations. Accessed April 2023.
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2022. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2023. San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo. Accessed April 2023.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database.
Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018408-cnddb-in-bios.
Accessed April 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed April 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2020. SWIS Facility Detail
Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-AA-0004/Detail/. Accessed April
2023.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. California Scenic Highways. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e80571
16f1aacaa. Accessed April 2023.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Available at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed April 2023.
Ceres Associates. 1999. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Apple Farm Inn. Prepared for MRD
Enterprises, Inc. October 25.
City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2006. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Available
at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651. Accessed April 2023.
Page 97 of 429
Motel Inn Project IS/MND Addendum
32
———. 2010. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2014. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2020a. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=27835. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2020b. Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27919/637341402080900000. Accessed
April 2023.
———. 2021. City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=29123. Accessed April 2023.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available
at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed April 2023.
Hall, Keith. n.d. Historic American Building Survey of the Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel). Prepared for
King Ventures.
Higgins Associates. 2002. Motel Inn Remodel Traffic Analysis Report. Prepared for King Ventures.
Revised April 23.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2023.
Omni-Means. 2015. 2223 Monterey Street Motel Inn Access Study Technical Memorandum. Prepared for
the City of San Luis Obispo. November 6.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2019. 2019 Regional Transportation Plan.
Adopted June 5.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2001. 2001 San Luis Obispo County
Clean Air Plan. Available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2023. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool. Available at:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35
.364986805363756%2C-120.52563349999997&z=10. Accessed April 2023.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Preliminary geologic map of the west half of the San Luis Obispo
30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California, version 2.0. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_111837.htm. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2023. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Available at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.
Page 98 of 429
APPENDIX A
Motel Inn Conformity Review
Page 99 of 429
Page 100 of 429
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
IS/MND CONFORMITY REVIEW
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PR-0113-2015
1. Project Title:
Motel Inn Project at 2223 Monterey Street
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7593
4. Project Location:
2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Motel Inn, L.P.
P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Studio Design Group
Attn: Tim Ronda, Principal Architect and Ariana Melendez, Project Architect
762 Higuera Street, Suite 212
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Covelop Holdings, LLC
P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designations:
Tourist Commercial (C-T)
7. Zoning:
Tourist Commercial with “Special Consideration” Overlay (C-T-S)
8. Previous Environmental Review:
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Planning
Commission on March 23, 2016, to evaluate potential environmental impacts from the construction of a restaurant; a 55-
unit hotel, which included 15 guestrooms within the main building and 40 additional guestrooms among 12 detached
Page 101 of 429
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
bungalow units; 13 recreational vehicle (RV) spaces; 10 Airstream trailer spaces; and 121 parking spaces, which includes
an approved 10% parking reduction (Applications ARCH-2363-2015 and USE-1035-2015) (Approved Project) in the city
of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1).
Following adoption of the IS/MND, modifications to the Approved Project were approved in May 2017 by administrative
action of the City’s Community Development Department Director under application ARCH-3741-2016. As a result, two
additional guestrooms were added to the main building, for a total of 17 guestrooms in the building, adding approximately
3,088 square feet of floor area, for a total of 14,558 square feet. In addition, two of the detached bungalow units were
eliminated, resulting in 10 bungalow buildings containing 38 guestrooms. These modifications resulted in a total of 55
proposed guestrooms. There was no change in the number of RV or Airstream spaces. A finding for approval determined
that the proposed modifications were consistent with 2016 IS/MND.
On September 27, 2017, the City’s Planning Commission considered a further modification to the Approved Project design.
The revision replaced the 13 RV spaces with Airstream trailer installations, for a total of 26 Airstream trailers for guest
accommodations, with one additional Airstream trailer for use as a spa. Revisions also included a new restroom building,
bocce court, and related site improvements. The City Planning Commission found the revised project design to be consistent
with the adopted 2016 IS/MND and approved the revisions by adoption of Resolution No. PC-1010-17. The City has issued
building permits (BLDG-5952-2016, GRAD-0247-2018) to construct the project as described under Resolution No.
PC-1010-17, which is the baseline for proposed changes to the project.
Currently, the project design includes 27 Airstream trailer installations (26 guestrooms and one spa trailer) and one single-
story outbuilding on the portion of the project site described as Parcel 3. Further changes to the project design, proposed in
April 2022, would replace all of the Airstream trailer installations on Parcel 3 with construction of 10 single-story bungalows
and three two-story bungalows, accommodating 27 guestrooms (Revised Project). As such, the only change to the project
would be the construction of permanent buildings on Parcel 3 rather than semi-permanent Airstream trailers and elimination
of the spa trailer.
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, the purpose of this conformity review
is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project redesign and determine if the changes
to the Revised Project design would result in new or more significant impacts on the environment than what was described
in the 2016 IS/MND.
9. Description of the Project:
Proposed changes to the project design would result in the construction of ten single-story, 16-foot-tall bungalows and three
two-story, up to 25-foot-tall bungalows instead of the 27 Airstream trailer installations on Parcel 3 (Figure 2), which would
increase the total floor area of the buildings on Parcel 3 from approximately 6,700 square feet to 14,000 square feet and
marginally increase the number of guestrooms on Parcel 3 from 26 to 27 guestrooms. The newly proposed bungalows would
be arranged around a court similar to the bungalows to be constructed on Parcel 2 of the project site, and a 12-foot-tall sound
wall would be constructed at the northern boundary of the project site to enhance the guest experience.
With the Revised Project design, the Acoustical Analysis: Motel Inn, 2223 Monterey St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (45dB
Acoustics, LLC 2022) was conducted to determine the transportation noise impacts on the proposed project, particularly
those associated with the adjacent U.S. Route 101 (US 101), and whether a sound wall along the northern boundary of the
project site (see Figure 2) would be sufficient to mitigate the noise at the exterior of the property. Based on the conclusions
of the study, a wall of at least 12 feet in height was recommended for additional noise reduction.
Construction of the project under the revised design would result in a total of approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres)
of ground disturbance, including approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill with a maximum
excavation depth of 5 feet. Construction activities would extend approximately 20 months beginning in early 2024.
10. Project Entitlements:
Design Review
Page 102 of 429
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
11. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding land uses are summarized below:
• North: US 101, single-family residences
• South: single-family residences, San Luis Obispo Creek
• East: Motel Inn, Apple Farm Inn
• West: single-family residences, San Luis Obispo Creek
12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested
consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that
includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with state and City regulations, including, but not limited
to, Assembly Bill 52.
13. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
N/A
Page 103 of 429
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Figure 1. Project Location Map.
Page 104 of 429
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Figure 2. Site Plan
Page 105 of 429
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO-EID-0790-2021 6 2016 IS/MND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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 ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing
Page 106 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
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
Page 107 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would
the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 2, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
1, 2, 4,
8 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 2, 3,
5, 17 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can be seen
from public viewpoints. The topography of the city is generally defined by several low hills and ridges, such as Righetti Hill,
Bishop Peak, and Cerro San Luis. These are three of the nine peaks known as the Morros and provide scenic focal points for
much of the city. According to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE), the
project site is located adjacent to US 101, which is designated as a roadway with moderate scenic value and is also located in an
area that provides scenic views of the hillsides to the east of the city. The project site is located in the western portion of the city
and is zoned for Tourist Commercial (C-T). Surrounding land uses include US 101 to the north, single-family residences to the
west and south, and hotel buildings to the west. San Luis Obispo Creek runs in an east–west direction to the south and east of
the project site. There are existing trees and landscaping surrounding the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the project
site.
a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view that can be seen from public viewpoints. A substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista would occur if the Revised Project would significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed
from public roads or other public areas. According to the City’s COSE, the project site is located in an area that provides
scenic views of the hillsides to the east of the city. Within the project area, public views of the hillsides primarily occur
from US 101 traveling north. The Revised Project would eliminate the proposed Airstream trailers and would result in the
construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would increase the height and massing
of buildings on the project site. The Revised Project also includes the construction of a 12-foot-tall sound wall. The natural
grade of the project site is approximately 10 to 12 feet lower than US 101 to the north and single-family residences to the
south; therefore, the proposed soundwall would be up to 2 feet tall as viewed from the US 101 northbound lanes. The
proposed cottage buildings would be blocked from the viewshed of US 101 by the soundwall. Further, the proposed
soundwall would be concealed by landscaping, and there are existing trees and landscaping that would further impede
views of the soundwall from US 101. Existing trees and vegetation located on the southern portion of the project site would
impede views of the project site from existing residences and roadways located south of the project site. Based on the
existing natural grade of the project site and existing trees surrounding the project site, the Revised Project would not block
views of the scenic landscape, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016
IS/MND.
b) US 101 is located adjacent to the northern portion of the project site and provides views of scenic hillsides located southeast
of the project site from the northbound lane. Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California
Scenic Highways online mapping tool, this section of US 101 is eligible for State Scenic Highway designation but is not
officially designated. As discussed in Impact Discussion 1(a), the natural grade of the project site is approximately 12 feet
lower than US 101; therefore, the proposed soundwall would be approximately 4 feet tall as viewed from US 101 traveling
Page 108 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
north. The proposed buildings would be blocked from the viewshed of US 101 by the soundwall. Further, the proposed
soundwall would be concealed by landscaping and there are existing trees and landscaping that would further impede
views of the Revised Project from US 101. Based on the existing natural grade of the project site and existing trees
surrounding the project site, the Revised Project would not degrade views from US 101, and impacts would be less than
significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city, within the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone. The project site is
immediately surrounded by US 101, San Luis Obispo Creek, single-family residences, and tourist commercial uses. The
Revised Project would be consistent with the allowable height, minimum setbacks, maximum floor to area ratio, and
minimum lot area for the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone per the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.34.020.
The City’s COSE states that urban development should reflect its architectural context. It does not necessarily prescribe a
specific style, but requires deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring
urban development, and that are compatible with historical and architectural resources. As described in Impact Discussion
1(a), the natural grade of the project site is approximately 10 to 12 feet lower than US 101 to the north and single-family
residences to the south; therefore, the proposed soundwall would appear to be up to approximately 2 feet tall as viewed
from surrounding public areas. The proposed buildings would be blocked from the viewshed of US 101 by the soundwall.
Further, the proposed soundwall would be concealed by landscaping, and there are existing trees and landscaping that
would further impede views of the Revised Project from surrounding public areas. Since views of the project site would
be predominately blocked from surrounding public areas, the Revised Project would be consistent with the scale of
surrounding development. Thus, the Revised Project would be consistent with the protection of scenic resources identified
in the City’s COSE, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
d) Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the project site include lighting from surrounding tourist
commercial and residential uses and intermittent headlights from vehicles traveling along US 101 and other proximate
roadways. The Revised Project is required to comply with the City’s Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and new development, which include, but are not
limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties and public
rights-of-way, requirements for minimum levels of lighting consistent with public safety standards, and limitations for
hours of lighting operation. Based on required compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the Revised Project would not
introduce a new source of substantial light or glare, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with
the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The Revised Project would not impede views of a scenic vista, would not be located within a scenic highway, and would not be
highly visible from nearby public areas. The Revised Project has been designed to comply with all applicable standards set forth
in the City’s Municipal Code, the City’s Community Design Guidelines, and other applicable plans. No potentially significant
impacts associated with aesthetic resources would occur and mitigation measures are not required. Therefore, no new or more
severe impacts related to aesthetic resources would occur compared to the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 109 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would
the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 7, 17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g))?
7, 17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 1, 7, 17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
7, 17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP.
The project site is zoned Tourist Commercial (C-T) and is not located within or immediately adjacent to land zoned for
agricultural uses, land under an active Williamson Act contract, or land currently supporting agricultural uses.
According to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not support
nor is it surrounded by forest land or timberland.
Page 110 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
a) According to the FMMP, the project site and surrounding land uses are designated as urban and built-up land. Since the
project site is not located on or adjacent to designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or as Farmland of Statewide
Importance, the Revised Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural, and no impact would
occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The project site is not located within an Agricultural zone and is not located within or immediately adjacent to land under
an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the
2016 IS/MND.
c, d) The project site is within the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zoning designation and does not include zoning for forest land or
timberland. Therefore, the Revised Project would not conflict with or cause rezoning of forestland or land for timber
production. Additionally, the project site would not be classified as forest land; therefore, any tree removal would not
result in the loss or conversion of forest land. The Revised Project would not result in the loss of forest land or convert
forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the Addendum to the
2016 IS/MND.
e) The project site is surrounded by built-up land used for tourist commercial and residential uses. There is no agricultural
land located within close proximity to the project site. The Revised Project would be consistent with surrounding uses and
existing zoning designation for the project site and would not adversely affect agricultural water supplies or other
agricultural support facilities. The Revised Project would not result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land
to non-agricultural or non-forest use, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016
IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to designated Farmland, land zoned for agricultural
or forest land use, or land under a Williamson Act contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land would
occur and mitigation measures are not required. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to agriculture and forestry
resources would occur compared to the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 11,
12 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
8, 9, 10,
11, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
10, 11,
13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 9, 14 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Page 111 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Evaluation
The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara
and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District (SLOAPCD).
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the state standards for ozone, partial nonattainment (in
eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area) for federal ambient standards for ozone, and nonattainment for the
state standards for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). The City’s COSE identifies goals and policies to
achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live, work, and visit the city. These goals and
policies include meeting federal and state ambient air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered
motor vehicles, and encouraging walking, biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated with a November 2017 Clarification
Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a project.
To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels,
the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (2001 Clean Air Plan) was prepared and adopted.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the
activities involved. The CARB has identified the following groups as most likely to be affected by air pollution (i.e., sensitive
receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The
nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residential units located approximately 190 feet southeast from
the western property boundary.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance
proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB Airborne Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates
that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential to contain NOA.
a) In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (2001 CAP), a project must be
consistent with the land use planning and transportation control measures (TCMs) and strategies outlined in the 2001 CAP.
TCMs are primarily intended to reduce vehicle use by promoting and facilitating the use of alternative transportation
options. The Revised Project includes infill development that would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use
and zoning designation of the project site. The Revised Project would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27,
which would result in a marginal increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site. Based on the City’s Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Screening Map, the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average VMT
less than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in VMT generation below
the City’s adopted thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are
bicycle lanes connecting to the project site from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative modes of
transportation by guests. Although not required to reduce impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans,
the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires the project to comply with all construction and
operational mitigation measures and recommended actions provided by the SLOAPCD in their letter dated November 17,
2015. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Revised Project would be consistent with the land use
policies and TCMs identified in the 2001 CAP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, which is consistent with the findings of
the 2016 IS/MND.
b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under state ambient air quality
standards. Construction of the Revised Project would result in emissions of ozone precursors, including reactive organic
gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). During operation, the Revised Project would
result in emissions of ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions and other stationary sources.
Page 112 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Construction Emissions
The Revised Project would require approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance, including
approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill. This would result in the generation of construction
dust as well as short-term construction vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROG, NOx, and
PM10. Based on estimated construction phase length, grading volumes, and other factors, estimated construction-related
emissions that would result from the Revised Project were calculated and compared to applicable SLOAPCD thresholds
(Table 1).
Table 1. Construction Emissions Summary
Criteria Pollutant
Highest
Daily/Quarterly
Emissions
SLOAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
33.8 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.04 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
13.23 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.04 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Quarterly Construction Emissions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
1.01 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.07 ton/quarter 0.13 ton/quarter No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.08 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No
Notes: lbs = pounds
All calculations were made using the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod). DPM is equal to combined exhaust PM10 and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and dust is equal to fugitive PM10 from CalEEMod.
As shown in Table 1, estimated daily and quarterly construction emissions would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended
thresholds of significance. However, SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as
proximity to sensitive receptors, that require implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce DPM
and fugitive dust. Due to the location of surrounding residential areas approximately 190 feet southeast from the western
property boundary, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires compliance with all
construction and operational mitigation measures and recommended actions provided by the SLOAPCD, including
implementation of standard diesel idling and fugitive dust reduction measures to reduce potential air quality impacts
associated with construction of the Revised Project. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to construction
emissions would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
Operational Impacts
Operation of the Revised Project would result in an increase in vehicle trips, energy use, and architectural coating off-
gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Long-term operational emissions were also calculated using the
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and are summarized in Table 2.
Page 113 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Table 2. Operational Emissions Summary
Criteria Pollutant
Highest
Daily/Annual
Emissions
(without TDM) SLOAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Daily Operational Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
1.93 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.97 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.02 lb/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.18 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Daily Operational Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
1.84 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.65 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.02 lb/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.18 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
0.35 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.03 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Notes: lbs = pounds
All calculations were made using the California Emissions Model (CalEEMod). DPM is equal to combined exhaust PM10 and particulate matter less
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and dust is equal to fugitive PM10 from CalEEMod.
As shown in Table 2, operational emissions of criteria air pollutants would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended
thresholds of significance; therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with SLOAPCD thresholds for operational
criteria pollutant emissions. Although not required to reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions, the 2016 IS/MND
identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires compliance with all construction and operational mitigation measures
and recommended actions provided by the SLOAPCD, including standard operational requirements (i.e., residential wood
burning, SLO Car Free Program, etc.) to further reduce operational air pollutant emissions. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences located approximately 190 feet southeast
from the western property boundary. Construction activities such as excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and
building construction would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect nearby
sensitive receptors. Construction activities within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors require standard dust and DPM
reduction measures, which have been identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 of the 2016 IS/MND. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 from the 2016 IS/MND, the Revised Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, which is consistent
with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
d) Construction of the Revised Project would generate odors associated with construction smoke, dust, and equipment exhaust
and fumes. Proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those resulting from any other type of
construction project. Any effects would be short term in nature and limited to the construction phase of the Revised Project
and would not be expected to disturb nearby land uses.
Page 114 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to
be present; therefore, proposed ground-disturbing activities have the potential to release NOA if present within soils at the
project site. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (17 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic
evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. These
requirements have been incorporated as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the 2016 IS/MND. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 of the 2016 IS/MND, the Revised Project would not result in adverse other emissions. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the
November 17, 2015, SLOAPCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 from the 2016 IS/MND, impacts associated with air quality would be less
than significant. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to air quality would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
1, 2, 53 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 2, 5,
53 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1, 2, 7,
16, 53 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
2, 7, 53 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
2, 5, 15 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Page 115 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Evaluation
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally surrounded by open space, rangeland used for grazing, and other agricultural uses that
support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow local
wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City’s COSE identifies various goals and policies to maintain,
enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to,
protection of listed species and species of special concern, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant
trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks.
Existing Conditions
The project site consists of the undeveloped eastern portion of a 4.19-acre parcel in the western portion of the city of San Luis
Obispo. The project site is an infill site in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone and consists of relatively flat topography and
previously disturbed areas. Surrounding land uses include US 101 to the north, single-family residences to the west and south,
and hotel buildings to the west. Construction activities associated with approved development under ARCH-2363-2015 are
located adjacent to the western portion of the project site. San Luis Obispo Creek runs in an east–west direction to the south and
east of the project site. There are existing trees and landscaping surrounding the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the
project site.
Special-Status Species
Based on desktop-level review of the project site using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the following
special-status plant and animal species have been previously recorded within the San Luis Obispo U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrant:
Special-Status Plants
• Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense)
• adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima)
• Cuesta Pass checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala)
Special-Status Animals
• tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
• Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii)
• vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• monarch -California overwintering population (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1)
• steelhead – south-central California coast District Population Segment (DPS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 9)
• foothill yellow-legged frog – south coast DPS (Rana boylii pop. 6)
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
a) Based on previous and ongoing disturbance within the project area, special-status plant species are not expected to occur
within the project site. San Luis Obispo Creek is located adjacent to the southern and western portion of the project site
and supports natural areas and habitat conditions that could provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species;
however, the Revised Project includes a 20-foot setback from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to the
natural areas associated with San Luis Obispo Creek, including special-status plant species if present. Therefore, the
Revised Project would not disturb special-status plant species.
The project site consists of previously disturbed areas and does not provide natural areas, connectivity, or suitable habitat
for special-status animal species. Steelhead are known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek in the vicinity of the project area
and have been documented upstream of the project site. As previously identified, the Revised Project includes a 20-foot
setback from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to the creek channel and steelhead if present during
project activities. Further, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and Central
Page 116 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) General Construction Permit requirements, which require
preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with construction best management
practices (BMPs) for erosion control, including, but not limited to, silt fencing, straw wattles, and berms. The 2016
IS/MND also identified Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires preparation of the SWPPP with construction BMPs.
Based on the lack of suitable habitat and required compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the Revised
Project would not adversely affect special-status animal species; therefore, impacts would be less than significant, which
is a reduced impact compared to the 2016 IS/MND and, therefore, still consistent with the findings included in the 2016
IS/MND.
b) San Luis Obispo Creek and associated riparian habitat is located adjacent to the southern and western portions of the
project site. However, the project site does not support any riparian habitat or other natural communities; therefore, the
Revised Project would not result in direct disturbance of any riparian habitat or other natural communities. The Revised
Project includes a 20-foot setback from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to riparian habitat associated
with San Luis Obispo Creek. As previously identified, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s
Municipal Code and Central Coast RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements, which require preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP with construction BMPs to address erosion control at the project site, which would avoid
indirect disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek and associated riparian areas. The 2016 IS/MND also identified Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, which requires preparation of the SWPPP with construction BMPs. Based on the proposed design of the
Revised Project and required compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements, the Revised Project would not
result in adverse impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, which is a reduced
impact compared to the 2016 IS/MND and, therefore, still consistent with the findings included in the 2016 IS/MND.
c) San Luis Obispo Creek is located adjacent to the southern and western portions of the project site. The project includes a
20-foot setback from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek. As previously
identified, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and Central Coast RWQCB
General Construction Permit requirements, which require preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with construction
BMPs to address erosion control at the project site, which would avoid indirect disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek and
associated riparian areas. Based on the proposed design of the Revised Project and required compliance with existing City
and RWQCB requirements, the Revised Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any wetlands, and no impact
would occur, which would be consistent with the findings included in the 2016 IS/MND.
d) According to the City’s COSE, the project site is located near a wildlife corridor associated with San Luis Obispo Creek,
which is located adjacent to the southern and western portions of the project site. Based on implementation of a 20-foot
setback from the top of bank, the Revised Project would not result in direct disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek. The
Revised Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP with BMPs to address erosion control and ensure
that the project does not otherwise degrade habitat connectivity potential of San Luis Obispo Creek. The 2016 IS/MND
also identified Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires preparation of the SWPPP with construction BMPs.
The project site is an infill site and is immediately surrounded by US 101 and existing development; therefore, the project
site does not provide habitat connectivity for terrestrial species. There are existing trees and vegetation in the vicinity of
the project site that may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory bird species; however, the Revised Project includes
the limited removal of one palm tree and would not reduce the availability of nesting habitat for migratory or other bird
species. The Revised Project would not interfere with the movement of migratory or other resident species, and impacts
would be less than significant, which would be a reduced impact compared to the 2016 IS/MND and, therefore, still
consistent with the findings included in the 2016 IS/MND.
e) There are existing trees and vegetation surrounding the project site; however, the Revised Project does not include the
removal of native trees that could conflict with the City’s Municipal Code.
The City’s COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the
City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protecting listed species and Species of Special
Concern, preserving existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from
creeks. Based on the proposed design of the Revised Project and required compliance with existing City and RWQCB
requirements, the Revised Project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, and no impact would occur, which would be consistent with the findings included in the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 117 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
f) The project is not located in an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Revised Project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted plan, and no impact would occur, which would be consistent with the findings included in the
2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
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.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and
replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Conclusion
Required compliance with existing City and RWQCB requirements and proposed design of the Revised Project would avoid
and/or minimize the potential to adversely affect biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources would
be less than significant, and no new or more severe impacts would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5?
2, 18,
52 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
2, 18,
54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
2, 18,
54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast
for at least 10,000 years. The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, and
the earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast.
The City’s COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other
community goals. According to Figure 1: Cultural Resources of the City’s COSE, the project site is not located within a historic
Page 118 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
district or the Historic Preservation (H) Overlay Zone. However, the project site is located within a burial sensitivity area in an
area with high likelihood for buried archaeological deposits. The project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any
built structures that may be considered potentially eligible historic resources.
a) The project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any structures that could be considered a historic property.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of
the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The project site is in an area with a high likelihood of containing archaeological resources. However, based on the results
of the Extended Phase 1 Testing Report, no archaeological deposits were identified within the project area. Although no
known resources have been identified within the project area, based on proposed ground-disturbing activities, there would
be some potential for inadvertent discovery of unknown archaeological resources. The 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation
Measure CR-1, which requires archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities to address inadvertent
discovery during project construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, the Revised Project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) The project site is located within a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE. No human remains
are known to exist within the project site; however, the discovery of unknown human remains is possible during ground-
disturbing activities. Protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in the
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Further, Mitigation Measure CR-1, as identified in the 2016 IS/MND,
requires archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities to address inadvertent discovery during project
construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, the Revised Project would not disturb human remains;
therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016
IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
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
With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 of the 2016 IS/MND, the Revised Project would have a less-than-significant
impact on cultural resources, and no new or more severe impacts would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 119 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
1, 19,
20, 21,
62, 63 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
1, 19,
20, 21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. PG&E sources 31%
of its energy from renewable energy sources and 69% of its energy from greenhouse gas-free energy sources (PG&E 2020). In
October 2018, the City Council committed to joining Central Coast Community Energy (3CE, formerly Monterey Bay
Community Power) and, beginning in January 2020, 3CE became the City’s primary electricity provider. 3CE is striving to
provide 100% carbon-free electricity to the City by 2030.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real
property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent
version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas:
smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the
exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non-residential lighting requirements.
The City recently developed local amendments to encourage all-electric new buildings. When paired with 3CE’s carbon-free
electricity supply, all electric new buildings will be carbon free and would avoid health and safety issues associated with fossil
fuels and GHGs. At its meeting on September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program. Unlike other
cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program encourages clean, efficient, and cost-
effective all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the California Energy Code, and implementation of
the Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient and higher-
performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu fee that will
be used for the same purpose.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized green building certification system
that provides third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving
performance metrics in energy savings, water efficiency, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction, improved indoor
environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. LEED provides a point system to score
green building design and construction. The system is categorized in nine basic areas: Integrative Process, Location and
Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental
Quality, Innovation in Design, and Regional Priority. Buildings are awarded points based on the extent various sustainable
strategies are achieved. The more points awarded the higher the level of certification achieved from Certified, Silver, Gold, to
Platinum.
The City’s COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and
locally controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on
non-sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies
identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use, and production; energy-efficiency improvements; pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design; fostering
alternative transportation modes; compact, high-density housing; and solar access standards.
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery (2020 Climate Action Plan Update) was updated in
August 2020. It identifies strategies and policies to increase use of cleaner and renewable energy resources in order to achieve
the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of renewable energy financing
Page 120 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and existing developments, and increasing community awareness of
renewable energy programs.
a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The
energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar construction
activities in the city. Further, state and federal regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and
prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling, which would reduce the potential for wasteful energy consumption during
construction.
The Revised Project would eliminate the 27 Airstream trailers, including the spa trailer, and would construct 10 single-
story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would result in an increase in energy use. The Revised Project
would result in an overall increase in operational consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips, natural
gas, and electricity usage by project occupants. The project includes an operational commitment to 3CE. By using
electricity from 3CE, the project would reduce the long-term use of non-renewable energy resources. Natural gas would
be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which has committed to replacing 20% of its traditional
natural gas supply with renewable natural gas by 2030 (Sempra 2019). Proposed building design would be required to
adhere to Title 24 of the California Energy Code and CBC 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards to further reduce
operational energy use through implementation of green building and energy-efficient building design.
The Revised Project would result in a marginal increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site. Based on the City’s
VMT Screening Map, the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average VMT less than or
equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in VMT generation below the City’s
adopted thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are bicycle
lanes leading up to the project site from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation by
guests. Although not required to reduce operational energy consumption, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure
AQ-1, which requires compliance with all construction and operational mitigation measures and recommended actions
provided by the SLOAPCD, including participation in the SLO Car Free Program to incentivize guests to utilize car-free
transportation within the city.
Compliance with existing building codes would ensure the Revised Project would not result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of short- or long-term energy resources.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts related to energy consumption, and impacts would be
less than significant.
b) The Revised Project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards.
The Revised Project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the City’s COSE associated with use of best
available practices in energy conservation, encouraging energy-efficient building design, and the use of pedestrian- and
bicycle-friendly design. The Revised Project would not conflict with other goals and policies set forth in the City’s 2020
Climate Action Plan Update associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Revised Project would not result
in a conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, the Revised
Project would not result in any new impacts related to energy consumption, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The Revised Project would be compliant with applicable energy efficiency standards and would not conflict with state or local
plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in any new impacts related to
energy resources.
Page 121 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, 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.
22, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 21, 22,
23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 21, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 21, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
21, 24,
25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? 26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Seismic Hazards
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred
faults with the potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the city of San Luis Obispo, is
identified under the State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic,
and Edna Faults are considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The
San Andreas Fault and offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have
a high probability of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk from ground shaking is found
on deep soils that were deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These
soils are typically found in valleys. Faults capable of producing strong ground-shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the
Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas Faults. Engineering
standards and building codes set minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking.
Based on the CDOC Fault Activity Map and the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element Regional Faults and Seismic
Hazard Designation Area Map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone. The
closest faults are the late quaternary Cambria Fault, approximately 0.5 mile northeast of the project site and the late quaternary
Oceanic Fault, approximately 1.15 miles northeast of the project site.
Page 122 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers more than
the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with groundwater
rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubricating
the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically sandy and in
creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground. The
likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Liquefaction Risk Areas map
in the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area with risk of liquefaction.
Slope Instability and Landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Causes
include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and human-made drainage can be
contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability.
Based on the Landslide Susceptibility Classes map in the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element, the project site is
relatively flat and is located adjacent to a landslide risk area associated with Reservoir Canyon, which is located to the southeast
of the project site.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials.
Primary causes are groundwater withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the
ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such
as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground-
surface subsidence. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California map (USGS 2023),
the project site is not located in an area of known subsidence.
Soil Limiting Factors
The project site is underlain by Concepcion loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes. This moderately well-drained soil has a very high runoff
class and a depth to restrictive feature of 10 to 21 inches to abrupt textural change. The soil profile consists of loam, clay, and
sandy clay loam. Typically, soils that are comprised of clay have potential for expansion. As such, soils at the project site would
have some potential for expansion to occur.
Paleontological Resources
According to the CDOC Geologic Map of California, the project site is underlain by plutonic rocks from the Mesozoic era (um).
This geologic unit contains mostly serpentine ultramafic rocks with some peridotite, gabbro, and diabase.
a.i) Based on the CDOC Fault Activity Map and the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element Regional Faults and
Seismic Hazard Designation Area map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an active fault
zone. Therefore, the Revised Project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture
of a known earthquake fault, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016
IS/MND.
a.ii) According to the CDOC Fault Activity Map, the nearest faults are the late quaternary Cambria Fault, approximately
0.5 mile northeast of the project site, and the late quaternary Oceanic Fault, approximately 1.15 miles northeast of the
project site. Due to the seismic nature of the region, it is highly likely that the Revised Project would be subject to strong
seismic ground shaking at some point(s) during the life of the Revised Project. The proposed development would be
required to be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria established in the most recent CBC to adequately
withstand and minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death associated with the level of seismic ground shaking expected to
occur in the project region. Therefore, the Revised Project would not increase risk associated with strong seismic ground
shaking, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
a.iii) Based on the Liquefaction Risk Areas map in the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element, the project site is not
located within an area with risk of liquefaction. Further, the proposed development would be required to be designed in
compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the most recent CBC to further reduce risk of loss, injury,
Page 123 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
or death associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with
existing regulations, the Revised Project would not increase risk associated with liquefaction, and impacts would be less
than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
a.iv) Based on the Landslide Susceptibility Classes map in the City’s Climate Adaptation and Safety Element, the project site
is relatively flat and located adjacent to a landslide risk area associated with Reservoir Canyon, which is located southeast
of the project site. Proposed development would be required to be designed in compliance with design criteria established
in the most recent CBC, which would reduce potential substantial adverse effects associated with landslides. Therefore,
based on compliance with existing regulations, the Revised Project would not increase risks associated with landslide, and
impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The Revised Project would require approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance, including
approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,100 cubic yards of fill. Ground-disturbing construction activities have the
potential to result in erosion or loss of topsoil. In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and Central Coast RWQCB
General Construction Permit requirements, the Revised Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP
with construction BMPs for erosion control, including, but not limited to, silt fencing, straw wattles, and berms. During
operation, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in their
Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
Following project completion, the project site would be developed with buildings, hardscapes, and landscaping, which
would preclude the potential for substantial long-term erosion or loss of topsoil at the project site. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) As previously identified, the project site is not located in an area with high liquefaction or landslide potential; however,
the project site is located adjacent to a high landslide area to the southeast. According to USGS data, the project site is not
located in an area of historical or current land subsidence. The Revised Project would be required to comply with CBC
requirements to address potential ground failure and reduce the potential for damage due to unstable soil conditions.
Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the Revised Project would not increase risks associated with
ground failure, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain by Concepcion
loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, which consists of loam, clay, and sandy clay loam. Typically, soils that are comprised of clay
have potential for expansion. Soils at the project site contain clay materials and have potential for expansion. The Revised
Project would be required to comply with the most recent CBC requirements to reduce the potential for damage due to
expansive soils. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the Revised Project would not increase risks
associated with soil expansion, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the
2016 IS/MND.
e) The Revised Project includes a new connection to the City’s sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
treatment systems are proposed on-site; therefore, no impacts would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the
2016 IS/MND.
f) The project site is underlain by alluvial valley deposits from the late Holocene era (Qa), which has a low paleontological
sensitivity because it is typically too young to yield significant fossilized resources. There are no known fossils or other
paleontological resources in the project area. Further, the Revised Project would not require excavation of steep slopes or
disturbance of bedrock that may result in the discovery of unknown fossils at the project site. In the event an unknown
paleontological resource is identified on-site, the Revised Project would be required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5,
which prohibits the removal or disturbance of paleontological resources without permission of the jurisdictional agency.
Based on required compliance with the PRC, the Revised Project is not anticipated to result in the disturbance of known
or unknown paleontological resources, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings
of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 124 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Conclusion
The Revised Project would be required to comply with CBC seismic design to reduce the risk associated with seismic-related
and other ground failure. The Revised Project would be required to comply with existing City and RWQCB regulations to
minimize erosion and loss of topsoil at the project site. Based on required compliance with existing requirements and regulations,
potential impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant, and no new or more severe impacts would occur
compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
12, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
12, 20,
21, 52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
GHGs are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in
Section 3, Air Quality. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City established a Climate Action Plan that identified measures
and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In 2020 the
City prepared the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update, which outlines a strategy for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, adopts
sector-specific goals, and provides foundational actions to establish a trajectory toward achieving those goals. In 2018 the City
prepared a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions for the 2016 calendar year. In 2016 San Luis Obispo’s total GHG
emissions were estimated to be 339,290 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO2e). As in 2005, transportation was
the largest contributor to the City’s total GHG emissions with an estimated 212,980 MTCO2e or 63% of the City’s total
emissions. Commercial and Industrial energy was the second largest sector with GHG emissions of 44,270 MTCO2e or 13% of
the City’s total emissions. The sectors of residential energy and solid waste account for the remaining 26% of the City’s total
2016 GHG emissions. Due to lagging data availability, 2016 is the most recent year for complete GHG inventory data. Statewide
legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill (SB) 32
and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the State’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources of
GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below
1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 375, SB 97,
Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, CBCs, and the California Solar Initiative.
Appendix C of the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update includes thresholds and guidance for the preparation of a GHG emissions
analysis under CEQA for projects within the city. To support progress toward the City’s long‐term aspirational carbon neutrality
goal, plans and projects within the city that undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the
Climate Action Plan, a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
According to the adopted SLOAPCD guidance, if a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, such as the
City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update, the project would not result in a significant impact.
In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining 3CE, an existing community choice energy program that serves Santa
Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties and provides 100% carbon-free electricity with a rate savings relative to PG&E.
Additionally, the City recently adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages clean, efficient,
and cost-effective all-electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code. When
paired with cost-comparable modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from 3CE, all-electric new buildings are
operationally GHG emissions-free, cost effective, and help achieve the community’s climate action goals.
Page 125 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
a, b) During construction of the Revised Project, fossil fuels and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and
equipment. The Revised Project would be required to comply with federal and state regulations in place that require fuel-
efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as idling of diesel-fueled vehicles, which would
reduce the potential to generate substantial GHG emissions during construction.
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was assigned a GHG-reduction target of 11% from
transportation sources by 2035. SLOCOG adopted the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community
Strategies (RTP/SCS) in June 2019, which includes the region’s SCS and meets the requirements of SB 375. In
September 2018, the City Council directed City staff to develop a Climate Action Plan with a reduction target of carbon
neutrality by 2035. A carbon neutrality by 2035 target would require achieving a far greater reduction than the SB 32
requirements by 2030, as identified in the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan. On July 20, 2020, SLOCOG issued a letter that
determined the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update was consistent with the GHG reduction noted in the SCS for
meeting the State’s 2030 GHG-reduction target. As a result, determination of consistency with the City’s 2020 Climate
Action Plan Update would ensure consistency with the GHG-reduction targets identified in the RTP/SCS.
The City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update identifies six pillars, each of which includes long-term goals, measures, and
foundational actions for reducing GHG emissions throughout the city. The pillars include:
1. Leading by Example: Create a Municipal Action Plan by 2020 and achieve carbon neutral government
operations by 2030.
2. Clean Energy Systems: Achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020.
3. Green Buildings: Generate no net new building emissions from on‐site energy use by 2020 and achieve a 50%
reduction in existing building on‐site emissions (after accounting for 3CE) by 2030.
4. Connected Community: Achieve the General Plan mode split objective by 2030 and have 40% VMT by electric
vehicles by 2030.
5. Circular Economy: Achieve 75% diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 and 90% by 2035.
6. Natural Solutions: Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban Forest through
compost application-based carbon farming activities and tree planting to be ongoing through 2035.
Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the 2020 Climate Action
Plan Update can utilize the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to demonstrate consistency
with the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update’s GHG emissions reduction strategy. The demographic forecasts and land use
assumptions of the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update are based on the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use
Element (LUE) and Circulation Element. If a plan or project is consistent with the existing 2014 General Plan land use
and zoning designations of the project site, then the project would be considered consistent with the demographic forecasts
and the land use assumptions of the applicable Climate Action Plan. The revised project consists of infill development in
the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone and is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designation and would be
consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for the development of the 2020 Climate Action Plan
Update. The Revised Project would not result in an increase in employment or population estimates that would conflict
with those used for development of the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan Update or SLOCOG’s RTP/SCS.
The Revised Project would implement an all-electric building design in compliance with the CBC, including applicable
green building standards, which would reduce long-term GHG emissions at the project site. The Revised Project would
increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would result in a negligible increase in vehicle trips to and from
the project site. As previously identified, the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average
VMT less than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in VMT generation
below the City’s adopted thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and
there are bicycle lanes leading up to the project site from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative modes of
transportation by guests. Although not required to reduce impacts related to consistency with applicable GHG-reduction
plans, the 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires the Revised Project to participate in the
SLO Car Free Program to incentivize guests to utilize car-free transportation within the city.
The City has prepared a CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for plans and projects to ensure that they
are consistent with the pillars of the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update. Table 3 summarizes the Revised Project’s
consistency with the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update.
Page 126 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Table 3. Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan
Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency
Clean Energy Systems
Does the Project include an operational commitment to participate in
Central Coast Community Energy?
Consistent. The Revised Project includes
participation in 3CE.
Green Buildings
Does the Project exclusively include “All-electric buildings”? For
the purpose of this checklist, the following definitions and
exemptions apply:
All-electric building. A new building that has no natural gas
plumbing installed within the building and that uses electricity as the
source of energy for all space heating, water heating, cooking
appliances, and clothes drying appliances. An All-Electric Building
may be plumbed for the use of natural gas as fuel for appliances in a
commercial kitchen.
Specific exemptions to the requirements for all-electric buildings
include:
Commercial kitchens
a. The extension of natural gas infrastructure into an industrial
building for the purpose of supporting manufacturing
processes (i.e., not including space conditioning).
b. Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to an existing
single-family home. Essential Service Buildings including,
but not limited to, public facilities, hospitals, medical
centers and emergency operations centers.
c. Temporary buildings.
d. Gas line connections used exclusively for emergency
generators.
e. Any buildings or building components exempt from the
California Energy Code.
f. Residential subdivisions in process of permitting or
constructing initial public improvements for any phase of a
final map recorded prior to January 1, 2020, unless
compliance is required by an existing Development
Agreement.
If the Revised Project falls into an above exemption category, what
measures are applicants taking to reduce onside fossil fuel
consumption to the maximum extent feasible? If not applicable
(N/A), explain why this action is not relevant.
Consistent. The Revised Project includes the
development of an all-electric building and
would be required to be in full compliance
with the City’s Energy Reach Code.
Connected Community
Does the Project comply with requirements in the City’s Municipal
Code with no exceptions, including bicycle parking, bikeway design,
and EV charging stations?
Consistent. The Revised Project has been
designed to comply with the requirements in
the City’s Municipal Code and would be
required to demonstrate compliance with
applicable City Municipal Code
requirements related to bicycle parking,
bikeway design, and electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations.
Page 127 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Is the estimated Project-generated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
within the City’s adopted thresholds, as confirmed by the City’s
Transportation Division?
Consistent. Based on the City’s VMT
Screening Map, the Revised Project is
located in an area of the city that would
result in average VMT less than or equal to
85% of the regional average, meaning a
project in this area would result in VMT
generation below the City’s adopted
thresholds.
If “No,” does the Project/Plan include VMT mitigation strategies
and/or a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approved
by the City’s Transportation Division?
Does the Project demonstrate consistency with the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan?
Consistent. The Revised Project would
provide 8 bicycle parking spaces, which is
consistent with City requirements. In
addition, there are bicycle lanes leading up to
the project site from the west, which would
facilitate the use of alternative modes of
transportation by guests.
Circular Economy
Will the Project subscribe all units and/or buildings to organic waste
pick up and provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent
with the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Development
Standards for Solid Waste Services? Please provide a letter from San
Luis Garbage company verifying that the project complies with their
standards and requirements for organic waste pick up.
Consistent. Limited, if any, organic waste is
anticipated during operation of the project
site. In addition, San Luis Garbage would
provide solid waste services to the Revised
Project in accordance with applicable solid
waste standards and requirements.
Natural Solutions
Does the Project comply with Municipal Code requirements for
trees?
Consistent. The Revised Project would
retain existing trees and dense foliage within
the project area.
As shown in Table 3, the Revised Project would be consistent with the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update; therefore, the Revised
Project would not be expected to generate substantial GHG emissions and would be consistent with applicable GHG-reduction
plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the six pillars of the 2020 Climate Action Plan Update, and impacts would be less than
significant. Therefore, no new impacts related to GHG emissions would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Page 128 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
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?
1, 27 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
28, 29,
30 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
23 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
23, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers
to comply with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release
sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to
develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. Various state and local government agencies are required to track and
document hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control
(DTSC) EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste
facilities and sites with known contamination, such as federal Superfund sites, state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school
cleanup sites, school investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
GeoTracker database contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding
facilities or sites identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements can be located on the CalEPA website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
Based on a review of the SWRCB GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor databases, the project site is not an active hazardous waste
cleanup site. Based on the SWRCB GeoTracker database, there is a cleanup program site approximately 475 feet southeast of
the project site and one closed LUST cleanup site approximately 900 feet west of the project site. The potential contaminant of
concern associated with the cleanup program site is crude oil from a pipeline beneath the north end of San Luis Drive
(SWRCB 2023). The status of this site is an open assessment and interim remedial action as of March 30, 2011.
a) The Revised Project would be limited to the operation of a motel and does not include new land uses that would require
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances. Construction of the Revised Project is anticipated to require
the use of commonly used hazardous substances within the project site, including cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc. Any
hazardous substances that are used during project construction would be transported, stored, and used according to federal,
state, and local regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. The Revised
Project would result in the operation of guestrooms associated with a hotel facility. Operation of the Revised Project would
also be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for the transportation, storage, and use of hazardous
materials as applicable. Therefore, based on required compliance with existing regulations, the Revised Project would not
Page 129 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
increase hazards associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances, and no impact would
occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The Revised Project does not include the handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile substances that would result
in a significant risk of upset or accidental release conditions. Construction activities associated with the Revised Project
are anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid,
solvents, oils, and paints, which would be used in accordance with existing regulatory requirements related to proper use
of hazardous substances. Construction contractors would be also required to comply with applicable federal and state
environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the federal Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management Standard (CCR Section 29.1910.119), which
includes requirements for preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials.
As identified in Section 3, Air Quality, the project site is within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur.
Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations, the applicant is required to provide a geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with
existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. These requirements have been incorporated as Mitigation Measure AQ-1
in the 2016 IS/MND. The Revised Project would not require demolition or other activities that could release asbestos-
containing material (ACM).
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Ceres Associates to evaluate potential hazards at the
project site. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site previously was used as a service station and there may be
underground tanks remaining in place. The Phase I ESA also noted the potential for asbestos to be found within building
materials on-site. The 2016 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires that the project incorporate all
recommendations included in the Phase I ESA.
Aerially deposited lead (ADL) from the historical use of leaded gasoline exists along heavily traveled roadways throughout
California (i.e., Principal Arterial roadways, freeways, and expressways). Typically, ADL is found within 30 feet of the
edge of pavement associated with these roadways, with the highest concentrations occurring in the top 6 inches of soil
within 10 feet of the edge of pavement. In some cases, lead is as deep as 2 to 3 feet below the surface and can extend
20 feet or more from the edge of pavement. US 101, a freeway, is located adjacent to the northern portion of the project
site. The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows, three two-story bungalows, and a
soundwall on the project site; however, ground disturbance for the proposed development would be located greater than
30 feet from the edge of pavement associated with US 101 and would not be expected to disturb ADL if present within
soils at the project site.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions with implementation of mitigation. Impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) The nearest school in the San Luis Coastal Unified School District is San Luis Obispo High School, located approximately
0.5 mile southwest of the project site. The project site would not be located within 0.25 mile of a school; therefore, the
Revised Project would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school, and no impact would occur, which is
consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
d) There are no previously identified hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project site. Based on a search of the
DTSC EnviroStor database, SWRCB GeoTracker database, and CalEPA Cortese List website, the nearest hazardous
materials site is an open cleanup program site approximately 475 feet southeast of the project site. Due to distance,
hazardous materials associated with the project site are not anticipated to be present within the soils on-site; therefore, the
Revised Project would not be located on a hazardous materials site, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with
the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
e) The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport or private airstrip;
therefore, the Revised Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 130 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
f) Parcel 3 would be accessed by a proposed driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2 (ARCH-2363-2015). The
proposed driveway and internal roadways would be constructed in accordance with City Public Works Department
requirements to provide fire and other emergency vehicles with adequate long-term access to the project site. The Revised
Project would increase the guestroom count from 26 to 27, which would result in a marginal increase in vehicle trips along
Monterey Street and, therefore, would not increase vehicle congestion in a manner that could interfere with emergency
response or evacuation efforts within the project area. Any breaks in utility service would be temporary and would not
conflict with any emergency plans. The Revised Project would maintain adequate public and emergency access during
project activities and would not conflict with emergency plans; therefore, no impact would occur, which is consistent with
the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
g) The project site is located adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone associated with Reservoir Canyon.
Surrounding land uses include US 101 to the north, single-family residences to the west and south, and hotel buildings to
the west. There are existing trees and landscaping surrounding the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the project
site. The Revised Project would result in 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows on a flat parcel. The
Revised Project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention pursuant to the CBC and California
Fire Code. Therefore, the Revised Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to substantial
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
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.
Conclusion
The project does not propose the routine transport, use, handling, or disposal of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
that could result in significant accident or upset conditions. Any hazardous substances used during operation of the project would
be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements. The project would not be located on or adjacent to an active
hazardous materials site. The 2016 IS/MND has identified Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and HAZ-1 to address the potential for
NOA and other contaminants on-site. Project implementation would not subject people or structures to substantial risks
associated with wildland fires and would not impair implementation of or interfere with any adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and HAZ-1 of the 2016 IS/MND, potential impacts
associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be considered less than significant. Therefore, no new or more severe
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
1, 2, 5,
36, 64 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
1, 33,
34, 49 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Page 131 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 2, 5,
32, 36,
61, 64 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
1, 2, 5,
32, 36,
64 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
1, 2, 5,
32, 36,
64 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 2, 5,
32, 36,
59, 64 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 1, 35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
1, 2, 5,
36, 49 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed and a remnant segment of Bishop Creek daylights along
the eastern portion of the project site. Bishop Creek provides connectivity to San Luis Obispo Creek. The San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed is an approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about
2,500 feet above sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach
and has six major tributary basins: Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport
Creek, and See Canyon. San Luis Obispo Creek runs along the southern boundary of the project site.
The City is enrolled in the State General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post-
Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the development review process. The primary objective of these
post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable
and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all
applicable development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued.
The 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a 1%
chance of occurring in any given year. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) 06079C1067G (effective date 11/16/2012), the southern portion of the project site is Zone AE, an area with a 1%
chance of annual flood.
In 2015 the state legislature approved the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires governments and
water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of
pumping and recharge. Under the SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their
sustainability plans.
a) San Luis Obispo Creek runs along the southern boundary of the project site. The Revised Project includes a 20-foot setback
from the top of bank, which would avoid direct disturbance to the creek channel. The Revised Project would require
approximately 58,960 square feet (1.35 acres) of ground disturbance, including approximately 1,640 cubic yards of cut
and 1,100 cubic yards of fill, which has the potential to increase erosion at the project site. In addition, the Revised Project
would require the use of construction equipment and vehicles that could release pollutants at the project site. The Revised
Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code (Chapter 12.08) and RWQCB General Construction Permit
requirements, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with construction BMPs for pollutant control. The
Page 132 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
City has adopted additional requirements for projects that are subject to an SWRCB General Permit. Additionally, the
Revised Project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan for short- and long-term erosion control
in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements.
The Revised Project is required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction
Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Physical improvement of
the project site is 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. As part of these
requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set of minimum designated BMPs and Pollution Prevention
Methods. BMPs are steps taken to minimize or control the number of pollutants and runoff. Pollution Prevention Methods
are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting materials and/or exposure of potential pollutants to rainwater or other sources
of runoff. Following project construction, the project site would be developed with buildings, hardscapes, or otherwise
landscaped areas, precluding the potential for substantial long-term erosion. Therefore, based on required compliance with
existing requirements, the Revised Project would not violate water quality standards, and no impact would occur, which
is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The project site is located in the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (SLO Basin). The Revised Project would
result in approximately 14,000 square feet of new impervious surface area on the approximately 39,204-square-foot project
site, which would reduce natural areas for groundwater recharge at the project site. San Luis Obispo Creek runs along the
southern boundary of the project site; however, the Revised Project would avoid San Luis Obispo Creek, which would
allow for long-term recharge. The Revised Project is required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set
forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast
Region and the City’s Waterways Management Plan for long-term maintenance of drainages at the project site. Further,
the SLO Basin encompasses approximately 12,700 acres and supports a vast amount of area that allows for groundwater
recharge; therefore, new impervious surfaces within the project site would not substantially decrease the ability for
groundwater recharge within the SLO Basin. The Revised Project would connect to the City’s water supply, which
comprises surface water, groundwater, and recycled water, and would not rely solely on groundwater. Therefore, the
Revised Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site or deplete groundwater
resources, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c.i-iii) San Luis Obispo Creek runs along the southern boundary of the project site; however, the Revised Project does not require
any direct impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek. The Revised Project would result in approximately 14,000 square feet of
new impervious surface area on-site. As previously identified, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the
City’s Municipal Code and Central Coast RWQCB General Construction Permit requirements, which require preparation
and implementation of a SWPPP with construction BMPs to address erosion control at the project site, which would avoid
indirect disturbance to San Luis Obispo Creek and associated riparian areas. The 2016 IS/MND also identified Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with BMPs to address erosion control at the
project site and avoid indirect impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek. The Revised Project is required to comply with the
Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region and the City’s Waterways Management Plan for long-term maintenance
of drainages at the project site. Following project construction, the project site would be developed with buildings,
hardscapes, or otherwise landscaped, precluding the potential for substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. The southern portion
of the project site is located in a 100-year flood zone and would be required to comply with the City’s Floodplain
Regulations to reduce any effects of floodwater displacement affecting other properties. Based on adherence to existing
City and RWQCB regulations would minimize potential impacts to drainages during construction and operation of the
Revised Project, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c.iv) According to FEMA FIRM 06079C1067G (effective date 11/16/2012), the southern portion of the project site is Zone AE,
an area with a 1% chance of annual flood. The Revised Project would result in approximately 14,000 square feet of new
impervious surfaces that could increase the rate of flood flows at the project site. Due to the project site’s location within
a flood zone, the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Floodplain Regulations to reduce any effects
of floodwater displacement affecting other properties. Further, the project is required to comply with the Central Coast
RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development
Projects in the Central Coast Region and the City’s Waterways Management Plan for long-term maintenance of drainages
at the project site, which would reduce the potential for pollutant release due to flood inundation. Therefore, the Revised
Page 133 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Project would not be expected to impede or redirect potential flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant,
which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
d) Based on the San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with potential
for inundation by a tsunami. The project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water with the
potential for a seiche to occur. Therefore, the Revised Project would not risk pollutant release due to inundation, and no
impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
e) Per the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City has
four primary water supply sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and
recycled water (for irrigation). Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The Revised Project includes the
construction of stormwater facilities and would not conflict with the City’s Waterways Management Plan or other water
quality control plans. The Revised Project would be supplied water by the City of San Luis Obispo, which has ample water
supply based on diversification of its water resources. Water supply analysis is further discussed in Section 19, Utilities
and Service Systems. In addition, the Revised Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge of the
SLO Basin. The Revised Project would not conflict with the SGMA because the City has moved away from using
groundwater as a primary water supply source, which is consistent with the San Luis Valley Groundwater Sustainability
Plan. The Revised Project would not conflict with the SGMA, Central Coast Basin Plan, or other local or regional plans
or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies, and impacts would be less than significant, which
is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
With implementation of standard BMPs, Pollution Prevention Methods, and City Engineering Standards, the project would not
substantially impede or redirect flood flows, alter existing drainage patterns, degrade surface water quality, decrease groundwater
supplies, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur compared to the 2016
IS/MND.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 2, 5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project site consists of a single 0.9-acre parcel in the western portion of the city and is zoned for Tourist Commercial (C-T).
The surrounding properties are summarized as follows:
• North: U.S. Highway 101, single-family residences
• South: single-family residences, San Luis Obispo Creek
• East: Motel Inn, Apple Farm Inn
• West: single-family residences, San Luis Obispo Creek
Page 134 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
a, b) The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows with 27
guestrooms on an existing parcel in the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zone. Consistent with the Approved project, the Revised
Project consists of infill development and would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The Revised
Project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any land use plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the
Revised Project would be consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The Revised Project would not physically divide an established community and would be consistent with surrounding land uses.
The Revised Project would be consistent with the existing Tourist Commercial (C-T) zoning designation. Therefore, no new or
more severe impacts related to land use and planning would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Based on the City’s COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits.
a, b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely
due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the Revised Project would be consistent
with the Findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. No new or more severe impacts
would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 135 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
5, 37,
38, 39,
61 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
5, 38,
39, 40,
61 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
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?
31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element establishes standards for maximum acceptable noise levels associated
with stationary and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources is required to be mitigated to not
exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels identified in Table 4.
Table 4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Use
Outdoor
Activity
Areas*
Indoor Spaces
Ldn or CNEL,
in dB
Ldn or
CNEL, in dB Leq in db† Lmax in dB‡
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 – 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls – – 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 – 45 --
Schools, libraries, museums – – 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 – – –
Playgrounds 70 – – –
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; Ldn = day-night average sound level; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax = maximum
sound level; dB = decibels.
* If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use.
† As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
‡ Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
Outdoor activity areas are not defined in the City’s Noise Element but are defined in the City of San Luis Obispo, Noise
Guidebook, Measurement & Mitigation Techniques. The guidebook states that outdoor activity areas are “patios, decks,
balconies, outdoor eating areas, swimming pool areas, yards of dwellings, and other areas commonly used for outdoor activities
and recreation.”
The City’s Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4 regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road,
railroad, and airport expansion projects, which states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified
Page 136 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
in Table 4 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses. The project site is located in an area where
existing warehouse uses, UPRR operations, and roadway traffic dominate the existing noise environment.
Per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction between weekday hours
of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is prohibited, except for emergency works of public service
utilities or by exception issued by the City Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states that
construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum
noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family uses. Based on the City
Municipal Code (Section 9.12.050.B.7), operating any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception
threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right-of-way is prohibited.
a) During construction of the Revised Project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise
environment in the immediate area. The Revised Project would require the use of typical construction equipment (dozers,
excavators, etc.) for land preparation and development of the new building. Construction activities would be similar to
other construction activities within the city and would not introduce a new, inconsistent source of noise within the project
area. However, the nearest sensitive noise receptors are located approximately 190 feet southeast from the western property
boundary. Construction activities for the Revised Project would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance,
which regulates the time of construction activities and maximum noise levels that may be generated; therefore, construction
of the Revised Project would be consistent with the City’s noise thresholds.
The Revised Project would be consistent with surrounding land uses and does not include components that would
significantly add to long-term ambient noise in the project vicinity. Upon completion of construction activities, the Revised
Project would include the use of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system; however, the HVAC would
not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels due to compatibility with the existing noise environment.
Typically, a doubling of traffic is needed to produce an increase in noise that is audible to the human ear. The Revised
Project would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would not result in a doubling of traffic trips;
therefore, no substantial increase in mobile source noise would occur. No balconies, outdoor use areas, or operational
windows would face the creek corridor or the adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, operational components of
the Revised Project would be consistent with the City’s noise thresholds.
The project site is located adjacent to US 101. Based on the findings of the Acoustical Analysis: Motel Inn, 2223 Monterey
St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (45dB Acoustics, LLC 2022), the proposed design of the Revised Project includes the
installation of a 152-foot-long and 12-foot-tall soundwall along the northern portion of the project site to minimize noise
impacts from US 101 at the project site. Therefore, the Revised Project would not expose project occupants to substantial
mobile-source noise associated with US 101.
Based on the analysis provided above, the Revised Project would not generate a substantial increase in temporary or
permanent ambient noise in the project vicinity, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the
findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The Revised Project does not include pile driving or other high-impact activities that would generate substantial noise or
groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration;
however, there are no buildings that surround the project site (i.e., historical buildings and occupants of surrounding
buildings) that would be substantially affected by this groundborne vibration. Based on the proposed construction
activities, groundborne vibration is expected to be imperceptible at adjacent properties. Therefore, the project would not
generate substantial groundborne noise, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings
of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) The project site is not located within 2 miles of an airport, within an airport land use plan, or within the vicinity of a private
airstrip. Therefore, the Revised Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels, and no impacts would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 137 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Conclusion
The Revised Project would not exceed City Municipal Code noise standards during construction or operation nor expose project
occupants to excessive airport noise. Therefore, impacts related to noise would be less than significant, and no new or more
severe impacts related to noise would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
41, 42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
According to the City’s General Plan 2021 Annual Report, the City has maintained an average annual growth rate of 0.81%
since 2015, in compliance with the 1% maximum average annual residential growth rate (City LUE Policy 1.11.2). San Luis
Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the county. During workdays, the city’s population increases to an estimated
70,000 persons.
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an
assessment of the City’s housing needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include safety,
affordability, conservation of existing housing, accommodation for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and
tenure, planning for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable
housing and neighborhood design, maximization of affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the City, and
developing housing on suitable sites. On November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element that
includes housing policies and programs for 2020 through 2028. The City’s Housing Element was updated in compliance with
State requirements.
a) The Revised Project does not include the construction of new residential land uses that could directly contribute to
population growth within the city. The Revised Project would result in 27 new guestrooms, which is consistent with the
intended uses of the parcel and, therefore, would be consistent with growth assumptions included in the City’s General
Plan. Short-term construction activities may increase temporary construction-related employment opportunities; however,
temporary employment opportunities generated by the Revised Project are anticipated to be filled by the local workforce
and would not result in a substantial population increase within the city. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result
in substantial or unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the
findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The Revised Project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing and no impact would occur,
which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 138 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Conclusion
The Revised Project would be consistent with the City’s projected population growth. No potentially significant impacts would
occur, and mitigation measures are not required. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur compared to the 2016
IS/MND.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1, 43,
56 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Police protection? 1, 43,
57 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Schools? 1, 43 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Parks? 1, 43,
44 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Other public facilities? 1, 43 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project site is located within the existing service area of the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD). The SLOFD
deploys resources and personnel from four fire stations in order to maintain the response time goal of 4 minutes travel time to
95% of all emergencies. The nearest SLOFD fire station to the project site is City Fire Station 2, located at 126 North Chorro
Street, 1.34 miles northwest of the project site. City Fire Station 2 provides primary response to the northern portion of the city.
The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city. The SLOPD has
approximately 91 employees, 60 of which are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station, located
at 1042 Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and US 101, approximately 1 mile southwest of the project
site.
The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, and public parks and recreation trails within the
city are managed and maintained by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.
All new residential and non-residential development within the city is subject to payment of Development Impact Fees, which
are administered by and paid through the City Community Development Department. Development Impact Fees provide funding
for maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding
for projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles and equipment.
a) Fire protection: The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story
bungalows, which would result in 27 guestrooms and a marginal increase in demand on fire protection services provided
by the SLOFD. The Revised Project is consistent with the intended uses of the parcel and, therefore, would be consistent
with growth assumptions included in the City’s General Plan. In addition, the Revised Project would be subject to the
payment of Development Impact Fees to address the marginal increase in demand on fire protection services associated
with new development. Based on the limited population growth and required payment of Development Impact Fees, the
Revised Project would not increase demand on existing fire protection services in a manner that would require expansion
Page 139 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
or construction of new fire protection facilities, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the
2016 IS/MND.
Police protection: Development of the Revised Project would marginally increase demand on existing police protection
services provided by the SLOPD. The Revised Project would be infill development within the Tourist Commercial (C-T)
zone and would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. In addition, the Revised Project would be
subject to the payment of Development Impact Fees to address the marginal increase in demand on police protection
services associated with new development. As such, the Revised Project would have a marginal increase in demand on
existing police protection services and would not directly result in the need for expansion of existing or the construction
of new police facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Schools: The Revised Project would be limited to the partial development of a new hotel and does not include development
of residential or other land uses that could result in a substantial increase in the number of school-aged children within the
city. The Revised Project would not be expected to increase demand on the San Luis Coastal Unified School District and
would not directly result in the need for new or physically altered public school and no impact would occur, which is
consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Parks: The Revised Project would be limited to the partial development of a new hotel and does not include development
of residential or other land uses that could result in a substantial increase in the use of existing public recreational facilities.
The Revised Project has the potential to marginally increase population growth within the city by establishing new
employment opportunities; however, the Revised Project would be consistent with the Tourist Commercial (C-T) zoning
designation for the project site and any indirect population growth generated the Revised Project would be consistent with
the projected population growth for the city. In addition, the Revised Project would be subject to the payment of
Development Impact Fees to address the marginal increase in demand on public recreational facilities. Based on the limited
population growth, the Revised Project would not increase the use of public parks in a manner that would require new or
physically altered facilities, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Other public facilities: The Revised Project would not induce unplanned population growth and would result in a
negligible effect on use of other public facilities, such as roadways and public libraries. The Revised Project would be
subject to the City’s standard Development Impact Fees, which would offset the Revised Project’s marginal contribution
to increased use of City facilities. Therefore, the Revised Project would not require new or physically altered public
facilities, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The Revised Project would not induce unplanned population growth. Operation of the project may result in a marginal cumulative
increase in demand on City services and facilities, including fire protection, police protection, parks and recreational facilities,
and other public facilities; however, construction of new facilities would not be required. The Revised Project would not result
in significant impacts to public services; therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
16. RECREATION
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 43,
44 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Page 140 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Existing City recreational facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated natural resources
and open space areas and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element identifies
goals, policies, and programs to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The City’s statement
of overall department goals is for the City Parks and Recreation facilities and programs to enable all citizens to participate in
fun, healthful, or enriching activities, which enhance the quality of life in the community.
As demand for recreation facilities and activities grow and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following areas:
• continued development of athletic fields and support facilities,
• providing parks in underserved neighborhoods,
• providing a multi-use community center and therapy pool,
• expanding paths and trails for recreational use,
• linking recreation facilities, and
• meeting the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth, and senior citizens.
Policy 3.13.1 of the City’s Parks and Recreation Element establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at
the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents; five shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
a) The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would
result in 27 guestrooms and does not include development of residential or other land uses that could result in a substantial
increase in the use of existing public recreational facilities. As the Revised Project is consistent with the City’s General
Plan designation and underlying zoning, any indirect population growth resulting from the Revised Project would be
consistent with the projected population growth for the city. In addition, the Revised Project would be subject to the
payment of Development Impact Fees to address the marginal increase in demand on public recreational facilities.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not generate substantial population growth in a manner that could increase the use
of existing public recreational facilities in a manner that would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing
facilities, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The Revised Project does not include, nor would it require, the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities, and
no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The Revised Project would not result in the construction of new recreational facilities and would not increase the use of existing
public recreational facilities in a manner that would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities. The Revised
Project would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities, and mitigation measures are not required, consistent with
the 2016 IS/MND.
Page 141 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
12, 45,
58 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 55 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1, 23,
45 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 23 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways
and identifies transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and
future conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are not limited to:
• maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on
single-occupant use of motor vehicles;
• reducing the use of cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and
carpooling;
• promoting the safe operation of all modes of transportation; and
• widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects would cause no
significant, long-term environmental problems.
Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating conditions of an intersection or roadway based on factors such
as speed, travel time, queuing time, and safety. LOS designations range between A and F, with A representing the best operating
conditions and F the worst. The City’s Circulation Element establishes the minimum acceptable LOS standard for vehicles in
the downtown area of the city as LOS E, and as LOS D for all other areas, and states any degradation of the LOS below these
standards shall be interpreted as transportation operations deficiency under local policy thresholds. While LOS deficiencies are
evaluated for local policy conformity, LOS or other measures of automobile congestion/delay are not applied when evaluating
transportation impacts under CEQA.
In 2013 SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with
statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions” and required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new
metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural
Resources Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related
to the implementation of SB 743 and identified VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new metrics for
transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3(b)). In June 2020, the City formally adopted the transition
from LOS to VMT for the purposes of CEQA evaluation and also established local VMT thresholds of significance.
The February 2021 City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP) outlines goals and policies to promote walking,
biking, and other forms of active transportation throughout the city. The ATP provides a blueprint for creating a safe, connected,
and efficient citywide active transportation network. It lays out policies, funding strategies, supporting programs, infrastructure
projects, and implementation priorities to improve active transportation options and access for all community members.
The project site is located off of Monterey Street, adjacent to the northbound lane of US 101 in the western portion of the city.
Monterey Street is an arterial roadway that travels in a southwest–northeast direction. The portion of Monterey Street between
Page 142 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
California Boulevard and US 101 consists of two divided lanes and supports approximately 10,167 average annual daily trips
(AADT) and has been designated LOS C. There are no bicycle lanes along the portion of Monterey Street adjacent to the project
site; however, there are bicycle lanes along the portion of the roadway to the west of the project site. The nearest transit facility
is located approximately 600 feet west of the project site.
a) The Revised Project includes the construction of 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows, which would
result in 27 guestrooms. Parcel 3 would be accessed by a proposed driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2
(ARCH-2363-2015), which would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Public Works Department
safety design standards. The Revised Project would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which would result
in a negligible increase in vehicle trips along Monterey Street and other proximate roadways. The Revised Project would
be subject to the payment of the City’s standard Traffic Impact Fees for maintenance of roads and other transportation
infrastructure. As noted, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are bicycle lanes
leading up to the project site from the west. These features would be consistent with the City’s ATP. Therefore, with the
payment of standard Traffic Impact Fees, the Revised Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing transportation facilities, and impacts would be less than significant, which is a reduced impact compared
to the 2016 IS/MND and, therefore, still consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent substantial
evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with an SCS or
a general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-
significant transportation impact. The Revised Project would increase the number of guestrooms from 26 to 27, which
would result in a negligible increase in vehicle trips along Monterey Street and other proximate roadways. Based on the
City’s VMT Screening Map, the Revised Project is located in an area of the city that would result in average VMT less
than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in VMT generation below the
City’s adopted thresholds. Further, there is a transit stop approximately 600 feet west of the project site and there are
bicycle lanes leading up to the project site from the west, which would facilitate the use of alternative modes of
transportation by guests. Although not required to reduce VMT, Mitigation Measure AQ-1, as identified in the 2016
IS/MND, requires the Revised Project to participate in the SLO Car Free Program to incentivize guests to utilize car-free
transportation within the city. Therefore, the Revised Project is not anticipated to generate VMT at a rate that is inconsistent
with local and regional thresholds pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). Impacts would be less than
significant.
c) Parcel 3 would be accessed by a proposed driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2 (ARCH-2363-2015). The
proposed driveway and internal roadways would be constructed in accordance with City Public Works Department safety
design standards and would not contain dangerous curves, short sight distance, or other dangerous design features. In
addition, the Revised Project will be reviewed by the City Transportation and Engineering Divisions prior to approval of
any building permits to further avoid hazardous roadway design. Therefore, the Revised Project would not result in
hazardous roadway design, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016
IS/MND.
d) Parcel 3 would be accessed by a proposed driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2 (ARCH-2363-2015). The
proposed driveway and internal roadways would be constructed in accordance with City Public Works Department
requirements to provide fire and other emergency vehicles with adequate long-term access to the project site. The Revised
Project would increase the guestroom count from 26 to 27, which would result in a negligible increase in vehicle trips
along Monterey Street, and, therefore, would not increase vehicle congestion in a manner that could interfere with
emergency response efforts within the project area. The Revised Project would maintain adequate public and emergency
access during project activities, and no impact would occur, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, and the project would not result in a new or more significant impact compared to the 2016
IS/MND.
Page 143 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Conclusion
The Revised Project would be subject to the payment of the City’s standard Traffic Impact Fees for maintenance of roads and
other transportation infrastructure. The Revised Project would be consistent with the City’s ATP and would not exceed the City’s
established thresholds for VMT. The Revised Project would be required to meet City Public Works Department safety design
standards and would maintain adequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts associated with transportation would be
less than significant, and no new or more severe impacts would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
2, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
2, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.
Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in California PRC Section 5020.1(k).
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in California PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Revised Project if they have requested
notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead
agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project.
Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal
cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternatives
and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
a, b) AB 52, approved by the Governor of California on September 25, 2014, requires public agencies to consult with California
Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of proposed projects subject
to CEQA. At the time the 2016 IS/MND was prepared and certified, CEQA did not yet require the evaluation of a proposed
project’s impacts associated with tribal cultural resources as an independent section under State CEQA Guidelines
Page 144 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form. Further, this IS/MND Conformity Review does not require public circulation
and would not be subject to tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52.
The project site is located in an Archaeologically Sensitive Area because it is within 200 feet of the top of bank of San
Luis Obispo Creek. Further, the project site is located within a Burial Sensitivity Area, as identified in Figure 1 of the
City’s COSE. Based on the Extended Phase 1 Testing Report, no archaeological deposits have been identified within the
project area. However, based on the sensitivity of the project site, there is potential to uncover previously unidentified
tribal cultural resources during proposed ground-disturbing activities. The Revised Project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measure CR-1, as identified in Section 5, Cultural Resources, of the 2016 IS/MND to address potential impacts
related to inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. Further, the Revised Project would be subject to the
requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which identifies the protocol for properly responding
to the inadvertent discovery of human remains. Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and no new mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure CR-1.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, the Revised Project would have a less-than-significant impact on tribal
cultural resources. Therefore, no new impacts would occur, and no new mitigation is required.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years?
49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
46, 48,
60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the community,
and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the city, California Polytechnic State University, and the airport. The facility treats
4.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established
by the SWRCB to remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated wastewater. A portion of the
treated water is recycled for irrigation use within the city and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. Water
Page 145 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
service for the project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would be served by the City’s sewer
system.
a) The City’s existing water supply and wastewater infrastructure would have adequate capacity to provide for the Revised
Project; therefore, the Revised Project would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing utility facilities.
Any installation of expanded utility infrastructure (e.g., sewer laterals, water lines electric lines, etc.) at the project site
would be within the disturbance footprint of the Revised Project and would be subject to mitigation measures identified
throughout this IS/MND Conformity Review to reduce potential environmental impacts associated with ground-disturbing
and other construction activities for installation of utility infrastructure on-site. Therefore, the Revised Project would not
result in adverse environmental impacts associated with installation of utility infrastructure at the project site, and impacts
would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
b) Per Policy A2.2.1 of the City’s Water and Wastewater Management Element, the City has four primary water supply
sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation);
groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades
has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water
available for the City in the 2022 water year (July 1, 2021–June 30, 2022) was 10,140 acre-feet per year, which included
259 acre-feet per year of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the
City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of
this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2021 was 5,228 acre-feet per year. Based on the City’s water demand and
wastewater generation factors, hotels/motels generate approximately 70 gallons of water per day per room. Therefore, the
Revised Project’s potable water demand of 1,890 gallons per day would be accommodated by the City’s existing water
supply. The Revised Project’s incremental increase in water demand would be accommodated by the City’s water supply.
Water for any additional short-term use for construction activities or site revegetation would also be provided by the City’s
supply only if non-potable water supply trucks and/or network available through the City. Development of this site is
consistent with the City’s long-range planning documents and, thus, has been anticipated by the City’s water supply
planning. The City has adequate water supply to provide potable and other water to the Revised Project. Therefore, the
Revised Project would have sufficient water supply, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with
the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
c) The Revised Project would be served by the City’s wastewater system. Based on the City’s wastewater generation factors
by land use, the 27-room motel would generate wastewater flows of 1,890 gallons per day. Thus, the Revised Project
would result in an incremental increase in demand on the City’s WRRF and wastewater conveyance infrastructure. The
Revised Project is consistent with the general level of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and would be required
to pay standard Development Impact Fees to offset the project’s incremental contribution to demand on the City’s WRRF.
Therefore, the City’s WWRF would have adequate capacity to serve the Revised Project, and impacts would be less than
significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
d) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Revised Project would result
in the generation of approximately 54 pounds of solid waste per day (Table 5).
Table 5. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Use Generation Rate Project Solid Waste Per Day
Hotel/Motel 2 lbs/room/day 27 rooms 54 pounds
Total 54 pounds
Operational solid waste and recycling would be serviced by San Luis Garbage Company and disposed of at Cold Canyon
Landfill. Short-term construction-related waste would also likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. The Cold
Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily permitted intake capacity of 1,650 tons per day and a remaining capacity of
13,000,000 cubic yards as of August 31, 2020. Based on these capacities, the Cold Canyon Landfill is expected to remain
operational through at least 2040. The Revised Project would be consistent with the projected buildout of the Tourist
Commercial (C-T) zone and is not anticipated to generate an excessive amount of solid waste in a manner that could
exceed existing capacity of Cold Canyon Landfill. Therefore, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of
Page 146 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
existing infrastructure, and impacts would be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016
IS/MND.
e) The Revised Project would be required to prepare garbage and recycling plan for review and approval by San Luis Garbage
Company in compliance with the City’s COSE policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE Policy
5.5.3), and the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Therefore, the Revised Project would comply with
federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be
less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required, which is consistent with the findings of the 2016 IS/MND.
Conclusion
The Revised Project’s potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems would be less than significant, and no new
or more severe impacts would occur compared to the 2016 IS/MND.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
1, 21,
23, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
1, 21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
1, 21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1, 21,
23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities
they contain. Additional factors include access, available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters. Based
on the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of wildland fires is greatest near the city limits where development meets rural
areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the community is within 1 mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone, which indicates significant risk to wildland fire.
The City’s Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, including approving
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of wildland Fire Hazard
Severity Zones as prescribed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), prohibition of new
subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety
and construction codes for buildings.
Page 147 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
According to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones viewer, the project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area.
Based on the City’s Safety Element Maps, the project site is located adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone associated
with Reservoir Canyon.
a) Parcel 3 would be accessed by a proposed driveway from the approved parking lot on Parcel 2 (ARCH-2363-2015). The
proposed driveway and internal roadways would be constructed in accordance with City Public Works Department
requirements to provide fire and other emergency vehicles with adequate long-term access to the project site. The Revised
Project would increase the guestroom count from 26 to 27, which would result in a negligible increase in vehicle trips
along Monterey Street and, therefore, would not increase vehicle congestion in a manner that could interfere with
emergency response or evacuation efforts within the project area. Any breaks in utility service would be temporary and
would not conflict with any emergency plans. The Revised Project would maintain adequate public and emergency access
during project activities and would not conflict with emergency plans; therefore, impacts would be less than significant
and no new impacts related to wildfire would occur.
b) The project site is located adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone associated with Reservoir Canyon.
Surrounding land uses include US 101 to the north, single-family residences to the west and south, and hotel buildings to
the west. There are existing trees and landscaping surrounding the northern, eastern, and southern portions of the project
site. The project would result in 10 single-story bungalows and three two-story bungalows on a flat parcel. The Revised
Project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention pursuant to the CBC and California Fire
Code. Therefore, the Revised Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to substantial
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no new impacts related to wildfire would occur.
c) The Revised Project includes the installation of water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy extensions
and connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur within an urbanized area
and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations. As
discussed above, construction of this infrastructure would not result in substantial temporary or ongoing impacts on the
environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new impacts related to wildfire would occur.
d) The project site is relatively flat and located adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and landslide risk area
associated with Reservoir Canyon, which is located to the southeast of the project site. In addition, the project site is
located within a 100-year flood zone. The Revised Project would be required to be constructed in full compliance with
applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations to avoid post-fire risk associated with new development; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant, and no new impacts related to wildfire would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The Revised Project would be required to comply with relevant City, CBC, and California Fire Code regulations and would not
expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and or require the development of new or expanded infrastructure
or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, no new impacts related to wildfire would occur.
Page 148 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
21. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Studio Design Group. Project Plans. 2125 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, California. July 2022.
2. City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE). Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651>.
3. City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. June. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104>.
4. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022. California Scenic Highways. Available at:
<https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa>.
5. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Municipal Code, 2021. Available at: <https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code>.
6. California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/>.
7. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Interactive Parcel Viewer. March. Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3e0adee3aabd4805bd13f0d4705a4193>.
8. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Area Designation Maps / State and National. December. Available
at: <https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations>.
9. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2022. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping
Tool. March. Available at:
<https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.3649868053637
56%2C-120.52563349999997&z=10>.
10. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOACPD). 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April.
Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_LinkedwithMemo.pd
f>.
11. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOACPD). 2001. 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air
Plan. December. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf>.
12. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=29123>.
13. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOACPD). 2017. Clarification Memorandum for the San
Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November. Available at:
<https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf>.
14. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2015. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Available at:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm>.
15. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map. Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917da8bbc7>.
16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Available at:
<https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html>.
Page 149 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
17. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861>.
18. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Cultural Resource Maps. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4599/635513822600970000>.
19. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Community Choice Energy. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choice-
energy>.
20. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan. June. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=27835>.
21. California Building Code, 2019. Available at: <https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018>.
22. California Department of Conservation. 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/>.
23. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645>.
24. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Available at:
<https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html>.
25. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
<https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>.
26. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo
County, California. Available at: <https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71738.htm>.
27. Ceres Associates. 1999. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).
28. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Envirostor. Available at:
<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>.
29. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker. Available at:
<https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/>.
30. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2020. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>.
31. County of San Luis Obispo. 2021. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. May. Available at:
<https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Plans-and-Elements/Airport-
Land-Use-Plans/Airport-Land-Use-Plan-(Amended-
Restated).pdf?msclkid=7d8d41edb9af11ec8e171812923c56de>.
32. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Flood Preparedness Map. Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=e790e7eb2923499b9ddc91126d6376e0>.
33. California Department of Water Resources. 2019. SGMA Groundwater Management. Available at:
<https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management>.
34. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at:
<https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater-
Management-Act-(SGMA)/San-Luis-Obispo-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx>.
35. California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San
Luis Quadrangle. Available at: <https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo>.
Page 150 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
36. State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin. Available at:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/amendment/draft_resol_
attch_a_basin_plan_edits_only.pdf>.
37. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643>.
38. Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and
Ranges. September. Available at:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cfm>.
39. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September.
Available at: <https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>.
40. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration
Guidance Manual. September. Available at: <http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf>.
41. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29847/637539899241100000>.
42. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2020-2028 Housing Element. November.
Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=28839>.
43. City of San Luis Obispo. 2018. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20198>.
44. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-recreation/parks-and-recreation-plan-and-
element-update>.
45. City of San Luis Obispo. 2017. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element. October. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412>.
46. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Wastewater Treatment, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department webpage.
Accessed March 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment>.
47. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023. SWIS Facility Detail Cold
Canyon Landfill, Inc. Available at: <https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-AA-0004/Detail/>.
48. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27919/637341402080900000>.
49. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. 2020 Water Resources Status Report. City of San Luis Obispo Water Division.
Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=29191>.
50. City of San Luis Obispo. 2015. Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, Table 4‐2.
Existing Water Demand Factors.
51. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23872>.
52. Bertrando & Bertrando. 2002. Extended Phase 1 Testing Report.
53. King Ventures. 2003. Motel Inn – Apple Farm Redevelopment Project USFWS Protocol Survey for CRLF &
Nesting Raptor Survey.
Page 151 of 429
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 ENVIRONMENTAL CONFORMITY REVIEW
54. King Ventures and Keith Hall Architects. Historic American Building Survey of the Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel).
55. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. 2nd edition. June.
56. San Luis Obispo Fire Department. 2020. 2020 San Luis Obispo Fire Department Annual Report. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28869/637441408193100000>.
57. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. San Luis Obispo Police Department: About the Department. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-department/about-the-department>.
58. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Traffic Counts and Speed Surveys. Available at:
<https://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=f808ee341ad743259b9f7b455cd7b6
9b>.
59. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Available at:
<https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery>.
60. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Wastewater Treatment. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment>.
61. 45dB Acoustics, LLC. 2022. Acoustical Analysis: Motel Inn 2223 Monterey St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
62. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2021. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-
solutions.page.
63. Sempra Energy (Sempra). 2019. Sempra Energy 2019 Annual Report. Available at:
<https://www.sempra.com/sites/default/files/microsites/2019_annualreport/>.
64. City of San Luis Obispo. 2003. Waterways Management Plan. Available at: <
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/documents-online/waterway-management-
plan?msclkid=34fe8e26b9f211ecbed5ef3a4873a769>.
Attachments
Attachment 1. 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 2. CalEEMod Results
Attachment 3. CNDDB Species List
Page 152 of 429
ATTACHMENT 1
2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page 153 of 429
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.)
Page 154 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8. Description of the Project:
The proposal is to construct a new
motel with a total of 55 rooms
spread across a main hotel/lobby
building and 12 detached
“bungalow” units. A recreational
vehicle (RV) park (23 spaces) is
also proposed on the easterly
portion of the project site. The
property address is 2223 Monterey
Street. The vicinity map is shown
on the right. Total floor area for the
buildings will be approximately
34,500 square feet. The property is
approximately 4.19 acres in area
and is situated at the northerly
terminus of Monterey Street. The
project site also includes remnants
of the Historic “Motel Inn” which includes a façade and portions of the original lobby. Portions
of the original historic Motel Inn are under construction and will be incorporated into an already
approved building which was issued a building permit under prior entitlements, and is not a part
of the current project under evaluation.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: Apple Farm Inn Motel
South: San Luis Creek and San Luis Drive residential neighborhood
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and the issuance of a use permit from the
Planning Commission.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
Page 155 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources X
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
X
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Page 156 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
February 24, 2016
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron
Printed Name Community Development Director
Page 157 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Page 158 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2 X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,2 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) The proposed buildings are situated in a previously developed area and are low scale that will not exceed two stories
(structure height of approximately 32 feet). The proposed project does not have the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas
and the project will not affect scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings.
c) The project site is located in an area zoned for commercial development and was previously disturbed with buildings and
site development associated with the Historic Motel Inn. The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines which address compatibility
of proposed development on the site and in relation to surroundings. Additionally, the Planning Commission will rev iew the
project for compatibility through requirements of Ordinance No. 1130. In 1989, commercial properties on the east side of
Monterey Street (including this property) were rezoned to include the “S”, Special Consideration, overlay district. The
implementing ordinance, Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites within the S
district overlay. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental
quality are addressed in the design criteria. The design criteria include specifications which limit building openings onto the
creek and address lighting, screening between land uses, riparian corridor protection, building height and grading limitations
and drainage control.
d) d) New sources of lighting will be evaluated as part of the review of ordinance No. 1130 to ensure that lighting remains on-
site and does not produce glare that could affect neighboring properties. The project will also be reviewed by the ARC and at
the time of building permit submittal for compliance with the City’s Night Sky Ordinance (SLOMC 17.23) which contains
provisions to minimize glare and protect the natural environment from excessive and/or misdirected light and glare.
Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
X
a),b),c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as
Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute
to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City’s Urban Reserve Line. No
impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with the p roject.
Page 159 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion: a-c) No Impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3,4,5 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4, 5
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
4, 5 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
a-e) The proposed project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is
a commenting agency to assess air pollution impacts from both construction and operational phases of the project. The APCD
found potential impacts associated with operational and construction phase impacts unless recommended mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project. The APCD provided a letter dated November 17, 2015 (Appendix C) which included
recommended mitigations to address construction impacts, operational phase impacts, and sensitive receptors. With
incorporation of all mitigation measures and recommendations provided by APCD , impacts to air quality will be less than
significant. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Conclusion: a-e) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the
November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
6
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
6
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
7, 8,
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
6
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
3
X
Page 160 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ap proved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
(a-d) The proposed project complies with required setbacks from the creek bank and C/OS portion of the site . South-Central
California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo
Creek in the vicinity of the area of the project and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City’s Natural
Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or o therwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands
or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. However, due to the
proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of the site, there is the potential for construction-related
impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BIO-1) has
been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the ri parian corridor are utilized
under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP).
San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130
(1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank (on the project site) the creek channel is
vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All proposed structures and other improvements are
above the established top of bank. Residential propert ies across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang
the creek channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a
significant biological corridor. Its condition could be e nhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoration
and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), criterion No. 3. The City’s Natural
Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and has recommended mitigation measures (BIO-2) requiring a planting
plan which would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non -native plantings with
appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources
for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse,
complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species.
(e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. It is not anticipated that
any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the project site is not pa rt of a
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fueled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up
immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construct ion.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in
to the drainage/creek system.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Conclusion: a-f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
10,
11,
X
Page 161 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12, 13
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
14
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
13
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
13 X
Historic Resources
The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List
Historic Motel Inn was constructed in the 1924 -1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style.
The Motel Inn is significant historically since it is associated with events that made a broad contribution to California’s
history and cultural heritage. This is the first location to use the word “motel” and the first business to employ motoring
comfort accommodations which represented a shift away from auto camps and cabins. Building permits issued under
previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel
Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the façade remaining from the original
restaurant building. That said, these remaining building remnants from the historic Motel Inn are not a part of the currently
proposed project and will be incorporated into a building which is currently under construction pursuant to building permits
issued under previous entitlements.
a) The proposed project includes the construction of a lobby building with 12 attached hotel rooms, a mix of one and two
story detached bungalows with a total of 40 hotel rooms, and a 1.6 acre site with 2 5 RV hookups. Due to the fact that the
applicant has a current, approved building permit regarding pa rtial construction of those elements of the project which are of
historic value, no further evaluation is required for that part of the project. However, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
will still need to review the remaining components of the project to insure that the entire project is consistent with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines of the City and the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The proposed development requires an evaluation of the proj ects compatibility with the remaining character
defining elements of the historic Motel Inn which are incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building which is
under construction. The project’s compatibility with the approved restaurant building (including the remaining historic lobby
building and façade of the original structure) will be evaluated by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee for conformance
with relevant City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties. An evaluation has been provided by City Staff for review by the Cultural Heritage Committee which
finds that the proposed new construction will not detract from the historic significance of the rem aining historic features to be
incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building. Proposed development will be located approximately 20 -feet
behind the previously approved restaurant building (which includes the historic features) and the scale of the lobby building
and bungalow units will not block views, nor overwhelm or detract from the remaining historic features. The proposed
architectural style of the new development incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the orig inal
Motel Inn architectural style. The new work will not detract or destroy any of the character defining features of the existin g
historic elements of the approved restaurant building and the proposed structures will preserve the essential form and
integrity of the historic property. The RV portion of the property is of a relatively low intensity with only 25 potential RV
spaces on the site plan. The parking of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, will not detract from the original motel
setting, or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist -oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor-
serving purpose of the property. Less than significant impact.
Archaeological Resources
b-d) The project site is considered an archaeologically “sensitive area” because it is within 200 feet of the top of the bank of
San Luis Obispo Creek. In January, 2002, Bertrando & Bertrando prepared an Extended Phase I Testing report, which is
attached to this initial study as Appendix F. No archaeological deposits were identified. While no archaeological resources
were discovered in the test trenches, it is possible that resources could be uncovered with project excavation and grading.
The Phase 1 testing report found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could be impacted
during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with mitigation
Page 162 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
incorporated.
Mitigation Measure CR-1:
Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological
Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring
plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be
carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities
encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities,
which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director
approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be
called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state
and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance
activities with clear notes and callouts.
Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
16 X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 16 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 16 X
IV. Landslides? 16 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 17 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
16,17
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
17 X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
17 X
a) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which
extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, a nd
fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending
ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geo logically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
Page 163 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, th e
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to t he northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seis mic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Building Code. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City
Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. No mitigation measures
are necessary. Less than significant impact.
b) The site is already partially developed and is an infill site located in an urbanized area. The project will not result in loss o f
topsoil to a level that would be considered significant.
c), d) A soils engineering report will be required by the Building Division at the time of submittal for building and grading
permits. The soils report will require data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, and conclu sions
and recommendations for grading and construction. Grading and build ing techniques must be designed in compliance with
the report. To ensure the proposed project does not pose a risk to occupants and structures the construction plans submitted to
the building division for review and approval shall be consistent with recommendations of the soils engineering report.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Conclusion: a-e) Less than Significant impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
5 X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
5 X
a), b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passe d
Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will
result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consist ent
with City policies for infill development and efficient use of existing infrastructure. As discussed in the above air quality
analysis, the APCD has provided comments on the project to address construction and operational phase impacts of the
project (Appendix C). Compliance with recommended mitigation measure AQ-1 also includes measures to reduce the
production of greenhouse gas emissions which are also produced with operational and construction phase emissions
discussed in the Air Quality analysis. These characteristics of the proposal coupled with the requirement to address APCD
comments finds the project consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will result in less than significant
impacts.
Conclusion: a, b) Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
Page 164 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
19,20
X
a) The proposed hotel and RV park use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No
Impact.
b) A Phase I environmental site assessment was prepared by Ceres Associates and is attached as Appendix G.
Recommendations are included in the report which will require certain actions. Since the site previously had a service station
use there may be underground tanks remaining in place. As an example, the site assessment recommends that ground
penetrating radar (GPR) be utilized to determine if any underground tanks exist, and that sampling be conducted to assess if
asbestos is contained in the remaining building on-site. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1:
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by
Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All
contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction.
c), d) The proposed project is not within one quarter mile of an existing school and the project would not involve the use,
transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. No Impa ct.
e), f), g) The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or private
airstrip. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and would not interfere with emergency response plans
or evacuation plans. No Impact.
i) The project site is not located within the wildland interface zone. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: a & c-h) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
X
Page 165 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
20.21
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
20,21 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
X
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
a), b) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post
Construction Requirements for storm water control. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not use or
otherwise deplete groundwater resources. The existing on-site water well is proposed to be removed but could be used for
landscape irrigation. No significant change is expected to the local groundwater table. The well site is down gradient from
the rural upstream properties that rely on groundwater. No impact.
c), d), e), f) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within
the City’s watershed. T he Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development
site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off and the proposed project does not increase impervious surface area. If
applicable, plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be
designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. The project will be
subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. These regulations address both water quantity and water quality.
The project will be required to retain and/or treat the runoff from the impervious surfaces including parking areas, drive
aisles, and roofs. A water quality upgrade is expected from this previously developed site. City Engineering Standards
address point source controls for solid waste and materials storage areas. Less than significant impact.
g), h), i) The project site is located within the 100-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance
Rate Map as is the majority of the downtown area. The project is therefore subject to showing compliance with the Waterway
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Per section 3.0 of the Waterways Management Plan, n ew development projects
and redevelopment projects within the FEMA designated 100 -year floodplain that are not located within the Mid -Higuera or
special Floodplain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are
met. Furthermore, the project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (flood ordinance). The engineer of record
has modeled the project to show that the structures are located outside the SFHA and that the project will not impact
adjoining properties. A Letter of Map Change will be processed as a condition of building permits. The project will be
required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1 -foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation at the time, or for
Page 166 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of
FEMA “flood-proofing” measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The new structures and improvements will be
located away from the top of creek bank in accordance with the Creek Setback Ordinance. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
19,22 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
19,22 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated for Tourist
Commercial land uses by the General Plan which the proposed visitor-serving development is consistent. The project will not
physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plans. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
X
a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: No Impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
23,24 X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne
vibration or ground -borne noise levels?
23,24 X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
23,24 X
Page 167 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
X
a), b) The site is located adjacent to Highway 101, the principal noise source affecting existing and future noise conditions in
the vicinity. Due to existing noise from Highway 101, the project site is exposed to noise levels in the 60 -70dB range. The
General Plan Noise Element lists the acceptable range of noise as up to 60 db without the need for any specific noise studies
or mitigation. Hotels and motels are noise sensitive uses as designated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Noise
Element indicates that noise levels of 60 decibels (dB) are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB is acceptable for
indoor areas. Outdoor noise levels in the 60-70 dB range are classified as “conditionally acceptable”. This means that
development may be permitted provided it is designed to meet acceptable (for the proposed land use) noise exposure levels.
Due to existing and projected noise levels emanating from Highway 101, in previous approvals for the site, the applicant was
required to prepare a noise study to evaluate mitigation strategies for meeting interior and exterior noise standards. The n oise
study was prepared for a similar, but somewhat different hotel use, by Donald Asquith, PhD, and is attached as Appendix H.
The study notes how the freeway noise source varies in elevation above the site from west to east. The northbound on-ramp
from Monterey Street is approximately 5 feet higher at the westerly end of the site, increasing to 15 feet at the easterly end.
While noise exposure from the highway is still significant, this grade differential from the noise source does reduce the traffic
noise levels from what they would otherwise be if the noise source was at the same elevation as the project site.
Outdoor spaces that are created within the project site should be designed to consider the freeway noise and exposure of
visitors to the noise. For outdoor areas, similar to previous approvals, proposed buildings are sited such that outdoor areas
are situated on the opposite side of proposed structures which will attenuate freeway sound levels to acceptable outdoor noise
levels. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques for the motel units,
according to the noise study and consistent with the City Noise Guidebook. City staff also visited the project site on
December 17, 2015, measured noise from the freeway with a sound meter and found the noise levels to be consistent with the
prior Asquith study. Recreational vehicle parks are not listed in the General Plan Noise Element as Noise Sensitive uses. For
the RV park portion of the project it can be anticipated that recreational vehicle trav elers would anticipate freeway noise at
this location as it is somewhat common that RV parks are located adjacent to freeways and major roadways. It is not
anticipated that RV travelers would have the same expectation of interior noise reduction or quiet o utdoor or indoor noise
levels as motels or hotel accommodations. Less than significant impact.
Noise increases resulting from the proposed project
c), d) The hotel and RV park uses are not anticipated to produce sound levels which would exceed thresholds of the General
Plan noise element or Noise Ordinance. To a considerable degree, it can be anticipated that proposed structures will help
buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition, parking areas for the motel
use and RV parking are between 120 feet to 150 feet from the nearest residence on San Luis Drive, and further buffered by
San Luis Creek and a heavily vegetated riparian corridor. In addition, Ordinance 1130 contains specific provisions to ensure
compatible noise levels with residential uses across the riparian corridor which will be reviewed for conformance by the City
Planning Commission.
Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the
duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise
Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and ma ximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be
required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of
construction. Less than significant impact.
Page 168 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e), f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, is not located within two miles of a public use airport, and
is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
a) The project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other infrastructure. The project would not
induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Less than significant.
b), c) The project would not displace any existing housing or substantial numbers of people. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
The proposal is for a tourist-oriented land use which will not require the provision of public facilities such as parks or
schools. There is also adequate capacity of water, sewer, police and fire protection to service the proposed development.
The development will be subject to the standard traffic and water impact fees.
Conclusion: No impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
a), b) The project does not include permanent residential units and the transitory nature of the hotel guests and RV park use
should not place an additional substantial burden on nearby residential facilities such that substantial physical deteriorati on
would be accelerated. No Impact
Page 169 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion: No impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
27 X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
25,
26,27
X
Project Traffic Impact
a), b) The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Monterey Street as an arterial road and adopts level of Service D (LOS
D) as the maximum acceptable level of traffic congestion during PM peak hour conditions outside the downtown. The
Circulation Element does not prescribe any modifications to Monterey Street northeast of its intersection with Grand Avenue.
Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) on the more intensive but similar motel project at this site, approv ed
in 2003. (See Appendix I, attached.) The TIS evaluated how traffic from the project would affect the operation of nearby
intersections. According to the report, full development of the motel would generate approximately 1,148 vehicle trips per
day, with 29 trips entering the project site and 52 trips departing during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips entering and 35 trips
departing during the PM peak hour. The TIS forecasted how this additional traffic would be distributed to the following
intersections and evaluated its impact on the traffic level of service (LOS). (The traffic impacts of the current, proposed
project will be significantly less based on an average daily trip generation of 475 trips, according to the Omni Means draft
Technical Memorandum dated November, 2015. See Appendices, attached.)
1. Monterey Street & U.S. 101 NB On/Off Ramps at Project Driveway
2. Monterey and Garfield
3. Monterey Street and Buena Vista
4. Buena Vista and Garfield
5. Buena Vista and U.S. 101 Southbound Off Ramp
6. Monterey Street at Apple Farm Inn Driveway
7. Monterey Street at La Questa Motor Inn Driveway
The TIS concluded that under “existing + Project” conditions, area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service
(generally at LOS C or better), in compliance with Circulation Eleme nt standards.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Page 170 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Cumulative Traffic Impacts:
The prior traffic impact study also considered the prior project’s contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at build -out of the
City’s general plan land uses. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis showed that intersections 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 listed
above will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For
intersection 2 (Garfield @ Monterey), the Garfield approach to Monterey would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour,
without that project’s traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization would not meet Caltrans warrants but that
actual conditions should be monitored as traffic conditions change to determine the future need for a signal, or possibly all -
way traffic controls.
Under build-out conditions, the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp (intersection 5, above) would
operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, without project traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization of this
intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants, but like the Garfield intersection, monitoring should be undertaken and
signalization may be warranted in the future.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact. (Note: This project will pay city Transportation Impact Fees a s required by
ordinance. Revenues from these fees are used to pay for mitigating area -wide traffic conditions as those mitigations become
necessary. Payment of the fee constitutes this project’s fair share contribution toward mitigating potential, future substandard
traffic conditions.)
Traffic Geometrics Concerns
d) Access to the Motel Inn site is challenging due to its immediate proximity to the northbound on ramp and southbound off -
ramp of Highway 101. Therefore, a traffic study was conducted by Omni-Means (November, 2015) to evaluate potential
impacts of the proposed new traffic to the area and identify the most reasonable measures to mitigate road and driveway
geometric issues. The study was conducted in partnership with Caltrans. The study re commends: (1) restricting southwest
(SW) left turns for approximately 120 feet of the Northbound (NB) 101 off ramp; (2) providing a west -bound (WB) left turn
refuge/acceleration lane for hotel traffic; (3) realigning the Monterey Street curb line; and (4 ) making minor adjustment to
affected motel driveways along Monterey Street. A conceptual graphic of the recommended mitigation is shown below.
Page 171 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source: Omni-Means
Mitigation Measure: MM-1
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as
recommended in the traffic study which is depicted above, and as approved by the City and Caltrans.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns. No Impact.
e) The site has been reviewed by City emergency services and found to comply with requirements for emergency access.
No impact.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
28 X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
28 X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
X
Page 172 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
29 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
a) b) c) The City Water Resource Recovery Facility and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the
project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer laterals to convey wastewater to the sewer main that
parallels the project’s western property line. All on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the
standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for
capacity at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of
future development. The site includes existing pubic water and sewer mains in easements along the northern and western
property lines. This water main is the transmission water main from Reservoir 1. Proposed development at the site shall be
sited outside of these easements. Storm drainage facilities in the vicinity are adequate to serve the proposed project and no
expansion is required which could result in significant environmental effect s. Less than significant impact.
d) Water demand from the project was anticipated as part of General Plan build out. Future site development is subject to
water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cos t of constructing the water
supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. Less than significant impact.
e) f) g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939 ) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the wast e
stream generated by this project, consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, r ecycling facilities
must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials
must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling
to reduce the waste stream generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Less than
significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
X
Page 173 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
indirectly?
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
None.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal ysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions of the project.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 1130, 1989
2. Project Plans
3. Municipal Code
4. Response Letter from Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2015
5. APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
6. Ecological Analysis of Apple Farm II, 8/20/02, Levine-Fricke
7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek Setback ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations)
8. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, 2006
9. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory, December, 1983
10. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines, 2010
11. Historical Resources Inventory of Property, Bertrando, September 2000
12. Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of the Motel Inn, August 2004
13. Archaeological Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002
14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, 1995
15. Extended Phase I Testing Report, Bertrando, 2002
16. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, State Geologist (Alquist -Priolo Map), 1990
17. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984
18. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates, October, 1999
19. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, 2014
20. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005C)
21. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan, Above Grade Engineering, San Luis Obispo, November 2015
22. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations
23. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element & Guidebook
24. Noise Investigation , Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001
Page 174 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9 th Edition, 2012
26. Motel Inn Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, March 2002
27. Traffic Report, Omni-Means, November 2015
28. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations
29. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, 1994
Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon
request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A: Project Plans
Appendix B: Not Used
Appendix C: Air Pollution Control District Letter Dated November 17, 2015
Appendix D: Ecological Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek, Levine-Fricke, May 2002 and
USFWS Protocol Survey, Levine-Fricke, June 2003
Appendix E: Historic American Building Survey of Former Motel Inn, 2004 (with limited attachments)
Appendix F: Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, 2002
Appendix G: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ceres Associates
Appendix H: Noise Study, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001
Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study, OMNI-MEANS, Nov. 2015 & Higgins Associates, 2002; (with limited attachments)
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the
November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
Monitoring Program AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion
control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill
prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the
drainage/creek system.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to
contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development and
Public Works Departments, and the City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Page 175 of 429
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 2363-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate
native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building
Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement plan as necessary
to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized
while working within the creek corridor.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of
City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development
Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and
construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground
disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then
construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community
Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American
monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall
comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground
disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building
plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be
clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental
site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior
to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction.
Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on
grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be
presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action.
Mitigation Measure: TT-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway
channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as
approved by the City and Caltrans.
Monitoring Plan, TT-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November
2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with
the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final
inspections by City staff.
Page 176 of 429
Appendix A
Page 177 of 429
Appendix A
Page 178 of 429
Appendix A
Page 179 of 429
Appendix A
Page 180 of 429
Appendix A
Page 181 of 429
Appendix A
Page 182 of 429
Appendix A
Page 183 of 429
Appendix A
Page 184 of 429
Appendix A
Page 185 of 429
Appendix A
Page 186 of 429
Appendix A
Page 187 of 429
Appendix A
Page 188 of 429
Appendix A
Page 189 of 429
Appendix A
Page 190 of 429
Appendix A
Page 191 of 429
Appendix A
Page 192 of 429
Appendix A
Page 193 of 429
Appendix A
Page 194 of 429
Appendix A
Page 195 of 429
Appendix A
Page 196 of 429
Appendix A
Page 197 of 429
Appendix A
Page 198 of 429
(E) OakPermeable PaversE) OaaakkkkOaaa(E) OOkk295300305295300300305296297298299301302303304
296297298299301297298299301302303304306307308
29529292952929295952992929529292295292929977797972929
0101300300Landscape Concept The concept for the development of the site landscape is to capture the essence and character of the original Motel Inn. This old landscape featured many fine subtropical plants that were characteristic of that era and which can be seen in many places in San Luis Obispo and southern California as heritage plants in older landscapes. While several of the remnant plants cannot feasibly be retained in place, the existing citrus trees will be relocated within the landscape. The table on sheet L-3 lists the existing plants to be removed and relocated. Examples of the types of characteristic plants to be re-incorporated into the new develop ment are: • Hong Kong Orchid Tree /Bauhinia x blakeana • Australian Bush Cherry /Syzigium paniculatum • Victorian Box / Pittosporum undulatum • Norfolk Island Pine / Araucaria excelsa • Bird of Paradise / Strelitzia regina • Windmill Plam / Trachycaprus fortunei In addition to these, many of the proposed plants listed on sheet L-2 are also characteristic of the original Motel Inn landscape. Water Conservation Sheet L-2 tabulates the estimated irrigation water use for the proposed landscape. The landscape will use 60% of the maximum allowable landscape water use (MAWU) and meets CALGreen Tier 2 for commercial landscapes. Most of the subtropical plants listed above are Mediterranean adapted and drought tolerant. FEB 17, 2016187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: 805.781.9800 fax: 805.781.9803firmal a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t sp l a n n i n g • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e sFile Name: Firma_Motel_Inn_PRELIM1_revised 2_12_16 Last Date Modified: 2/15/16L-1.0Conceptual Landscape PlanMatchline See Sheet L-2.0Queen Palm (including existing relocated specimens)Bird of Paradise Tipu Tree / Victorian BoxCalifornia SycamoreTreesRed Flowering Gum / Sweet ShadeJacaranda / New Zealand Christmas TreeOlive / Coast Live OakWindmill Palm / Mediterranean Fan PalmCitrus/BauhiniaExamples of heritage plants in the Old Motel Inn styleNative RIparian InterfaceMediterranean/Subtropical Shrubs and GroundcoversLAWNNorth010'20'40' 40'Scale: 1" = 40'-0"SURVEYED TOP OF CREEK NO DISTURBANCE BELOWHong Kong Orchid TreeAustralian Bush CherryVictorian BoxWindmall PalmBird of ParadiseNorfolk Island PalmAppendix A
Page 199 of 429
2File Name: Firma_Motel_Inn_PRELIM2_revised_2_12_16 Last Date Modified 02/12/16LL-2.0Conceptual Landscape Plan187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: 805.781.9800 fax: 805.781.9803firmal a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t sp l a n n i n g • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e sPlanting Design Notes Landscape design shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Uniform Design Criteria. All plant material has been selected to have low to medium water requirements. Lawn is restricted to areas where active use ican occur; lawn area proposed is less tha 5% of over alndscape area.. All planting beds shall have a minimum 3" layer of organic mulch throughout to improve water retention in soil.Conceptual Irrigation Plan Notes Irrigation design shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Uniform Design Criteria. All plant material selected shall have low to medium water requirements per WUCOLS. The maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) and estimated water use (ETWU) have been calculated. The ETWU is less than the MAWA. Water source shall be city water with a separate meter and if required, reclaimed water is available for use. The irrigation system shall consist of in-line drip emitters. Each circuit shall be a hydrozone based on exposure and plant water requirements: • Shady area hyrdozone • Sunny area hyrdozone • LID Facility bottom hydrozone • Slopes or special soil conditions by hydrozones Irrigation controller shall be weather based and will automatically adjust irrigation in response to the changes in plant's needs, as weather conditions change. Landscape Responses to LID Facility Requirements: Typical techniques (depending on Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements) include: • Coordination with Civil Engineer on infiltration soil media, if required. • Selection of wet/dry adaptive plants for stormwater facilities. • Cobble blankets in conditions where stormwater duration warrants. Preliminary Plant Materials ListMediterranean ZoneTreesArecastrum romanzoffianumQueen Palm Eucalyptus ficifoliaRed Flowering GumChamaerops humulisMediterranean Fan PalmCitrus sp.Citrus (to be selected)Hymenosporum flavumSweet ShadeJacaranda mimosifoliaJacarandaMetrosideros excelsaNew Zealand Christmas TreeOlea europeaOlivePlatanus racemosaCalifornia SycamoreQuercus agrifoliaCalifornia Live OakStrelitzia nicholaiBird of ParadiseTipuana tipuTipu TreeTrachycarpus fortuneiWindmill PalmShrubsAlyogyne huegeliiBlue HibiscusCallistemon ‘Little John’Dwarf BottlebrushSalvia leucanthaMexican SageStrelitzia reginaeBird of ParadiseVinesDistictis bucinnatoriaBlood-red Trumpet VineMacfadenya unguis-catiCat’s ClawWisteria sinensisChinese Wisteria SucculentsAgave Americana ‘Medio-picta’Century PlantAgave ‘Blue Glow’Blue Glow AgaveAloe nobilisGolden Toothed AloeAloe striataCoral AloeNative Riparian ZoneShrubsMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassRhamnus californicaCoffeeberryRibes speciosaFuchsia Flowered GooseberryRosa californicaCalifornia Wild RoseSubtropical Shade Zone (North side of buildings)ShrubsAlpinia zerumbetShell GingerBegonia richmondensisBegoniaClivia miniataKaffir LilyLirope muscariBig Blue Lily Turf Phoenix roebelliniPygmy Date PalmRaphiolepis indica ‘Ballerina’Ballerina India HawthornTibouchina urvilleanaPrincess FlowerTupidanthus calyptratusUmbrella TreeFEB 17, 2016North010'20'40'40'Scale: 1" = 40'-0"EXISTING DATE PALM RETAIN OR REPOSITION ON SITE306xt25;AeccDbFace (AeccLand100)xt0.02604;36" EUC311295300290285290305306307308310290300295301302306Calculate Max Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU):97% City State Zip
!
!
"http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/outdoorconserv.pdfEnter values for your project in square feet:MAWA Gallons 712,804.00Total Landscape Area 54975 MAWA Units 952.95Turf 2745Low (Drought Tolerant) 39140 ETWU Gallons 689,908.00Moderate 13090 ETWU Units 922.34High (Thirsty) 0Sports Field 0Vegetables 0[check total] 54975Project Name Motel InnName of Project Applicant TitleTelephone No.Fax No. Email AddressCompany Street AddressSan Luis Obispo CA%!# !
$" " #&,4333+433;-@6;)57 "*&!
#$"# ## !@3)93 %!" # !, "# " $!#-@3)84 @ " !
@
" !," !#"(%#! -
$"# ## !@3)53 @ ## !!
@&! ' !" $!# @!!# &,:3>- #"@ #" !96: "
@,# -,3)84-.3)670 ?3)770
/@,# -,)384-,, 0-*?
-Appendix A
Page 200 of 429
xt0.02604;36" EUC310312297295294294294302223023029329292
2912291912902982999828529029529630530630730829629629629329303304187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: 805.781.9800 fax: 805.781.9803firmal a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t sp l a n n i n g • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e sFile Name: Firma_Motel_Inn_PRELIM3_tree_revised_2_12_16 Last Date Modified: 2/16/16L-3.0Tree Removal and Protection PlanNorth010'20'40'40'Existing Riparian Tree Canopy to be protected in placePermeable PaversEXISTING TREE CANOPY,TYP1Existing Trees Caliper Status1. Canary Island Date Palm 30" Save/Transplant2. Queen Palm 30" Transplant3. Queen Palm 14" Transplant4. Queen Palm 14" Transplant5. Queen Palm 12" Transplant6. Queen Palm 12" Transplant7. Queen Palm 14" Transplant8. Eucalyptus 36" Remove9. Ficus 8" Remove10. Orchid Tree 8" Remove11. Weeping Bottlebrush 8" Remove12. Citrus 10" Remove 13. Citrus /Brush Cherry 8" Remove14. Victorian Box 10" Remove15. Citrus 8" Remove16. Victorian Box 14" Remove17. Citrus 14" Remove18. Magnolia 8" Transplant20. Citrus 8" Transplant21.Cedar 16" Remove22. Oak 24" Save23. Australian Bush Cherry 18" Save24. Pittosporum undulatum Group Remove25. Black Acacia 16" Remove423591015161718192021FEB 17, 20168141312116722232425Appendix A
Page 201 of 429
Appendix A
Page 202 of 429
Appendix A
Page 203 of 429
Appendix A
Page 204 of 429
Appendix A
Page 205 of 429
Appendix A
Page 206 of 429
ギどUAir Pollution Control District
San Luis Obispo County
Novemb er 17 , 201 5
Steve Matarazzo
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
SUBJEC丁:APCD Comments Regarding the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Project
Referral
Dear Mr. Matarazzo,
Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in
the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the proposed
project located at2223 and 2229 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo. The proposed
project would include a hotel with bungalows totaling 52 guest rooms, camping
accommodations for 15 RV and 10 Airstream trailers and a 10,750 square foot restaurant.
Existing structures will be demolished.
The following ore APCD comments thot are pertinent to this proiect.
GENERAL COMMENTS
As a commenting agency in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process
for a project, the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction and
operational phases of a project, with separate significant thresholds for each. Please
address the action items contained in this letter that are highlighted by bold and
underlined text.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS
Based on the APCD emission estimates using the most recent CalEEMod computer model,
the construction phase would likely exceed the APCD's daily construction emission
threshold(s) identified in Table 2-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (available on the
website: slocleana ir.org).
The modeling results indicate the APCD daily (lbs/day) threshold would be exceeded
primarily due to the architectural coatings. Mitigation measures should be provided to
reduce this impact. This could be accomplished by reducing the VOC content of the
paint used and/or adjusting the schedule for architectural coating applications to
extend the painting activities thereby limiting the daily coating activities to ensure
emissions remain below the threshold. or other options as the project proponent
100% Posi Consumer Recycled Poper
■805,781.5912 F805,781.1002 w s10Cleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Appendix C
Page 207 of 429
APCD Comments Regarding the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Proiect
November 17, 2015
Poge 2 of 8
measures.
Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved
in soil addition or removal;
Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or
other TpH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed
where vapors could accumulate;
Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No
openings in the covers are permitted;
The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the
contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's
construction phase thresholds;
During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public
nuisance; and,
Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
Engineering Division at 781‐5912.
Natura∥v Occurring Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic
air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may
contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO County APCD has identified areas throughout the
County where NOA may be present (see the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4).
lf the project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), the following
requirements apply. Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
euarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105), prior to any construction activities at the site.
the APCD. lfthe site is not exempt from the requirements ofthe regulation′the applicant must
comply vvith a∥requirements outlined in the Asbestos AttCM. ThiS rnay include development of an
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Prograrn for approval by the
AP⊂Do More information on NOA can be found at slocleanair.org/business/asbestosoDhD。
Demolltion/Asbestos
Demol忙 ion activities can have potentlal negatⅣe air quality impacts,includlng issues surrounding
proper handling′abatemё nt,and d:sposal of asbestos containing rnaterial(ACNl)。Asbestos
containing rnaterials could be encountered during the demontion Or remodeling of existing
buildings or the disturban⊂erdemo∥tion′or relocation of above or below ground utility
pipes/pipelines(e.g"transke pipes orinsulation on lipeS)。lf thiS proiect wiliinclude anv of these
Appendix C
Page 208 of 429
スPCD Commer6 Regα rdlingめ c Mole′′n4-Mο ηlerey Street ProJiect
No1/ember 7乙 2θ 75
Page 3げ8
requirements stipulated in the National Enlission Standard for Hazardous Air Po∥u」Lants
(40CFR61,Subpart M‐asbestos NESHAP〕。These requirements inciude′but are notlimited to:1)
llvrltten notificatlon′within at least 1 0 business days of actlvities corllrnencing′to the APCD′2)
asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos⊂onsultant′and,3)appliCable removal and
disposal requlrements ofidentified A⊂M. Please contactthe APCD Enforcement Division at(805)
781-591 2 and also go to siocleanair.org/business/asbestos.phO fOr furtherinforrnation. To obtain a
Notlficatlon of Demolition and Renovation forrn go to the″C)ther Forrns′′section of:
slocleanair.org/business/on∥neforrns.php。
EffecJve Februav 25′2000′the APCD prohわ たed devdoDmentai burnh2 of vegetat市 e mateHal
within San Luis Obispo County. lf you have any questions regarding these requirements, contact
the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912.
Dust Control Measures
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and
businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with grading areas that
are within 1.000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation
measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD's20o/o
opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402).
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 200/o opacity for greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used
whenever possible. Please note. since water use is a concern due to drou8ht
conditions. the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-aPProved dust
For
a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook;
All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers
as needed;
permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any
soil d istu rbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month
after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface
at the construction site;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and
top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section23114;
d。
e。
g。
h。
Appendix C
Page 209 of 429
APCD Comments Regording the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Proiect
November 17, 2015
Page 4 of 8
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;
l. All PMro mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans; and,
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 200/o opacity for greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading,
earthwork or demolition.
Construction Permit Requ irements
Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present
during the project's construction phase. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used
during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration
(issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit.
The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting
requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the
Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.
' Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
. Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;
. Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;
. Internal combustion engines;
' Rock and pavement crushing;. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;. Tub grinders;
' Trommel screens; and,'. Portable plants (e.g. aggregate plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, etc).
regulrements。
Construction Phase ldling Limitations
PrtteCtS that will have diesel powered construction acJvity in close proximity to any sens忙 lve
receptor sha∥implementthe fo∥owing rnitigation rneasures to ensure that public health benefits are
realized by reducing toxic risk frorn diesel enlissions:
Appendix C
Page 210 of 429
ハPCD Commerts Regα rdiη gめ e Mο te′的n―νοnterり Streel Pro」iect
Nο 1/ember 7乙 2θ 75
Page 5 o/8
1.
a. 0■‐roα J Jliese′ve力 ′cres sha∥cOmply v宙 th Section 2485 ofttitle 1 3 of the California Code
of Regulations。丁his regulation lirnits idling frorn diese卜 fueled corrlrnercial rnotor vehicles
with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 1 0′000 pounds and licensed for
operation on highways. lt applies to Ca∥fornia and non―Ca∥fornia based vehicles. ln
general′the regulation specifies that drivers of sald vehlcles:
1. Sha∥notidle the vehicle′s primary diesel engine for greaterthan 5 rninutes at any
location′except as noted in Subsection(d)Of the regulation;and′
2. Sha∥not operate a diese卜 fueled aux∥iary power system (APS)to pOWer a heater′air
condltioner′or any anc∥lary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greaterthan 5。O rninutes at any location when within l′000 feet of a
restricted area′except as noted in Subsection(d)of the regulation.
bo qttrOα J Jlieser e9“
"merr shallcompッ
wtth the 5 minute idllng restnc■on ident面 ed in
Section 2449(d)(2)ofthe⊂alifornia Air Rё sources Board's ln―∪se off…Road Diesel
regulation。
co slgns rnust be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to renlind drivers
and operators ofthe state′s5rninute id∥ng lirnit。
d. 丁he speclfic requirements and ex⊂eptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the
following web skes:wwwoarboca.2ov/msorog/truck―idling/2485,Ddf and
¨.arb.ca。2ov/regact/2007/ordles107/frooal.Ddf。
2. DieselldlittestriCtiOns Near Sensitive Receュ orS
ln addttion to the State required dieselidling requirements′the prqect applicant shall
comply with these rnore restrictive requirements to rninirnize impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors:
ao Staging and queuing areas sha∥not be located within l′000 feet of sensitive receptors;
bo Dieselid∥ng lrvithin l′000 feet of sensitive re⊂eptors sha∥not be perrnitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipmentis recornrnendedi and
do Signs that spe⊂iサ the nO ldling areas must be posted and enforced atthe stte.
OPERAT:ONAL PHASE:MPACTS
APCD staff has eStimated the operationalirnpacts ofthis development by running the CalEEMod
computer rnodel′a tool for estimating vehicle travel′fuel use and the resulting ernissions related to
this project′sland uses。 丁he results ofthe rnodel′using conservative⊂ounty average trip distances′
demonstrated that the operationalirnpacts wi∥llkely exceed the APCD′s thresholds in ttable 3-2 of
the⊂EQA Handbook.
As a result ofthis estimated threshold exceedance for ROG+NOY and greenhouse gases″this
the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook. to bring the project below the significance threshold.
Appendix C
Page 211 of 429
ハPCD ⑭
“
merむ Regariヽ ngめ c Mole′/nη ―Mο ηたrッ 5″eci Pro」iect
Nο 1/ember f乙 2θ 75
Page 6 o/8
Wood⊂ombustion
∪nder AP⊂D Rule 504′oniv APCD approved wood burning devices can be insta∥ed in new
. 丁hese devices include:
・ AII EPA…Certified Phase ll vvood burning devicesi
・ Catalytic wood burning devices which ernitless than or equalto 4.l grams per hour of
partlculate rTnatter which are not EPA― Certified but have been verified by a nationa∥y―
recognized testing lab;
・ Non―catalytic wood burning devices which ernitless than or equalto 7.5 grams per hour
of particulate rnatter whi⊂h are not EPA… Certified but have been verified by a nationa∥y―
recognized testlng lab;
・ Pe∥et―fueled vvoodheaters;and
・ Dedicated gas―fired fireplaces.
:f vou have anv ouestions about aDprOVed wood burning devices,DleaSe contact the APCD
Enforcement Division at 781‐5912。
Vehi⊂le errlissions are often the largest source of ernissions from the operational phase of
development.丁 his prqect has the potentialto increase the amount ofvehicle trips to our⊂ounty
and appropriate rnitigatlon rneasures rnust be consideredo San Luis Obispo(SLO)⊂ar Free is a
program to encourage car―free transportation to and around San Luis Obispo County. SLO Car Free
provides t901S tO travelers on the pleasures and ava∥ability of trave∥ng to our area、〃ithout their
ca rs,or by parklng their cars once they arrive. By pledging to travelto′or around SLO⊂ounty
without a car′visitors receive specialincentives frorTl participating hotels′restaurants′transportation
seⅣices and attractions。ln addition′businesses who join SLO Car Free as a participating business
receive free advertisement on their website′highlighting the businesses efforts to encourage
′′green′′′tourism to San Luis Obispo⊂ounty. Your business is also promoted through several social
media netllvorks and atthe numerous events that SLC)Car Free participates in each year。
丁he SLO Car Free website(SLO⊂arFree.org)is a hub forinformation and web―links on transportation′
lodging′attractions and other visitor needs, Visitors can use the website to find out whatthey can
do in SLO⊂ounty and how they can do it wtthout a car.To m:t鞄 但te th⊆理重皇□壺墨主d巨 」L」山匹ヨ⊇
the proposed(businessノ fac∥itv″etc〕the business rnust sign un to participate in the SLO Car
communication toois.To 2et signed un for SLO Car Freer DleaSe contact Meghan Fieid in the
APCD Planning Division at 805‐781‐5912.
Q⊇eratiOnal Phase ldlinま Limttations
Public health∥sk benelts can be realized by idle limtations for diesel engines.丁 o he:p reduce the
enlissions impact of diesei vehicies utilizing the RV fac∥ities the aDD∥Cant sha∥imDlement
the」艶:IOW:Щ ⅢШ艶騨璽」堕上鯉dШ 山凹堕:1. California Diesel ldling Regulations
a. 0"‐rogJ Jlieser ye力 ′cres sha∥cOmply with Section 2485 ofttitle 1 3 ofthe California Code
of Regulations.This regulation llrnits id∥ng frorn diese卜 fueled cornrnercial rnotor vehicles
with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 1 0,000 pounds and licensed for
Appendix C
Page 212 of 429
ハPCD ⑭
“
ments Regardingめ e MOた ′′ηη―MOη たrey S″ecr pro」iect
Ⅳο1/ember f乙 2θ 75
Page 7 o/8
operation on highways. lt applies to Ca∥fornia and non―⊂anfOrnia based vehicles. ln
general′the regulation specifies that drivers of sald vehicles:
1。 Sha∥not idle the vehicle′s primary diesel engine for greaterthan 5 rninutes at any
location′except as noted in Subsection(d)Of the regulationi and′
2. Sha∥not operate a diese卜 fueled auxiliary power system (APS)to pOWer a heater′air
conditioner′or any anc∥lary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.O rninutes at any location when、Ⅳithin l′000 feet of a
restricted area′except as noted in Subsection(d)of the regulation。
b.覇 ‐rOα J Jlieser e9“中ment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restHction identined in
Se⊂tion 2449(dx3)ofthe California Air Resources Board′s ln―Use off―Road Diesel
regulation.
co Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job skes to remlnd dttvers
and operators ofthe state′s5rninute idling lin∩lt.
d. 丁he SpeCifiC requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the
following web sites:―w.arbocattv/msFЖ 婆盪」菫上Ш電2全 五理亜and
WⅥハV.arboCa.2ov/regact/2007/ordies107/frooal.Ddf。
2.
ln addition to the State required dieselid∥ng requirements′the project applicant sha∥
comply、Ⅳith these rnore restrictive requirements to rninirrlize impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors:
ao Staging and queuing areas sha∥not be located within l,000 feet of sensitive receptorsi
bo Dieselid∥ng within l,000 feet of sensitive receptors Sha∥not be perrnitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment and electrification ofloading docks(e.g.′electrical
plug―ins for truck refrigeration unlts and electrification ofloading equipment):s
recornrnendedi and
do Signs that speci″the nO idling areas muSt be posted and enforced atthe Ske.
Fire Plts
lfthe developeris planning on including ire ptts in the prqect′the following comments apply
relating to operational phase impacts:
Recent studies that exarnined the impact of bonfires/campfires on public health showed that smoke
frorn bonfires/campfires impacted air quality in nearby residential areas. 丁o address air qua∥ty
impacts AP⊂D recommends:
・ Locating fire pits atleast 700 feet from the nearest residencel and′
● Flre pits should be atleast 1 00 feet apart(lf a city has 1 5 or fewer fire pits′they rnust be
separated by atleast 50 feet);and′
● Fire pits should not be used vvhen air qua∥ty for fine particulates(PM2.5)iS fOrecasted to
exceed 100 on the Air Quantylndex(AQI)。 BaSed on historical air quality data′the AQlis
expected to rarely exceed 1 00 in the vicinity ofthis proiect。
Appendix C
Page 213 of 429
APCD Comments Regording the Motel lnn - Monterey Street Project
November 17, 2015
Page I of I
lf fire pits are included in the project. the APCD recommends that the campground/lodge
operator prohibit fire pit use during poor air quality conditions. The APCD also recommends
locating the fire pits:
o at least 100 feet apart: and.o as far as feasible from the hotel/motel units; and.o at least 700 feet from the nearest residence.
As defined in APCD's Rule 402, a person shall not discharge, from any source whatsoever, such
quantities of air contaminant or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health or safely of any such persons or public, or which cause or have a natural tendency to
cause, injury or damage to business or property. lf fire pits are included in the project and have
the potential to cause nuisance impacts. the campground/lodge operator needs to
proactively take steps to reduce these impacts.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. lf you have any questions or
comments, feel free to contact me at 781-5912.
Sincerely,
,^1
{ } \_fzl-,*.tI
Melissa Guise
Air Quality Specialist
MAG/a rr
⊂C:Dora Drexler, Enforcement Division, APCD
Tim Fuhs, Enforcement Division, APCD
Gary Willey, Engineering Division, APCD
Attachments: 1.Naturally Occurring Asbestos―Construction&grading Prqect Exemption Request
Form′Construction&Grading Prqect Form
h:ヽ planヽ ceqaヽ prqectreviewヽ 3000ヽ3900ヽ 3933-4ヽ 3933‐1.docx
Appendix C
Page 214 of 429
T 805.781.5912 F 805.781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Construction and Grading Project Form
Applicant Information/Property Owner Project Name
Address Project Address
City, State, Zip City, State, Zip
Email for Contact Person Project Site Latitude,
Longitude
Assessors Parcel
Number
Phone Number Date Submitted Agent Phone Number
Check
Applicable
DESCRIPTION
(attach applicable required information) APCD REQUIREMENT 1 APCD REQUIREMENT 2
Project is subject to NOA requirements
but NOT disturbing NOA (See Website Map)
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php
Geological Evaluation Exemption Request Form
Project is subject to NOA requirements and
project is disturbing NOA – more than one acre Geological Evaluation Dust Control Measure Plan
Project is subject to NOA requirements and
project is disturbing NOA – one acre or less Geological Evaluation Mini Dust Control Measure
Plan
Please note that the applicant will be invoiced for any associated fees.
REQUIRED APPLICANT SIGNATURE:
Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature Date
APCD OFFICE USE ONLY
Geological Evaluation Exemption Request Form Dust Control Measure Plan Monitoring, Health and
Safety Plan
Approved Yes No Approved: Yes No Approved: Yes No Approved: Yes No
Comments: Comments: Comments:
APCD Staff: Date Received: Date Reviewed OIS Site # OIS Proj #
Invoice No. Basic Fee Additional Fees Billable Hrs Total Fees
H:\INFO\Forms\ENFORCEMENT\NOAC&GProjectForm&ExemptionRequest-2014.docx
Appendix C
Page 215 of 429
T 805.781.5912 F 805.781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Construction & Grading Project Exemption Request Form
Applicant Information/ Property Owner
Project Name
Address
Project Address
City, State, Zip
City, State, Zip
Email Address Project Site Latitude,
Longitude
Assessors Parcel
Number
Phone Number Date Submitted Agent Phone Number
The District may provide an exemption from Section 93105 of the California Code of Regulations - Asbestos Airborne
Toxic Control Measure For Construction, Grading, Quarrying, And Surface Mining Operations for any property that has
any portion of the area to be disturbed located in a geographic ultramafic rock unit; if a registered geologist has
conducted a geologic evaluation of the property and determined that no serpentine or ultramafic rock is likely to be
found in the area to be disturbed. Before an exemption can be granted, the owner/operator must provide a copy of a
report detailing the geologic evaluation to the District for consideration. The District will approve or deny the
exemption within 90 days. An outline of the required geological evaluation is provided in the District handout
“ASBESTOS AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, QUARRYING, AND SURFACE
MINING OPERATIONS – Geological Evaluation Requirements.” See the APCD Website map:
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php
NOTE: A basic exemption evaluation fee of $172.00 will be charged.
APPLICANT MUST SIGN BELOW:
I request the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District grant this project exemption from the
requirements of the ATCM based on the attached geological evaluation.
Legal Declaration/Authorized Signature Date:
OFFICE USE ONLY - APCD Required Element – Geological Evaluation
Date Received: Date Reviewed: OIS Site #: OIS Project #:
APCD Staff: Approved
Not Approved
Comments:
H:\INFO\Forms\ENFORCEMENT\NOAC&GProjectForm&ExemptionRequest-2014.docx
Appendix C
Page 216 of 429
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Fees
Projects where Naturally Occurring Asbestos such as serpentine rock is likely to be found are subject to
the State Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations. Grading projects in the APCD planning area for serpentine rock will require
prior District approval of an exemption from the ATCM or an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
Effective August 1, 2011, the revised project review fees by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) are as follows:
Basic Fee Additional Fee
Geological
Evaluation
& Full
Exemption
Geological
Evaluation &
Conditional
Exemption
Geological
Evaluation &
one (1) acre
or less
Geological
Evaluation &
more than one
(1) acre
Dust Control
Plan Review
and Approval
Dust Control
Plan Review &
Approval with
Monitoring
Construction,
Grading, Roads,
Surface Mining,
& Quarrying in
Serpentine
$172.00 $230.00 $287.00 $287.00 $115.00 $230.00
Prior to any grading activities at your site, a geologic analysis may be necessary to determine if serpentine
rock is present. All subject project applicants should complete an exemption form or the Construction and
Grading Project form. These forms, maps, and additional information can be found on the District web
site at: www.slocleanair.org
In order to process the review of your project in the shortest time possible, please contact the District
immediately at 805-781-5912
Please note that any necessary San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District staff time or
resources expended to provide State regulation compliance determinations to any person, regardless of
permit status, may be charged at a rate which reflects labor costs as set by the Air Pollution Control Board
and actual costs incurred by the APCD.
Appendix C
Page 217 of 429
Page 218 of 429
Page 219 of 429
Page 220 of 429
Page 221 of 429
Page 222 of 429
Page 223 of 429
Page 224 of 429
Page 225 of 429
Page 226 of 429
Page 227 of 429
Page 228 of 429
Page 229 of 429
Page 230 of 429
Page 231 of 429
Page 232 of 429
Page 233 of 429
Page 234 of 429
Page 235 of 429
Page 236 of 429
Page 237 of 429
Page 238 of 429
Page 239 of 429
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Page 240 of 429
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Page 241 of 429
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Page 242 of 429
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Page 243 of 429
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Page 244 of 429
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Page 245 of 429
Appendix G
Page 246 of 429
Appendix G
Page 247 of 429
Appendix G
Page 248 of 429
Appendix G
Page 249 of 429
Appendix G
Page 250 of 429
Appendix G
Page 251 of 429
Appendix G
Page 252 of 429
Appendix G
Page 253 of 429
Appendix G
Page 254 of 429
Appendix G
Page 255 of 429
Appendix G
Page 256 of 429
Appendix G
Page 257 of 429
Appendix G
Page 258 of 429
Appendix G
Page 259 of 429
Appendix G
Page 260 of 429
Appendix G
Page 261 of 429
Appendix G
Page 262 of 429
Appendix G
Page 263 of 429
Appendix G
Page 264 of 429
Appendix H
Page 265 of 429
Appendix H
Page 266 of 429
Appendix H
Page 267 of 429
Appendix H
Page 268 of 429
Appendix H
Page 269 of 429
Appendix H
Page 270 of 429
Appendix H
Page 271 of 429
Appendix H
Page 272 of 429
Appendix H
Page 273 of 429
Appendix H
Page 274 of 429
Appendix H
Page 275 of 429
669 Pacific Street l Suite A l San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 l p. 805.242.0461 l omnimeans.com
Napa l Redding l Roseville l San Luis Obispo l Visalia l Walnut Creek
DRAFT Technical Memorandum
I. Introduction
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to summarize evaluation of the access to the
proposed Motel Inn project located at 2223 Monterey Street and present concept designs for
consideration. The proposed project includes 52 "bungalow" rooms and a 25-space RV area
and is located in the north portion of the City of San Luis Obispo. Figure 1 identifies the project
study area located at the north end of Monterey Street adjacent to the US Route 101
northbound onramp. The proposed project site has one access to Monterey Street adjacent to
where the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps begin. There are several other existing hotels
and restaurants in the area with their primary driveway accesses on Monterey Street.
Figure 1: Project Study Area
To: City of San Luis Obispo Date: November 6, 2015
Attn: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager Project: 2223 Monterey Street Motel Inn
Access Study
From: Nate Stong, P.E. Job No.: 65-6457-09 (12)
Re: Operations Analysis File No.: C2093MEM001.DOCX
CC:
Page 276 of 429
November 6, 2015
2
This memorandum summarizes an evaluation which includes a review of available sight
distance, vehicle speeds, collision history, traffic volumes, traffic operations and the existing and
proposed geometry of the street, US 101 ramps, and driveways near the project entrance.
II. Background
Due to the anticipated increase in traffic volumes generated by the proposed use and an
existing access at a location with limited sight distance, the City of San Luis Obispo (approving
agency) and Caltrans (reviewing agency) have initiated this study to evaluate the existing
access and make recommendations for the proposed access to meet current road design
standards.
Prior to the latest submittal, a meeting between Caltrans, the City, the applicant and the
applicant's engineer Hatch Mott MacDonald was held on June 10, 2014.
A second meeting was held on October 30, 2015 at the Caltrans District 5 Office to review prior
work on the project, refine the design issues and criteria regarding the access for the Motel Inn
project. The purpose of the meeting was to reach consensus on key issues and review draft
design concepts prepared by Omni-Means, while keeping in mind the overall multi-modal safety
for Monterey Street and U.S. 101. Between the two meetings, the following were identified as
key issues requiring analysis:
Lane and shoulder widths
Bicycle facilities (Class III on Monterey St and on 101 from Monterey St to Hwy 58)
Sight distance
Design vehicle, turning templates (RVs)
Collision history
During the analysis of the above, the following design considerations were identified to be
evaluated in this report for Motel Inn's project access:
Relocate the Motel Inn access on Monterey Street as far as practical from the ramps;
Provide right-in, left-out only access to/from Monterey Street due to the limited sight
distance along the NB offramp and short length of the NB onramp;
Provide a raised median on Monterey Street and protected left turn refuge for vehicles
exiting the project site;
Construct curb and gutter to narrow the width of Monterey Street approaching and at the
project driveway, matching the width of Monterey Street to the south (8 foot shoulders)
and evaluate other potential traffic calming measures such as textured concrete
surfacing, bulb-outs, etc.; and
Evaluate the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street for all-way stop
control warrants.
Page 277 of 429
November 6, 2015
3
III. Existing Conditions
Monterey Street is a two-lane road with center two-way left turn lane, generally 45-feet in width
measured from curb to curb and classified as a minor arterial in the City's General Plan
Circulation Element. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street, except the sidewalk on
the west side of the street terminates just north of the La Quinta Hotel driveway prior to reaching
the NB offramp. at the On-street parking is generally permitted along the south side of Monterey
Street north of Buena Vista Avenue. Monterey Street is designated as a Class III bike route in
the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. US Route 101 is also a Class III bike route from
Monterey Street north to the Hwy 58 interchange in Santa Margarita. Class III bike routes are
not striped and bicycles share the road with vehicles.
Collision Data
Collision data was obtained for the preceding five-year period from the City's online collision
database (Crash Magic) for areas near the proposed project driveway: Monterey Street between
Buena Vista Avenue and the 101 NB ramps. Copies of the collision data are included in the
Appendix. No collisions were reported at Monterey Street and the 101 NB ramps. There were
two collisions reported at the intersection of Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue:
1. November 2013: Collision between two vehicles during the day resulting in "complaint of
pain."
2. December 2013: Collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian. A vehicle struck a
pedestrian using the crosswalk at night, causing "complaint of pain."
During the same period, there was 1 collision along Monterey Street between Buena Vista
Avenue and the 101 NB Ramps:
1. A broadside collision between a motorcycle turning left from the Apple Farm Inn and a
vehicle northeast-bound on Monterey Street. Severity of accident involved a “complaint
of pain”.
City staff also reviewed crash reports from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for the
time period of January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014. There were 6 accidents reported on NB
101 within the City limits; none of these were within the weaving section near the Monterey
Street ramps or on the ramps themselves.
Existing Condition Traffic Operations
Traffic volumes were obtained from City staff for peak hour turning movements on Monterey
Street and the hotel driveways near the ramps, and from the City's online GIS traffic website for
the street segments of Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue. Hourly counts are presented
in Table 3. The average daily traffic during 2012 (the most recent data available) on the NB
offramp to Monterey Street was 644 veh/day as reported by Caltrans. The average daily traffic
on the NB onramp for 2012 was 3,429 veh/day.
Specific quantitative traffic analyses have been conducted as part of this assessment utilizing
Syncho/Sim-Traffic 8.0 computer software, which is consistent with the latest version of the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The traffic analysis evaluated two intersections for
operating conditions with/without the proposed Hotel/RV Park. The intersections closest to the
Page 278 of 429
November 6, 2015
4
project site include Monterey Street/US 101 NB On Ramp and the US 101 NB On Ramp and
Apple Farm Driveways immediately to the south. The PM peak hour represents the highest
volumes at this location and is therefore the condition evaluated as the most conservative.
Table 1 summarizes the PM peak hour delay and LOS at each intersection for the existing
condition.
TABLE 1: PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
# Intersection
Control
Type
Existing
Delay LOS
1
Monterey Street/US 101 NB Ramps/
Project Driveway (Combined with Trellis
Court North Driveway)
Free/
OWSC 6.2 A
2 Monterey Street/US 101 NB Off Ramp/
Trellis Court South Driveway
Free/
OWSC 12.8 B
Note: Free = Free Flowing (No Control); OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled.
As shown above, the adjacent study intersections located off of Monterey Street currently
operate at acceptable LOS B conditions or better during the PM peak hour under Existing PM
Peak Hour scenarios. The Synchro/ Sim-Traffic reports are attached in the Appendix.
Approach Speeds
The posted speed limit on Monterey Street in the project area is 30 mph prior to the US 101
northbound ramps. A spot speed study was performed by City staff on October 14, 2015 on
Monterey Street between Buena Vista Avenue and 101 NB on-and off-ramps (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: City Spot Speed Survey Locations (radar vehicle shown in red)
Page 279 of 429
November 6, 2015
5
The study identified that the observed critical speed (85th percentile) was 40 mph in the
northeast-bound direction and 29 mph in the southwest-bound direction. Based on field
observation, the speeds are higher in the eastbound direction as vehicles accelerate prior to
reaching the northbound on-ramp. Many of the vehicles were observed to deviate from the
marked lane and drive within the median prior to the ramp to maintain speed.
Sight Distance
The critical speed of 30 mph for westbound Monterey Street results in a required stopping sight
distance of 200 feet (Caltrans HDM Table 201.1). In Figure 3, the sight triangle labeled as "1" is
the available stopping sight distance to the middle lane (145 feet). Since the available sight
distance is below the required stopping sight distance, a raised median is recommended as
depicted in Figures 3 through 6. The raised median would:
1. Prohibit left turns into the project driveway where insufficient sight distance is available
along the ramp itself, and
2. Provide a left-turn refuge and extend the merge point of vehicles exiting the project
driveway to a point where adequate sight distance is provided.
Based on a typical right-side mirror view angle of 20 degrees, the sight distance from merging
vehicles from the center lane should be provided the same 200 feet of sight distance to the
centerline of the off-ramp behind. This is represented by sight triangle 2 on Figure 3.
Although corner sight distance requirements are not applied to urban driveways (Caltrans HDM
405.1.2.d and 205.3), the available corner sight distance between left-turning vehicles out of the
project driveway and the northeast-bound vehicles on Monterey Street was nonetheless
evaluated as part of this study. The available sight distance was measured to be approximately
350' (sight triangle number "3"). The sight distance is limited by the profile of Monterey Street,
with a crest vertical curve located at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue. 350 feet provides
corner sight distance for a speed of approximately 37 mph. Driveways located south of the
project driveway have less sight distance since they are located closer to the crest of the curve.
Page 280 of 429
Page 281 of 429
November 6, 2015
7
Multi-Way Stop Control Analysis
This report also summarizes the evaluation of the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and
Monterey Street for all-way stop control.
Evaluation Criteria
Guidance provided in the publication California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways (MUTCD, 2014 Edition), Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications was
used as the basis for conducting this multi-way stop control installation engineering study for the
intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street. According to the MUTCD, the
following criteria should be considered when determining if the installation of multi-way stop
control is warranted at an intersection:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can
be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation
of the traffic control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a
multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as
right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of
both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average
day, and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from
the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per
hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at
least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph, the minimum
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Item 1 and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1 and C.2 are all satisfied to 80
percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Analysis
A. Traffic Signal Warrants
Applicable traffic signal warrants provided in the MUTCD, CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES, Section 4C.02 through Section 4C.10 were reviewed for the study
intersection.
Based on the provided warrants and data, traffic signals are not currently warranted at the study
intersection. Therefore, the installation of a multi-way stop would not represent an interim
measure.
B. Accident History
A review of the recent available 5-year accident information indicates that there were two
reported accidents at the Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street intersection. Since the
minimum number of accidents required to meet this warrant is five within a 12 month period, the
installation of a multi-way stop would not be warranted.
Page 282 of 429
November 6, 2015
8
C. Minimum Volume and Delay
The data presented in Table 3 indicates that the AM peak 1-hour occurred between 8:00 – 9:00
AM with the PM peak 1-hour between 5:00 – 6:00 PM. Table 2 also shows the hourly totals
along Buena Vista Avenue and Monterey Street a comparison of them to the respective
minimum vehicular volumes. The minimum vehicular volume is 300 vehicles per hour on the
combined major street approaches (Monterey Street) and 200 veh/hr on the combined minor
street approaches (Buena Vista Avenue).
TABLE 2
MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT ANALYSIS
Hour of
the Day
Major Street Minor Street
Monterey Street Buena Vista Avenue
Traffic
Volumes
(veh/hr)
Minimum
Volume
Warrant
(veh/hr)
Traffic
Volumes
(veh/hr)
Minimum
Volume
Warrant
(veh/hr)
7:00 AM 613 300 299 200
8:00 AM 657 300 481 200
9:00 AM 427 300 265 200
10:00 AM 427 300 204 200
11:00 AM 432 300 245 200
12:00 PM 472 300 216 200
1:00 PM 480 300 231 200
2:00 PM 543 300 218 200
3:00 PM 591 300 244 200
4:00 PM 760 300 248 200
5:00 PM 867 300 274 200
6:00 PM 494 300 220 200
NB – Northbound, SB – Southbound, EB – Eastbound, WB – Westbound
As shown above, the minimum vehicular volume condition is met for more than the required 8
hours. However, an analysis of the delay using HCS 2010 indicates that the minor street does
not experience more than 30 seconds of delay during the peak hour therefore this warrant is not
met.
D. 80-Percent of the Minimum Values
Criteria B and C.1 are not satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Therefore, the study
intersection does not meet the guidance criteria for a multi-way stop control application at the
Buena Vista/ Monterey Street intersection.
Optional Criteria
Section 2B.07 of the MUTCD includes four other criteria that may be considered in an
engineering study to determine if the installation of multi-way stop control is warranted at an
intersection:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/ pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high
pedestrian volumes;
Page 283 of 429
November 6, 2015
9
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to
negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collectors (through) streets of similar design
and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational
characteristics of the intersection.
Analysis
A. Control Left-Turn Conflicts
Left-turn conflicts are not a significant issue at the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and
Monterey Street. There were no collisions reported between a left-turning vehicle and another
vehicle.
B. Control Vehicle/ Pedestrian Conflicts
The Buena Vista Avenue leg has high-visibility crosswalks and a pedestrian refuge island.
There is an uncontrolled marked crosswalk across Monterey Street that is properly signed and
marked. However, one of the collisions at this intersection was between a vehicle and a
pedestrian in the crosswalk at nighttime.
C. Sight Distance
The grade of Monterey Street near Buena Vista Avenue is gradual with a crest vertical curve at
Buena Vista Avenue. Adequate stopping sight distance is available on the approaches to the
intersection. There are no major obstructions limiting the corner sight distance between
Monterey Street and Buena Vista Avenue. The installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at
this intersection is not warranted based on sight distance requirements.
D. Intersection of Two Residential Collector Streets of Similar Design
Based on the City's General Plan, Monterey Street is an arterial, and Buena Vista Avenue is a
local street; therefore, this option did not apply.
Multi-Way Stop Analysis Conclusion
Based on the above warrant analysis, the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at Buena
Vista Avenue is not warranted and the installation of stop signs on Monterey Street at Buena
Vista Avenue is not recommended.
IV. Traffic Operations Analysis with Proposed Project
Trip Generation
The project proposes a 52-unit hotel with 25 RV parking spaces with hookups. Trip generation
was calculated by City staff using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition. The land uses selected were ITE Code 310 (Hotel) and ITE Code 416
(Campground/Recreational Vehicle Park), and the generation is based on total number of
occupied rooms and campsites, respectively. The total trips expected to be generated by this
project are summarized in Table 3.
Page 284 of 429
November 6, 2015
10
TABLE 3: WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Category Unit
Daily Trip
Rate/Unit
AM Peak Hour Rate/Unit PM Peak Hour Rate/Unit
Total In % Out % Total In % Out %
Hotel [ITE Code: 310] Per Occ.
Room 8.17 0.53 59% 41% 0.6 51% 49%
Campground/RV
Park [ITE Code: 416]
Per Occ.
Site 2.0 0.21 36% 64% 0.27 65% 35%
Description Quantity
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Total In Out Total In Out
Hotel [ITE Code:
310] 52 Rooms 425 28 17 11 32 16 16
Campground/RV
Park [ITE Code: 416] 25 Sites 50 5 2 3 7 5 2
Total Project Trips 475 33 19 14 39 21 18
Notes: Daily Trip Rates for Campground/RV Park not available; assumed 2.0/unit. Errors due to rounding may occur.
As shown in the table above, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 475 daily trips,
including 33 (19 in and 13 out) AM peak hour trips and 39 (21 in and 18 out) PM peak hour trips.
Existing Plus Project Traffic Operations
Specific quantitative traffic analyses have been conducted as part of this assessment utilizing
Syncho/Sim-Traffic 8.0 computer software, which is consistent with the latest version of the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010). The traffic analysis evaluated two intersections for
operating conditions with/without the proposed Hotel/RV Park. The intersections closest to the
project site include Monterey Street/US 101 NB On Ramp and the US 101 NB On Ramp and
Apple Farm Driveways immediately to the south. Table 4 summarizes the PM peak hour delay
and LOS at each intersection for the existing and existing plus project conditions. The "plus
project" condition limits the access to right-in, left-out to the project/Trellis Court north combined
driveway and the Trellis Court south driveway.
TABLE 4: PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WITH PROPOSED MOTEL INN
# Intersection
Control
Type
Existing Existing + Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1
Monterey Street/US 101 NB Ramps/
Project Driveway (Combined with Trellis
Court North Driveway)
Free/
OWSC 6.2 A 11.0 B
2 Monterey Street/US 101 NB Off Ramp/
Trellis Court South Driveway
Free/
OWSC 12.8 B 13.1 B
Note: Free = Free Flowing (No Control); OWSC = One-Way Stop-Controlled.
As shown above, the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS B
conditions or better, during the PM peak hour under Existing and Existing plus Project PM Peak
Hour scenarios. The Synchro/ Sim-Traffic reports are attached in the Appendix.
The multi-way stop warrant analysis for the Buena Vista Avenue/Monterey Street intersection
was recalculated using existing plus project volumes. As discussed under the existing condition,
the intersection meets volume warrants but not delay warrants. With the project, minor street
Page 285 of 429
November 6, 2015
11
delay is projected to remain below 30 seconds and therefore warrants are not me for multi-way
stop control at this location.
V. Geometric Analysis and Recommendations
Omni-Means developed a design concept for the proposed Motel Inn project driveway based on
the above analysis for Monterey Street and U.S. 101 which includes requirements and
recommendations from Caltrans and City staff. The geometric design is primarily based on the
design vehicle, sight distance requirements, and restricted turning movements. The
recommended geometric concept is illustrated on Figure 4.
Conflict Diagram
A conflict diagram is shown on Figure 5 for the movements in the vicinity of the project
driveway. With the proposed raised median and the prohibition of left-turns into two driveways,
the number of crossing conflicts is reduced.
Design Vehicle
The project includes motor home hookups and parking/camping spaces; therefore, a motor
home with attached trailer was selected as the design vehicle for the proposed improvements.
The concept driveway and center left-turn refuge was analyzed for this vehicle's turning
movements using AutoTurn software. Figure 6 displays the wheel path of an RV with trailer
exiting the project driveway.
Sight Distance
As described in a previous section, the sight distance for vehicles on the NB off-ramp to the
project driveway is restricted; therefore, a raised median recommended to provide a refuge for
left-turning vehicles (and cyclists) from the project driveway before merging with southwest-
bound traffic on Monterey Street. This median also prohibits left-turns into the site and nearby
driveways on Monterey Street, in order to provide adequate stopping sight distance from the NB
off-ramp to a vehicle which may be stopped in the through lane waiting to turn left. The median
length is determined by the required stopping sight distance for a vehicle in the center lane to
merge into the southwest-bound lane.
Access Considerations
Right turns from the project driveway onto the NB on-ramp are recommended to be prohibited
as the distance from the driveway along the ramp to the merge point of mainline US 101 does
not meet standards for freeway ramps. The addition of the proposed RV use by the project in
particular would present a safety concern due to the slower acceleration of RVs. It is
recommended to design the driveway flares to discourage right turns and align the driver toward
the center left-turn lane. It is recommended to mark the driveway with a left-turn arrow and
install signage prohibiting right turns from the driveway.
Lane and Shoulder Widths
The lane configuration in the existing and concept design condition is illustrated in the cross-
section shown on Figure 4. The concept design provides an extension of the 8 foot shoulder on
northeast-bound Monterey Street and continuing an 8-foot minimum shoulder on the onramp.
The concept design curvature of northeast-bound Monterey Street is designed according to the
Page 286 of 429
Alternative LayoutShared DrivewayBegin two-wayleft-turn laneRaised MedianEx. Sidewalk to RemainPage 287 of 429
Page 288 of 429
Page 289 of 429
November 6, 2015
15
Caltrans Highway Design Manual for the existing vehicle speeds of 40 miles per hour. It is
recommended to maintain the entry curve to the Northbound 101 on-ramp existing ramp curve
radius and design speed.
Alternative Concept
An alternative concept design is also shown on Figure 4 as dashed lines. This alternative would
provide extra width on the shoulder approaching the project driveway to provide room outside of
the through lane for decelerating vehicles turning right into the project driveway. This
configuration would also provide greater maneuverability for larger vehicles at the driveway due
to the orientation of the driveway facing in the direction of entering and exiting vehicles on
Monterey Street. However, during discussion with City and Caltrans staff is was agreed that
maintaining the existing urban street cross section of Monterey Street up to the driveway would
have the effect of calming traffic and therefore this alternative is not recommended but provided
for consideration.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
The concept developed would maintain the existing sidewalk along the south side of Monterey
Street to the Motel Inn project site in its current location. Pedestrian access would thereby be
maintained to/from the project site. It is not recommended however to provide a sidewalk along
the concept location of the curb and gutter as shown on Figure 4 since this would lead
pedestrians to the onramp.
Bicyclists travelling northeast on Monterey Street are provided an 8-foot shoulder where parking
is prohibited, and this shoulder is provided up to and continuing on the NB onramp to the US
101 Class III Cuesta Grade Bike Route. Although adequate width exists for a Class II bike lane,
it is not recommended to stripe the onramp as a bike lane but rather maintain the Class III bike
route which exists on the approach from Monterey Street and continuing on NB US 101.
Experienced bicyclists leaving the project site may act as a vehicle and utilize the protected left
and merge with southwest-bound Monterey Street traffic at the end of the raised median where
sufficient sight distance is provided. Less-experienced cyclists can walk their bike along the
sidewalk along the south side of Monterey Street to Buena Vista Avenue or a point where
crossing as a vehicle is comfortable for them.
Other Design Considerations
The conceptual plans developed do not include considerations for drainage or runoff. Survey
will also be required in order to determine the location of Caltrans and City rights of way and
adjacent property boundaries. Specific details for signage are not provided in this report and
should be developed by the project's engineer during design. It is finally recommended that the
vegetation along the inside curve of the NB offramp continue to be managed to maintain
adequate sight distance.
Page 290 of 429
November 6, 2015
16
Appendices
A. Project Site Plan
B. Hatch Mott MacDonald Memo dated 2014
C. Collision History & Data Sheets
D. City Traffic Counts
E. Speed Survey
F. Synchro/ Sim-Traffic Output Reports
(available upon request)
Page 291 of 429
Page 292 of 429
Page 293 of 429
Page 294 of 429
Page 295 of 429
Page 296 of 429
Page 297 of 429
Page 298 of 429
Page 299 of 429
Page 300 of 429
Page 301 of 429
Page 302 of 429
Page 303 of 429
Page 304 of 429
Page 305 of 429
Page 306 of 429
Page 307 of 429
Page 308 of 429
Page 309 of 429
Page 310 of 429
Page 311 of 429
Page 312 of 429
Page 313 of 429
Page 314 of 429
Page 315 of 429
Page 316 of 429
Page 317 of 429
Page 318 of 429
Page 319 of 429
ATTACHMENT 2
CalEEMod Results
Page 320 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
1 / 76
Motel Inn Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Page 321 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
2 / 76
3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
Page 322 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
3 / 76
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.3.1. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.4.1. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.5.1. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Page 323 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
4 / 76
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Page 324 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
5 / 76
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
Page 325 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
6 / 76
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
Page 326 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
7 / 76
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
Page 327 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
8 / 76
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Page 328 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
9 / 76
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Motel Inn
Construction Start Date 1/2/2024
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)3.20
Precipitation (days)32.4
Location 35.291592135538906, -120.64773025738626
County San Luis Obispo
City San Luis Obispo
Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3330
EDFZ 6
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.7
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Page 329 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
10 / 76
Hotel 27.0 Room 0.90 14,000 30,000 ——Parcel 3
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
Sector #Measure Title
Construction C-2*Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads
Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction
Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
Area Sources AS-2 Use Low-VOC Paints
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.48 21.8 12.0 11.2 0.02 0.54 5.46 6.00 0.50 2.61 3.11 —2,171 2,171 0.09 0.08 1.00 2,198
Mit.0.41 4.38 8.29 10.2 0.02 0.32 2.22 2.54 0.29 1.04 1.33 —2,171 2,171 0.09 0.08 1.00 2,198
%
Reduced
72%80%31%8%—40%59%58%42%60%57%———————
Page 330 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
11 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.47 1.23 12.0 11.2 0.02 0.54 5.46 6.00 0.50 2.61 3.11 —2,169 2,169 0.09 0.17 0.05 2,196
Mit.0.35 0.33 8.31 10.2 0.02 0.32 2.22 2.54 0.29 1.04 1.33 —2,169 2,169 0.09 0.17 0.05 2,196
%
Reduced
76%73%31%8%—40%59%58%42%60%57%———————
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.55 1.08 4.44 5.29 0.01 0.20 0.44 0.63 0.18 0.19 0.37 —1,029 1,029 0.04 0.02 0.14 1,038
Mit.0.19 0.27 4.59 5.82 0.01 0.18 0.20 0.38 0.16 0.08 0.25 —1,029 1,029 0.04 0.02 0.14 1,038
%
Reduced
66%75%-3%-10%—7%54%40%9%57%34%———————
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.10 0.20 0.81 0.97 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.07 —170 170 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 172
Mit.0.03 0.05 0.84 1.06 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 —170 170 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 172
%
Reduced
66%75%-3%-10%—7%54%40%9%57%34%———————
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 1.48 1.23 12.0 11.2 0.02 0.54 5.46 6.00 0.50 2.61 3.11 —2,171 2,171 0.09 0.08 1.00 2,198
2025 0.68 21.8 5.23 7.16 0.01 0.22 0.10 0.29 0.20 0.02 0.21 —1,392 1,392 0.06 0.02 0.45 1,400
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Page 331 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
12 / 76
2024 1.47 1.23 12.0 11.2 0.02 0.54 5.46 6.00 0.50 2.61 3.11 —2,169 2,169 0.09 0.17 0.05 2,196
2025 0.65 0.55 5.23 7.16 0.01 0.22 0.05 0.27 0.20 0.01 0.21 —1,391 1,391 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,398
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 0.55 0.46 4.44 5.29 0.01 0.20 0.44 0.63 0.18 0.19 0.37 —1,029 1,029 0.04 0.02 0.14 1,038
2025 0.23 1.08 1.79 2.43 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.07 —460 460 0.02 0.01 0.05 463
Annual ——————————————————
2024 0.10 0.08 0.81 0.97 < 0.005 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.07 —170 170 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 172
2025 0.04 0.20 0.33 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —76.2 76.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 76.6
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 0.36 0.33 8.29 10.2 0.02 0.32 2.22 2.54 0.29 1.04 1.33 —2,171 2,171 0.09 0.08 1.00 2,198
2025 0.41 4.38 6.46 8.32 0.01 0.25 0.10 0.32 0.23 0.02 0.24 —1,392 1,392 0.06 0.02 0.45 1,400
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2024 0.35 0.33 8.31 10.2 0.02 0.32 2.22 2.54 0.29 1.04 1.33 —2,169 2,169 0.09 0.17 0.05 2,196
2025 0.25 0.25 6.46 8.32 0.01 0.25 0.05 0.30 0.23 0.01 0.24 —1,391 1,391 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,398
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2024 0.19 0.18 4.59 5.82 0.01 0.18 0.20 0.38 0.16 0.08 0.25 —1,029 1,029 0.04 0.02 0.14 1,038
2025 0.09 0.27 2.19 2.78 < 0.005 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.08 < 0.005 0.08 —460 460 0.02 0.01 0.05 463
Annual ——————————————————
2024 0.03 0.03 0.84 1.06 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 —170 170 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 172
Page 332 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
13 / 76
2025 0.02 0.05 0.40 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 —76.2 76.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 76.6
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.06 1.39 0.54 3.97 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 9.28 738 747 1.00 0.04 24.0 808
Mit.1.06 1.32 0.54 3.97 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 5.14 737 743 0.58 0.04 24.0 793
%
Reduced
—5%—————————45%< 0.5%1%42%——2%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.93 1.27 0.57 3.65 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 9.28 719 729 1.00 0.04 21.9 788
Mit.0.93 1.20 0.57 3.65 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 5.14 719 724 0.59 0.04 21.9 773
%
Reduced
—6%—————————45%< 0.5%1%41%——2%
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.02 1.36 0.57 4.07 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 9.28 724 733 1.00 0.04 22.8 794
Mit.1.02 1.28 0.57 4.07 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 5.14 724 729 0.59 0.04 22.8 779
%
Reduced
—5%—————————45%< 0.5%1%41%——2%
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.19 0.25 0.10 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 1.54 120 121 0.17 0.01 3.77 131
Mit.0.19 0.23 0.10 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.85 120 121 0.10 0.01 3.77 129
Page 333 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
14 / 76
2%—1%41%1%< 0.5%45%—————————5%—%
Reduced
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.94 0.90 0.43 3.28 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —568 568 0.05 0.04 2.08 582
Area 0.11 0.49 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.51
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —164 164 0.02 < 0.005 —165
Water ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Waste ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Refrig.————————————————21.9 21.9
Total 1.06 1.39 0.54 3.97 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 9.28 738 747 1.00 0.04 24.0 808
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.92 0.88 0.47 3.56 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —552 552 0.05 0.04 0.05 565
Area —0.39 ————————————————
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —164 164 0.02 < 0.005 —165
Water ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Waste ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Refrig.————————————————21.9 21.9
Total 0.93 1.27 0.57 3.65 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 9.28 719 729 1.00 0.04 21.9 788
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 0.91 0.87 0.47 3.44 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —555 555 0.05 0.04 0.90 568
Page 334 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
15 / 76
Area 0.10 0.48 < 0.005 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.26 2.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.27
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —164 164 0.02 < 0.005 —165
Water ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Waste ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Refrig.————————————————21.9 21.9
Total 1.02 1.36 0.57 4.07 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 9.28 724 733 1.00 0.04 22.8 794
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.8 91.8 0.01 0.01 0.15 94.0
Area 0.02 0.09 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.3
Water ———————————0.22 0.49 0.71 0.02 < 0.005 —1.43
Waste ———————————1.32 0.00 1.32 0.13 0.00 —4.61
Refrig.————————————————3.62 3.62
Total 0.19 0.25 0.10 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 1.54 120 121 0.17 0.01 3.77 131
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.94 0.90 0.43 3.28 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —568 568 0.05 0.04 2.08 582
Area 0.11 0.42 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.51
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —164 164 0.02 < 0.005 —165
Water ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Waste ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Refrig.————————————————21.9 21.9
Total 1.06 1.32 0.54 3.97 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 5.14 737 743 0.58 0.04 24.0 793Page 335 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
16 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.92 0.88 0.47 3.56 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —552 552 0.05 0.04 0.05 565
Area —0.32 ————————————————
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —164 164 0.02 < 0.005 —165
Water ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Waste ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Refrig.————————————————21.9 21.9
Total 0.93 1.20 0.57 3.65 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 5.14 719 724 0.59 0.04 21.9 773
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 0.91 0.87 0.47 3.44 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —555 555 0.05 0.04 0.90 568
Area 0.10 0.41 < 0.005 0.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.26 2.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.27
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —164 164 0.02 < 0.005 —165
Water ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Waste ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Refrig.————————————————21.9 21.9
Total 1.02 1.28 0.57 4.07 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.05 5.14 724 729 0.59 0.04 22.8 779
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.8 91.8 0.01 0.01 0.15 94.0
Area 0.02 0.07 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.3
Water ———————————0.19 0.45 0.64 0.02 < 0.005 —1.27
Waste ———————————0.66 0.00 0.66 0.07 0.00 —2.31
Refrig.————————————————3.62 3.62
Total 0.19 0.23 0.10 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.85 120 121 0.10 0.01 3.77 129
Page 336 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
17 / 76
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.61 0.51 4.69 5.79 0.01 0.19 —0.19 0.17 —0.17 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855
Demolitio
n
——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.39 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.01 —0.01 —70.0 70.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —70.3
Demolitio
n
——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.6
Demolitio
n
——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ———————
Page 337 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
18 / 76
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite
truck
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —59.5 59.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 60.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.93 4.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.01
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.83
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Page 338 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
19 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
0.20 0.20 4.97 5.63 0.01 0.24 —0.24 0.22 —0.22 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855
Demolitio
n
——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.41 0.46 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —70.0 70.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —70.3
Demolitio
n
——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.6
Demolitio
n
——————0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —59.5 59.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 60.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 339 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
20 / 76
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.93 4.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.01
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.83
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.60 0.50 4.60 5.56 0.01 0.24 —0.24 0.22 —0.22 —858 858 0.03 0.01 —861
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.54 0.54 —0.06 0.06 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Page 340 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
21 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.19 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.4
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.02 0.02 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.84 5.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —29.8 29.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.50 0.48 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.27 0.02 0.07 0.09 —1,018 1,018 0.05 0.16 0.05 1,068
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.23 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —41.8 41.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 43.9
Annual ——————————————————
Page 341 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
22 / 76
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.93 6.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.27
3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.15 3.98 5.99 0.01 0.18 —0.18 0.16 —0.16 —858 858 0.03 0.01 —861
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.21 0.21 —0.02 0.02 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.16 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.4
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————Page 342 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
23 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.84 5.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —29.8 29.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.07 0.02 1.50 0.48 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.27 0.02 0.07 0.09 —1,018 1,018 0.05 0.16 0.05 1,068
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.23 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —41.8 41.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 43.9
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —6.93 6.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.27
3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2ePage 343 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
24 / 76
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.41 1.19 11.4 10.7 0.02 0.53 —0.53 0.49 —0.49 —1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 —1,719
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————5.32 5.32 —2.57 2.57 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.41 1.19 11.4 10.7 0.02 0.53 —0.53 0.49 —0.49 —1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 —1,719
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————5.32 5.32 —2.57 2.57 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.10 0.08 0.78 0.73 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.03 —0.03 —117 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 —118
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.36 0.36 —0.18 0.18 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Page 344 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
25 / 76
19.5—< 0.005< 0.00519.419.4—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.130.140.010.02Off-Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.07 0.07 —0.03 0.03 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —46.6 46.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 47.5
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.59 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 —411 411 0.02 0.06 0.79 432
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —44.6 44.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 45.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.61 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 —411 411 0.02 0.06 0.02 431
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.13
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 29.6
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.66 4.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.89
Page 345 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
26 / 76
3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.29 0.29 7.68 9.79 0.02 0.32 —0.32 0.28 —0.28 —1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 —1,719
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.07 2.07 —1.00 1.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.29 0.29 7.68 9.79 0.02 0.32 —0.32 0.28 —0.28 —1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 —1,719
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.07 2.07 —1.00 1.00 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.53 0.67 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —117 117 < 0.005 < 0.005 —118
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.14 0.14 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Page 346 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
27 / 76
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —19.4 19.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.5
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —46.6 46.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 47.5
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.59 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 —411 411 0.02 0.06 0.79 432
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —44.6 44.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 45.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.61 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.04 —411 411 0.02 0.06 0.02 431
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.13
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 29.6
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Page 347 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
28 / 76
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.66 4.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.89
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.67 0.56 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 —0.26 0.23 —0.23 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.67 0.56 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 —0.26 0.23 —0.23 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.35 0.29 2.92 3.65 0.01 0.13 —0.13 0.12 —0.12 —682 682 0.03 0.01 —684
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.53 0.67 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 —113
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————Page 348 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
29 / 76
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —36.5 36.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 37.2
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 54.9
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —35.0 35.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 35.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 54.8
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.4 18.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 18.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.05 3.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.10
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.54 4.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.75
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Page 349 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
30 / 76
1,309—0.010.051,3051,305—0.23—0.230.25—0.250.018.106.370.220.22Off-Road
Equipment
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 0.22 6.37 8.10 0.01 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.12 3.33 4.23 0.01 0.13 —0.13 0.12 —0.12 —682 682 0.03 0.01 —684
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.61 0.77 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 —113
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —36.5 36.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 37.2
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 54.9
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —35.0 35.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 35.5
Page 350 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
31 / 76
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 54.8
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —18.4 18.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 18.7
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —27.4 27.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 28.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.05 3.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.10
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.54 4.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.75
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 351 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
32 / 76
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.19 0.16 1.54 2.08 < 0.005 0.07 —0.07 0.06 —0.06 —391 391 0.02 < 0.005 —392
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.28 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —64.7 64.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —64.9
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —35.8 35.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 36.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —51.5 51.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 54.0
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —34.4 34.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.9
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —51.6 51.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 53.9
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.2
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.71 1.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.74
Page 352 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
33 / 76
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.56 2.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.67
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 0.22 6.37 8.10 0.01 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.22 0.22 6.37 8.10 0.01 0.25 —0.25 0.23 —0.23 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.07 1.91 2.43 < 0.005 0.08 —0.08 0.07 —0.07 —391 391 0.02 < 0.005 —392
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.35 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —64.7 64.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —64.9
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 353 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
34 / 76
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —35.8 35.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 36.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —51.5 51.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 54.0
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 —34.4 34.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.9
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —51.6 51.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 53.9
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.2
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.71 1.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.74
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.56 2.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.67
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Page 354 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
35 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment
0.61 0.51 4.37 5.31 0.01 0.19 —0.19 0.18 —0.18 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826
Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.18 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —34.0
Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.62
Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 —107 107 0.01 < 0.005 0.45 109
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Page 355 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
36 / 76
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.23 4.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.30
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.34 0.30 4.97 5.55 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826
Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.20 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —33.8 33.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —34.0
Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 356 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
37 / 76
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.60 5.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.62
Paving —0.00 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 —107 107 0.01 < 0.005 0.45 109
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.23 4.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.30
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————Page 357 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
38 / 76
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coatings
—21.6 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.51
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.89 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.91
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.16 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.17 7.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 7.30Page 358 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
39 / 76
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 —0.07 0.06 —0.06 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134
Architect
ural
Coatings
—4.33 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 359 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
40 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.49 5.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.51
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.18 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.91
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.03 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.17 7.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 7.30
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29
Page 360 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
41 / 76
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.94 0.90 0.43 3.28 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —568 568 0.05 0.04 2.08 582
Total 0.94 0.90 0.43 3.28 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —568 568 0.05 0.04 2.08 582
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.92 0.88 0.47 3.56 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —552 552 0.05 0.04 0.05 565
Total 0.92 0.88 0.47 3.56 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —552 552 0.05 0.04 0.05 565
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.8 91.8 0.01 0.01 0.15 94.0
Total 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.8 91.8 0.01 0.01 0.15 94.0
Page 361 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
42 / 76
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.94 0.90 0.43 3.28 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —568 568 0.05 0.04 2.08 582
Total 0.94 0.90 0.43 3.28 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —568 568 0.05 0.04 2.08 582
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.92 0.88 0.47 3.56 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —552 552 0.05 0.04 0.05 565
Total 0.92 0.88 0.47 3.56 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.04 —552 552 0.05 0.04 0.05 565
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.8 91.8 0.01 0.01 0.15 94.0
Total 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —91.8 91.8 0.01 0.01 0.15 94.0
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Total ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Page 362 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
43 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Hotel ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Total ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ————————————8.00 8.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.08
Total ————————————8.00 8.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.08
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Total ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Total ————————————48.3 48.3 0.01 < 0.005 —48.8
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ————————————8.00 8.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.08
Total ————————————8.00 8.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.08
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Page 363 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
44 / 76
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand
Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.2
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.2
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —116 116 0.01 < 0.005 —116
Annual ——————————————————Page 364 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
45 / 76
Hotel < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.2
Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —19.2
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.30 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.09 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.11 0.10 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.51
Total 0.11 0.49 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.51
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.30 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.09 ————————————————
Total —0.39 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Page 365 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
46 / 76
Consum
Products
—0.05 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.02 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38
Total 0.02 0.09 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38
4.3.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.30 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.02 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.11 0.10 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.51
Total 0.11 0.42 0.01 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.51
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.30 ————————————————
Page 366 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
47 / 76
Architect
Coatings
—0.02 ————————————————
Total —0.32 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.05 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—< 0.005 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38
Total 0.02 0.07 < 0.005 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.38
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Total ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Total ———————————1.31 2.95 4.26 0.14 < 0.005 —8.61
Page 367 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
48 / 76
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ———————————0.22 0.49 0.71 0.02 < 0.005 —1.43
Total ———————————0.22 0.49 0.71 0.02 < 0.005 —1.43
4.4.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Total ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Total ———————————1.16 2.71 3.86 0.12 < 0.005 —7.70
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ———————————0.19 0.45 0.64 0.02 < 0.005 —1.27
Total ———————————0.19 0.45 0.64 0.02 < 0.005 —1.27
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Page 368 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
49 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Hotel ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Total ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Total ———————————7.97 0.00 7.97 0.80 0.00 —27.9
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ———————————1.32 0.00 1.32 0.13 0.00 —4.61
Total ———————————1.32 0.00 1.32 0.13 0.00 —4.61
4.5.1. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Total ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Total ———————————3.98 0.00 3.98 0.40 0.00 —13.9
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ———————————0.66 0.00 0.66 0.07 0.00 —2.31
Total ———————————0.66 0.00 0.66 0.07 0.00 —2.31Page 369 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
50 / 76
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ————————————————21.9 21.9
Total ————————————————21.9 21.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ————————————————21.9 21.9
Total ————————————————21.9 21.9
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ————————————————3.62 3.62
Total ————————————————3.62 3.62
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel ————————————————21.9 21.9
Total ————————————————21.9 21.9
Page 370 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
51 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Hotel ————————————————21.9 21.9
Total ————————————————21.9 21.9
Annual ——————————————————
Hotel ————————————————3.62 3.62
Total ————————————————3.62 3.62
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Page 371 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
52 / 76
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipme
nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Page 372 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
53 / 76
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Page 373 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
54 / 76
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Page 374 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
55 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Page 375 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
56 / 76
Sequest ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
Page 376 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
57 / 76
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)Page 377 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
58 / 76
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————Page 378 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
59 / 76
Remove ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Demolition/Grubbing Demolition 1/2/2024 2/12/2024 5.00 30.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/13/2024 3/4/2024 5.00 15.0 —
Grading Grading 3/5/2024 4/8/2024 5.00 25.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/9/2024 6/2/2025 5.00 300 —
Paving Paving 6/3/2025 6/23/2025 5.00 15.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/24/2025 7/14/2025 5.00 15.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition/Grubbing Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition/Grubbing Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40
Demolition/Grubbing Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41Page 379 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
60 / 76
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Demolition/Grubbing Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition/Grubbing Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 1.00 367 0.40
Demolition/Grubbing Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 367 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 367 0.29
Page 380 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
61 / 76
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 3 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition/Grubbing ————
Demolition/Grubbing Worker 10.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition/Grubbing Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition/Grubbing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition/Grubbing Onsite truck ——HHDT
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 13.7 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 7.50 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Page 381 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
62 / 76
Grading Hauling 5.52 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 5.88 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.29 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 17.5 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 1.18 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Demolition/Grubbing ————
Demolition/Grubbing Worker 10.0 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition/Grubbing Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition/Grubbing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition/Grubbing Onsite truck ——HHDT
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Page 382 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
63 / 76
Site Preparation Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 13.7 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT
Grading ————
Grading Worker 7.50 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 5.52 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 5.88 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.29 6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 17.5 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 1.18 8.10 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor —6.90 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.Page 383 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
64 / 76
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 21,000 7,000 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition/Grubbing 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Site Preparation —1,640 7.50 0.00 —
Grading 1,100 —18.8 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
Hotel 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
Page 384 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
65 / 76
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Hotel 216 216 216 78,840 644 644 644 234,982
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Hotel 216 216 216 78,840 644 644 644 234,982
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 21,000 7,000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 330
Page 385 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
66 / 76
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 330
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Hotel 86,456 204 0.0330 0.0040 361,574
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Hotel 86,456 204 0.0330 0.0040 361,574
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Hotel 684,903 406,935
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Hotel 604,016 406,935
Page 386 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
67 / 76
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 14.78 0.00
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 7.39 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Page 387 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
68 / 76
20.07.507.50< 0.0053,922R-404AHotelWalk-in refrigerators
and freezers
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
——
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
Page 388 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
69 / 76
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Page 389 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
70 / 76
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 6.73 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 7.35 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 50.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different
increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.Page 390 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
71 / 76
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 14.9
AQ-PM 9.68
AQ-DPM 28.8 Page 391 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
72 / 76
Drinking Water 76.1
Lead Risk Housing 47.1
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 12.8
Traffic 64.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 86.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 57.5
Impaired Water Bodies 58.7
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 37.3
Cardio-vascular 14.4
Low Birth Weights 12.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 2.30
Housing 90.4
Linguistic 20.6
Poverty 71.7
Unemployment 0.91
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 25.63839343
Page 392 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
73 / 76
Employed 23.52110869
Median HI 32.31104838
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 85.82060824
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 95.7141024
Transportation —
Auto Access 63.41588605
Active commuting 88.56666239
Social —
2-parent households 92.89105608
Voting 77.14615681
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 35.06993456
Park access 38.09829334
Retail density 37.31553959
Supermarket access 62.9026049
Tree canopy 79.64840241
Housing —
Homeownership 23.13614782
Housing habitability 43.03862441
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 88.99011934
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 9.213396638
Uncrowded housing 62.10701912
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 82.56127294
Arthritis 0.0
Page 393 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
74 / 76
Asthma ER Admissions 73.1
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin)0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 73.0
Cognitively Disabled 91.4
Physically Disabled 97.3
Heart Attack ER Admissions 81.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 3.7
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 95.0
Elderly 77.3
English Speaking 98.1
Page 394 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
75 / 76
Foreign-born 5.3
Outdoor Workers 83.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 83.6
Traffic Density 42.8
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 45.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 87.2
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)23.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)71.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)Yes
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.Page 395 of 429
Motel Inn Detailed Report, 4/11/2023
76 / 76
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on project information.
Construction: Construction Phases Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2024 and extend approximately 20 months. Phasing is
unknown, default phase length was lengthened to approximately 20 months.
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the traffic report, the 27 rooms of Parcel 3 will experience a trip rate of 8 trips/day/room
totaling 216 daily trips. VMT is unknown and is left as default.
Page 396 of 429
ATTACHMENT 3
CNDDB Species List
Page 397 of 429
Page 398 of 429
Page 399 of 429
Page 400 of 429
Page 401 of 429
Page 402 of 429
Page 403 of 429
Page 404 of 429
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 405 of 429
Page 406 of 429
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 407 of 429
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 408 of 429
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 409 of 429
Page 410 of 429
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A SAFE PARKING PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATOR PERMIT TO OPERATE A ROTATING SAFE PARKING PROGRAM
THAT PROVIDES INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS A
SAFE PLACE TO TEMPORARILY PARK A VEHICLE OVERNIGHT TO FACILITATE
THE TRANSITION
By: Daisy Wiberg, Homelessness Via: Kyle Bell, Housing Coordinator
Response Manager Phone Number: 805-781-7524
Phone Number: 805-781-7025 Email: kbell@slocity.org
Email: dwiberg@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: USE-0304-2023 FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) approving the project, based on findings and
subject to conditions of approval.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General
Plan, Zoning Regulations, Homelessness Response Strategic Plan, and applicable City
development standards. Planning Commission (PC) review is required to establish a
Safe Parking Program Administrator through a Conditional Use Permit to operate a
Rotating Safe Parking Program in various locations throughout the community, in
accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 17.86 (USE-0304-2023).
2.0 SUMMARY
The Railroad Safe Parking Program was initially established under the City’s Emergency
Proclamation to provide safe shelter options for individuals and families experiencing
homelessness during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Community Action Partnership of San
Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) has applied for a Safe Parking Program Administrator
Permit to replace the Railroad Safe Parking Program with a Rotating Safe Parking
Program that will provide safe parking on various sites throughout the community.
CAPSLO is in the process of working with the City and property owners to identify various
locations that can accommodate the Rotating Safe Parking Program. The program as
proposed would allow safe parking on a more temporary basis for an eligible property,
which would further minimize disruptions of operations on any one particular site . The
program has been modeled after the Safe Overnight Parking Program in Santa Barbara
and Goleta that is managed by New Beginnings.
This Conditional Use Permit is intended to establish CAPSLO as a Safe Parking Program
Administrator to oversee Safe Parking facilities at various locations throughout the
Meeting Date: 7/12/2023
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 20 Minutes
Page 411 of 429
Item 4b
USE-0304-2023 – CAPSLO Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
community. New locations added to the program will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
through a Director’s Action Permit that will ensure that the location is consistent with
Municipal Code Chapter 17.10 Table 2 -1 (Uses Allowed by Zone) and Chapter 17.86
(Safe Parking Regulations).
3.0 BACKGROUND
On August 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11149 (2020 Series)
affirming the actions of the Emergency Services Director by Emergency Services Director
Proclamation No. 5, which was adopted on August 7, 2020. Through the two actions, the
City found that emergency measures were necessary to support and facilitate the
expansion of safe parking facilities for unhoused persons in order to minimize exposure
to the elements that compromise health, to minimize risks of sustained close contact and
congregation to mitigate transmission of COVID-19, and to advance social distancing and
personal hygiene protocols necessary to prevent or minimize the spread of COVID-19
and protect the public health, safety, welfare and economic security of the citizens of San
Luis Obispo.
The Safe Parking Program at the Railroad site was initially established under the City’s
Emergency Proclamation to provide safe shelter options for individuals and families
experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
On July 6, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11264 (2021 Series) which
consolidated and aligned prior Council emergency actions with revised state orders, and
continued prior actions to support continued protections for public health, safety and
welfare, as well as economic recovery. Resolution No. 11264 continued the suspension
of Municipal Code Chapter 17.86 (Safe Parking Regulations) until 180 days following the
end of the declared City, County and State emergency declarations. Section 7.C of the
Resolution describes the Community Development Director’s authority to immediately
allow for the establishment and operation of new Safe Parking locations by the City or a
third-party non-profit partner.
The safe parking program has proved highly effective in allowing providers to minimize
barriers and provide flexibility to quickly expand services to connect unhoused persons
to services and move into shelters or housing in a timely manner responsive to diverse
needs. The Director explored the option to establish the Safe Parking program at the
current Railroad site, however, upon further review with community members in proximity
to the site, participants of the program, and operators of the Union Pacific Railroad, it was
determined that other locations in the community may be more viable.
4.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
In consideration of closing the Railroad Safe Parking site, the City has been working in
partnership with CAPSLO to locate new opportunities in the community to provide for the
continued service of the safe parking program. Some of the locations that are under
consideration include partnerships with existing religious facilities, private landowners,
City owned properties, and even temporary street closures. After several months of
Page 412 of 429
Item 4b
USE-0304-2023 – CAPSLO Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
searching and working towards identifying viable locations, a best practice used
throughout the state was identified that allows for a rotating model of the program at which
multiple locations could provide for Safe Parking on a more temporary basis which would
further minimize disruptions of operations on any one particular site. For example, in the
event that 12 locations are identified, the program would be able to rotate locations for
safe parking once a month, and each location would then only need to provide space for
the program on their property for one month each year.
CAPSLO has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to become a Safe Parking Program
Administrator that is intended to streamline the process in site selection for operating the
program on various sites throughout the community under a rotating model. The proposed
program would provide for CAPSLO to continue discussions with various property owners
in the community to join the list in providing safe parking opportunities. CAPSLO would
remain as the primary operator of the Safe Parking program at each location (Attachment
B, Program Description).
The Program Description identifies the parameters of the program and establishes a
process for when new locations are added to the rotation. When a new location is
identified by CAPSLO to be eligible for Safe Parking, CAPSLO will submit a Director’s
Action Permit to be reviewed by the Community Development Director in consideration
of the new location for consistency with the Safe Parking Regulations. Each location shall
comply with all Performance Standards as identified under Section 17.86.230(E)
(Attachment C, Safe Parking Program Rules). However, the Director’s Action Permit may
establish operating conditions that may be unique to the location to ensure compatibility
with surrounding uses or activities. Locations may be removed from the list at any time.
This Conditional Use Permit (or Safe Parking Administrator Permit) would allow an
approved framework for an effective safe parking program to continue operation in
alignment with the City’s Homelessness Response Strategic Plan described further below
and approved by City Council in March 2023 in response to the homelessness crisis.
4.1 Safe Parking Program Data
The current Railroad Safe Parking Program has proven to be a viable safe parking model,
demonstrated through the following successful outcomes. From September 1, 2022,
through June 1, 2023, the program has averaged 15 vehicles per night, serving an
average of 32 unique individuals every two weeks. Over that time period, the program
has facilitated 27 successful housing outcomes and CAPSLO staff have helped reunify
three participants with families and assisted seven clients with finding jobs. In the month
of May 2023 alone, CAPSLO staff assisted five clients with securing permanent housing.
The Safe Parking Program not only meets the immediate and tangible need of providing
a safe place for unhoused individuals to park overnight, but it also provides a consistent
opportunity for CAPSLO to conduct outreach, provide case management support, and
connect individuals with needed resources.
Page 413 of 429
Item 4b
USE-0304-2023 – CAPSLO Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed program must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning
Regulations and Engineering Standards. Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency
with relevant requirements and has found it to be in substantial compliance, as discussed
in this analysis.
5.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element Table 1 identifies Homeless Shelters and similar
services as appropriate within the Public Land Use Designation. Housing Element Policy
8.10 encourages the City to assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless
by supporting shelters, temporary housing, and transitional housing. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Policies because it provides a form of transitional shelter
for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless.
City policies further support homeless services and transitional housing opportunities,
especially those located close to major transit, bike, and pedestrian corridors.
5.2 Homelessness Response Strategic Plan
The City has established preventing and addressing homelessness as a key priority in
alignment with its Major City Goal for Housing and Homelessness and the SLO
Countywide Plan to Address Homelessness. According to Point in Time Count Data, the
average number of people experiencing homelessness in the City of San Luis Obispo has
fluctuated between 482 and 385 since 2015. Of those experiencing homelessness in the
City, an average of 37% have been unsheltered, meaning that they reside in places not
meant for human habitation including public spaces, vehicles, and abandoned buildings.
On March 21, 2023, the City Council adopted the Homelessness Response Strategic
Plan, which outlines the City’s role in implementing strategies to prevent homelessness
and connect individuals experiencing homelessness to services and housing. One of the
goals outlined in the Strategic Plan reads as follows:
“Collaborate with the County to develop scalable and replicable programs
to connect those experiencing homelessness to a variety of shelter and
housing options through timely outreach, and advocate for County
implementation of successful programs.”
The Safe Parking Program was specifically identified as a key task under the Strategic
Plan with the intent of working with the faith-based community to develop safe parking
options throughout the community. The proposed Safe Parking Program Administrator
Permit is intended to implement the objectives under the Strategic Plan.
5.3 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
In accordance with Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.10. Table 2-1 (Uses Allowed by Zone),
safe parking activities are conditionally allowed subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This
Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit will serve as the Conditional Use Permit to
establish CAPSLO as a Safe Parking Administrator. The review of the specific sites will
Page 414 of 429
Item 4b
USE-0304-2023 – CAPSLO Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
be delegated to the authority of the Community Development Director, rather t han
requiring a subsequent Conditional Use Permit for each new site added to CAPSLO’s
program. A Director’s Action Permit will be required to ensure that each new location is
consistent with Table 2-1 (Uses Allowed by Zone) and Safe Parking Regulations Section
17.86.230(C).
Safe Parking Regulations Section 17.86.230 establishes standards required for any Safe
Parking Facility within the City. As noted above and within the program description
(Attachment B), the applicant agrees to comply with all relevant standards under the Safe
Parking Regulations and each new location established pursuant to this Administrator
Permit will be evaluated for compliance with those standards through the Director’s Action
Permit review. Several factors of the proposed project have been considered and
analyzed as part of this Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit for consistency with
the Safe Parking Regulations. These factors are identified and discussed below:
Number of Vehicles Allowed: The Director’s Action Permit shall establish a maximum
number of vehicles parking spaces that may be used for Safe Parking on a case-by-case
basis for each specific location. A site plan shall be provided that identifies the specific
locations for each safe parking space inclusive of any parking spaces reserved for larger
vehicles such as recreational vehicles. Generally, the site plan should provide for gaps
between each of the safe parking spaces to provide for some privacy.
Hours of Operation: The Director’s Action Permit shall establish hours of operation on a
case-by-case basis for each specific location. Hours of operation should generally provide
for Safe Parking between 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Safe Parking sites may start an hour
earlier (6:00 p.m.) to allow participants to check in.
Separation Between Facilities: The Director’s Action Permit shall ensure that adequate
separation of at least 50 feet is provided between the program boundaries and any
property that contains residential uses, in accordance with Section 17.86.230(E)(6).
Neighborhood Relations Plan: The City established the Good Neighbor Policy in order to
maintain clear expectations between the community and homeless services. As such ,
CAPSLO has provided a Neighborhood Relations Plan based on the mitigation tools
outlined within the Good Neighbor Policy (Attachment D, Neighborhood Relations Plan).
The Neighborhood Relations Plan shall apply to each location that is established under
the Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit for safe parking facilities.
Monitoring and Oversight: The Director’s Action Permit shall provide a Monitoring and
Oversight Plan for the Safe Parking area and shall include security measures such as on-
site security cameras, routine police surveillance, on-site participant site captains, etc. In
addition, CAPSLO will provide a point of contact that program participants and community
members may contact via phone or e-mail with any issues or concerns related to the
program (Attachment E, Quick Contact Reference Sheet).
Restroom, Water and Trash Facility Plan: The Director’s Action Permit shall identify the
location and access to any required facilities, such as restrooms, trash receptacles, and
Page 415 of 429
Item 4b
USE-0304-2023 – CAPSLO Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit
Planning Commission Report – July 12, 2023
hand washing stations. Safe Parking locations that provide for more than 10 parking
spaces and require temporary facilities should provide for at least two restrooms.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is intended to serve as a Low Barrier Navigation Center which is an activity
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by California Government
Code Section 65660(b), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(1). The
Project also has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Once the Safe Parking Program
Administrator Permit is approved, implementation of the plan will be evaluated on a
project-by-project basis to determine if any of its components require environmental
review under CEQA prior to implementation.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including
Planning, Housing & Homelessness, Police, Parking, and Code Enforcement. Comments
have been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue project. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of
additional information or analysis required to make a decision.
2. Deny the project. An action denying the project should include findings that cite the
basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community
Design Guidelines, Railroad District Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy
documents.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft PC Resolution
B - Program Description
C - Safe Parking Program Rules
D - Neighborhood Outreach Plan
E - Quick Contact Reference Sheet
Page 416 of 429
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AUTHORIZING CAPSLO AS A SAFE PARKING PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OPERATION OF A ROTATING SAFE
PARKING PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS A SAFE PLACE TO TEMPORARILY
PARK A VEHICLE OVERNIGHT TO FACILITATE THE TRANSITION TO
PERMANENT HOUSING; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT
AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 12, 2023 (USE-0304-2023)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on August 18, 2020, adopting Resolution No. 11149 (2020 Series),
that authorized the City to establish the Railroad Square Safe Parking Program under the
City’s Emergency Proclamation to provide safe shelter options for individuals and families
experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 Pandemic, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted by the Emergency Services Director Proclamation No. 5; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on July 6, 2021, adopting Resolution No. 11264 (2021 Series) which
consolidated and aligned prior Council emergency actions with revised state orders, and
authorized the Community Development Director to establish new Safe Parking locations
to provide safe shelter options for individuals and families experiencing homelessness,
proceeding the end of the suspension of Municipal Code Chapter 17.86; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan 6th Cycle Housing Element includes Goal 1: Safety,
to provide safe, decent shelter for all residents) and Goal 8: Special Housing Needs
encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing
needs), with supporting policies and programs that include but are not limited to: assisting
those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own, supporting local and regional
solutions to homelessness, and assisting the homeless and those at risk of becoming
homeless by supporting to encourage the creation of housing development that meets a
variety of special needs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on March 21, 2023, adopting the Homelessness Response Strategic Plan which outlines
the City’s role in implementing strategies to prevent homelessness and connect
individuals experiencing homelessness to services and housing. The Safe Parking
Program was specifically identified as a key task under the Strategic Plan with the intent
of working with the faith-based community to develop safe parking options throughout the
community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
web based public hearing on July 12, 2023, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
USE-0477-2022, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant; and
Page 417 of 429
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-23
Safe Parking Program Administrator (USE-0304-2023)
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly
considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval of
the Conditional Use Permit authorizing CAPSLO as a Safe Parking Program
Administrator (USE-0304-2023), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the program will not harm the general health, safety, and welfare
of people living or working in the vicinity because conditions of approval have been
included to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and provide for the
facilitation of participants’ transition to permanent housing.
2. The proposed program is consistent with General Plan Housing Element policies
to support local solutions to meet the needs of the homeless (HE 1.7 and 8.11).
3. The proposed program is consistent with the City’s 2023-2025 Major City Goals
for (Housing and Homelessness) by providing sustainable safe parking and
transitional shelter programs for individuals and families experiencing
homelessness in partnership with Community Action Partnership of San Luis
Obispo County.
4. The proposed program is intended to implement the objectives under the City’s
Homelessness Response Strategic Plan to establish safe parking program options
throughout in the community.
5. As conditioned, the proposed safe parking program complies with all provisions of
the City’s Safe Parking Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 17.86), because each
location will be evaluated for consistency with the performance standards and
program requirements through a Director’s Action Permit on a case-by-case basis.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is intended to serve as a Low
Barrier Navigation Center which is an activity exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) by California Government Code Section 65660(b), in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(1). The Project also has no potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3).
SECTION 3. Review Authority. The Planning Commission hereby delegates
review authority to the Community Development Director to authorize new locations to be
added to the Rotating Safe Parking Program, through the approval of a site-specific
Director’s Action Permit.
Page 418 of 429
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-23
Safe Parking Program Administrator (USE-0304-2023)
Page 3
SECTION 4. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory
code requirements. Code compliance will be verified through code enforcement after
program implementation. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
program with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. This Conditional Use Permit shall be subsequently reviewed at a public
Administrative Hearing if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any
citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police Department employee, which includes
information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of this
Conditional Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations or Police Department
resources (calls for service) applicable to the property or the operation of the Safe
Parking Program, has occurred. At the time of the review, to ensure on-going
compatibility of the safe parking activities, the Administrative Hearing Office reserves
the authority to elevate the review to the Planning Commission, where conditions of
approval may be added, deleted, or modified, or the Conditional Use Permit may be
revoked.
2. The applicant shall apply for a Director’s Action Permit for each new location for
consideration in the Rotating Safe Parking Program. The Planning Commission has
delegated review authority to the Community Development Director for the review of
new locations to be added to the Rotating Safe Parking Program through the
Director’s Action Permit process. The Director reserves the right to elevate a
Director’s Action Permit to the Planning Commission in the event of any potential
major policy issue or public controversy that would be more appropriately addressed
by the Planning Commission. The Director’s Action Permit shall ensure compliance
with all provisions of this Conditional Use Permit, and compliance with Municipal
Code Chapter 17.86.
3. The maximum number of vehicles allowed as part of the Safe Parking Program shall
be established through each Director’s Action Permit based on each location, the
maximum number of vehicles may be unique to each site.
4. The hours of operation for the Safe Parking Program shall be limited to 7:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m., daily, with program check-in starting no earlier than 6:00 p.m. unless
otherwise established through the Director’s Action Permit.
5. Prior to applying for a Director’s Action Permit, the program administrator shall
ensure that adequate separation of at least 50 feet is provided between the safe
parking site and any property that contains residential uses, in accordance with
Municipal Code Section 17.86.230(E)(6).
6. The program administrator shall implement the Neighborhood Relations Plan at each
location within the Safe Parking Program (Exhibit A), any changes to the
Neighborhood Relations Plan shall be subject to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
Page 419 of 429
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-23
Safe Parking Program Administrator (USE-0304-2023)
Page 4
7. The program administrator shall provide a Monitoring and Oversight Plan with each
Director’s Action Permit application in consideration of any new locations within the
Safe Parking Program. The provisions of the Monitoring and Oversight Plan may be
unique based on the program site location and shall be subject to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director and the Police Chief.
8. The program administrator shall provide or ensure access to water, restrooms and
trash facilities for participant use during hours of operation of the program at all
locations within the program.
Indemnification
9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents,
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or
its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by
the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to
environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the
applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim
and 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:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _______ day of _________, 2023.
__________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 420 of 429
Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit
Project Description
A. Purpose and Intent. The Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit will provide
homeless individuals and families with vehicles a safe place to temporarily park
overnight and helps to facilitate the transition to permanent housing. These standards
and requirements are intended to ensure that safe parking facilities will be compatible
with surrounding uses and effective at facilitating participants’ transition to permanent
housing.
B. Permit Required. The establishment of any safe parking site shall require a Director’s
Action Permit approval where allowed, consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 17.10,
Table 2-1: Uses Allowed by Zone.
C. Accessory Use in Residential Zones. If a site is proposed within the R-1, R-2, R-3,
and R-4 zones, safe parking will only be allowed when accessory to a public assembly
or religious assembly facility. Safe parking is prohibited as a primary use in the R -1,
R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones and in all applicable zones on properties that contain
residential uses as the primary use.
D. Application Requirements. Whenever CAPSLO (or, a property owner who is
affiliated with CAPSLO) submits a Director’s Action Permit application for
consideration under the Safe Parking Program Administrator Permit, as a part of the
application, sufficient information shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department to determine whether the proposed safe parking facility complies with the
provisions of the Municipal Code Chapter 17.86 (Safe Parking Regulations). In
addition to the required Director’s Action Permit application checklist items, the
application will include the following:
1. Site plan indicating the location of trash and recycling facilities, water, restroom
facilities, exterior light fixtures, location and distances to residential properties,
public transportation, and location of designated overnight parking spaces.
2. Hours of operation.
3. Monitoring and Oversight Program Plan.
4. Neighborhood Relations Plan.
5. Sufficient information to determine that the property owner is affiliated with
CAPSLO to manage the site and meet the performance standards identified in
Safe Parking Regulations.
6. Any other information the Director may determine is necessary to ensure
compliance with the provisions of the Safe Parking Regulations.
E. Performance Standards.
Page 421 of 429
1. Social Services Provider. CAPSLO has been funded by the City and County to
provide homeless day and sheltering services for approximately 20 years. In
addition, CAPSLO has provided case management services to homeless
individuals and families for over 10 years.
2. Case Management. CAPSLO will ensure that all Safe Parking Program
participants are required to be enrolled in case management to facilitate the
transition to more permanent housing.
3. Background Check. CAPSLO will ensure that all Safe Parking Program
participants are required to submit to a background check (see CAPSLO Safe
Parking Program Screening form).
4. Restroom, Water and Trash Facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo will ensure
that restrooms, water, and trash facilities will be provided for evening use, and that
regular trash and restroom maintenance is provided.
5. Residency Preference. CAPSLO will ensure that preference is given to local
residents (with proof of residency in the County for a minimum period of six months
within the last two years).Residency preferences will be verified during the case
management intake process.
6. Buffer from Residential Use. CAPSLO will ensure that the safe parking facilities
are located at least 50 f eet from the nearest property which contains residential
uses.
7. Authorized Vehicles Only. CAPSLO will ensure that only vehicles registered in
the program are parked overnight during the program hours (one vehicle per
program participant at the site).
8. Participant Information. CAPSLO will maintain an updated roster of names and
vehicle numbers of all participants who are authorized to park overnight, the roster
will be located at the 40 Prado Homeless Services Center office.
9. Written Agreement with Participants. Only participants who have entered into a
written agreement with CAPSLO shall be allowed to use parking spaces overnight.
The written agreement between CAPSLO and participants shall include, but not
limited to, the following terms and conditions:
a. Only one vehicle is allowed per participant.
b. At least one participant per vehicle shall possess a current driver’s license,
vehicle registration, and insurance for the vehicle that will be parked overnight.
CAPSLO will keep a copy of all three on record.
c. Vehicles may only be occupied by participants and approved registered
household members. Guests shall not be allowed.
d. Participants shall not use or possess any illegal drugs or alcohol either on their
person or in their vehicle.
e. Participants shall not use or possess any weapons or firearms of any kind in
program vehicles.
Page 422 of 429
f. No fires of any kind shall be allowed.
g. No music may be played that is audible outside participants’ vehicles.
h. No cooking or food preparation shall be performed outside of the participants’
vehicles. Cooking inside vehicles is prohibited unless the vehicle was
manufactured with cooking appliances.
i. Camping tarps or equipment beyond the participant’s vehicle are prohibited.
j. Participants shall maintain control of animals. Animals shall be kept on a leash
at all times and animal waste shall be picked up immediately and disposed of
properly.
k. Participants shall not dump sewage or other waste fluids or solids, deposit
excreta outside a vehicle, or park vehicles that leak excessive fluids (i.e.,
gasoline, transmission or radiator fluid, or engine oil).
F. Director’s Action Permit Considerations. Items to be determined by the Community
Development Director as part of each Director’s Action Permit review process on a
case-by-case basis shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Number of Vehicles Allowed. The total number of vehicles allowed at each safe
parking facility location.
2. Hours of Operation. The days and hours of safe parking facility operation.
3. Separation between Facilities. Sufficient distance between existing residential
properties and proposed safe parking facilities.
4. Neighborhood Relations Plan. A neighborhood relations plan shall be provided
for each safe parking facility location to address any complaints in a timely manner,
including consistency with any adopted good neighbor policy.
5. Monitoring and Oversight. Monitoring and oversight shall be provided during
safe parking facility hours.
6. Restroom, Water and Trash Facility Plan. A restroom, water and trash facility
plan shall be provided and include the location, hours of availability and
maintenance program for site facilities.
G. Revocation of a Permit. The Director’s Action Permits can be referred to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration if determined by the Director upon receipt of
substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police
Department Officer, which includes information and/or evidence supporting a
conclusion that a violation of the Conditional Use Permit, or of City ordinances or
regulations applicable to the property or operation of the facility, has occurred. At the
time of review, to ensure compliance with applicable laws and conditions of Director’s
Action Permit, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, modified, or the
Director’s Action Permit may be revoked.
Page 423 of 429
Page 424 of 429
Page 1 of 2
V4. Current as of 7/1/23
Homeless Services Division – The City of San Luis Obispo Safe Parking Program
The City of San Luis Obispo Safe Parking Program (SLO-SPP) is a partnership between the Community Action Partnership of San Luis
Obispo (CAPSLO) and the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO). Only participants who have entered into a behavior contract with a social
service provider shall be allowed to use parking spaces overnight. By reviewing this document with CAPSLO staff and signing it, you
agree to abide by these program guidelines. You are welcome to a copy of this document at any point while accessing services here.
The behavior contract between the social service provider and the participant shall include, but not be limited to, the following terms
and conditions:
1. Authorized Vehicles Only. Parking check-in is from 6 pm – 7 pm nightly. Only vehicles registered in the program shall be
allowed to park overnight during program hours. No detached trailers will be allowed. SLOPD may also drive through the
site between 7 pm and 7 am.
a. Only one vehicle is allowed per participant (case-by-case-exceptions to this must be approved by CAPSLO);
Vehicles may only be occupied by participants and approved registered household members; Vehicles must be
parked within a safe parking spot and not block the driving area of the lot or take up multiple spots; Guests shall
not be allowed.
b. No cooking or food preparation shall be performed outside of the participants’ vehicles. Cooking inside vehicles is
prohibited unless the vehicle was manufactured with cooking appliances; Camping tarps or equipment beyond the
participants’ vehicles are prohibited.
2. Restroom, Trash & Water. Restrooms, a trash bin, and a hand washing station shall be provided, maintained, and
accessible to participants during safe parking facility hours. It is the responsibility of participants to remove all trash from
their space upon leaving. No trash shall be left in the parking lot or around vehicles.
a. Participants shall not dump sewage or other waste fluids or solids, deposit excreta outside a vehicle,
or park vehicles that leak excessive fluids (i.e., gasoline, transmission or radiator fluid, or engine oil).
3. Identification, Insurance, and Criminal Background: All participants must have auto registration and insurance within
the last 12 months. Participants must have a current form of ID, with priority given to in-city residents. CAPSLO can assist
with payment on insurance and registration and will provide a DMV discount form if the participant is willing and eligible fo r
case management services. A 290/Megan's law check (Registered Sex Offender Registry) must be comple ted for all
participants; services cannot be provided for those with sex offenses in their background.
4. Safe Space. All participants are expected to maintain a safe and respectful environment. Participants shall not use or
possess any illegal drugs or alcohol on their person or in their vehicle; Participants shall not use or possess any weapons or
firearms of any kind in program vehicles; No fires of any kind shall be allowed; No physical violence of any kind; No music
may be played that is audible outside participants’ vehicles; SLO City has a noise ordinance in effect beginning at 10 pm -
you are beholden to that ordinance. Initials ___________
a. Participants shall maintain control of animals. Animals shall be kept on a leash or lead at all times, and a nimal
waste shall be picked up immediately and disposed of properly.
5. Good Neighbor Policy. All SLO-SPP participants must abide by our Good Neighbor Policy (GNP). GNP includes the
following: Vehicles shall maintain a minimum buffer of fifty feet from any property that contains residential use; All vehicles
and bicycles must be out of the neighborhood and not encamped (defined as a 1/2 mile radius from the SLO-SPP site)
between 7 am - 6 pm; You, your vehicle, and your belongings must leave the area/neighborhood when you do; Do not park
your vehicle (of any type) or bicycle, on the property of any local business (defined as a 1/2 mile radius from the SLO-SPP
site). Initials ___________
a. All SLO-SPP Participants must maintain safe, respectful, and courteous all neighbors, fellow SLO-SPP
participants, and CAPSLO staff/volunteers; they should expect this, in return, from all parties mentioned above.
Initials _______
Page 425 of 429
Page 2 of 2
V4. Current as of 7/1/23
6. Parker Information. CAPSLO shall maintain a roster of each parker authorized to park overnight. All participants will also
be offered to complete the Coordinated Entry Assessment to gather information about their current situation, enroll in
Case Management, and allow for referrals to appropriate agencies within the community.
7. Case Management: All SLO-SPP participants automatically enrolled in housing-focused outreach case management
(CM). CAPSLO uses a client-centered approach to its CM and will work with participants on their goals to achieve more
stable housing. If participants are interested, outreach case managers will be available to transition participants to the
Prado Homeless Services Center (Prado HSC) Safe Parking Program (PSPP) for longer-term parking & more intensive CM. All
participants will be given information on community resources and encouraged to use the Prado HSC Access Center.
Participants can access services, including showers, laundry, meals, shelter beds, and CHCC primary care, provided they can
receive services at Prado HSC.
8. Emergencies: In cases of life-threatening emergencies, medical emergencies, or extreme circumstances, please call SLO
PD Emergency (911); If there is a crisis that does not amount to an emergency as outlined above (e.g., someone who is
using the parking lot that is being disruptive or is not registered with CAPSLO) call Non -Emergency SLOPD between 7 pm - 7
am: 805.781.7312. Please also follow up with CAPSLO staff/volunteers during check -in/out times. Initials ___________
9. Site Captain: In the Spirit of the CAPSLO values of inclusion and self-sufficiency, this program is run in PARTNERSHIP with
participants and the unhoused community. CAPSLO designates a participant who has been consistent with their
enrollment, has shown initiative with their desire to enroll in case management, and has embodied the spirit of shared
respect and responsibility as the designated Site Captain. The Site Captain supports staff in maintaining the site, which
includes moving the barricades, monitoring the bathrooms and trash, and communicating with CAPSLO on any site issues.
This participant receives compensation for their efforts by CAPSLO and is a fully volunteer-based role in the program. Every
month, the role may shift depending on CAPSLOs, the program’s, or the participant’s needs.
10. Rule Violations & Paneling: For violations of any of the site rules and guidelines, CAPSLO will issue you a Rule
Notification and record all incidents on site within the CAPSLO Database. CAPSLO may ask you to leave and submit a panel
request for reentry into SLO-SPP services if any of the following occur: Initials ___________
a. Repeatedly violating the guidelines and not taking corrective suggestions from staff.
b. Violence or threats towards staff, volunteers, neighbors, or other guests.
c. Breaking another guest's confidentiality.
d. Theft or destruction of property on-site or in the surrounding neighborhood; Acts of vandalism, disruptive
behavior, stealing, or violence to nearby businesses or residences.
e. Conducting a business out of RRSP, legal or illegal.
f. Any other actions or behaviors have been deemed a threat to their safety and health or others.
I have read and agree to abide by the above agreement for CAPSLO - City of San Luis Obispo Safe Parking Program:
Safe Parker Name (Print):
Date:
Safe Parker (Signature):
Staff Signature: Date:
Page 426 of 429
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS PLAN
In order to mitigate potential impacts of the Safe Parking Program activities, Community Action
Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) will implement the following
processes/procedures:
A. CAPSLO will provide various methods in which the community may contact the
organization. During business hours (Monday through Friday, 8am-5pm) concerned
community members can contact the CAPSLO administrative office to comm unicate any
concerns they may have. After business hours, CAPSLO maintains a confidential hotline
that can accessed via telephone (805.549.6899) or email (hotline@capslo.org). These
contacts are posted on the CAPSLO website (under Contact Us). All concerns are given to,
and reviewed by, the Director of Community Programs, Chief Operating Officer (COO) or
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and are promptly (within 24 business hours) addressed.
B. All concerns or complaints will be documented, with copies given to the Director of
Community Programs, Director of Homeless Services, and the COO or CEO, who review,
contact the complainant and address the issue within 24 business hours.
C. All participants within the Safe Parking Program must initial and sign the Program Rules
which advises participants, in writing, of their obligation to comply with applicable laws
and established protocols which address and prevent repeated violation of laws, which have
adverse neighborhood or community impacts.
D. CAPSLO staff is provided with information pertaining to emergency contact procedures
during initial training. Police and/or Fire are always contacted in an emergency.
E. All host site facilities will undergo in-depth inspections by the facility staff, CAPSLO, and
the City of San Luis Obispo to determine program parameters and to identify any issues or
needs. CAPSLO will conduct a monthly walk-through of the facility to identify and
address all issues. . Emergency issues will be dealt with immediately. All other facility
maintenance needs will be addressed within 90 days.
F. The project site will provide a Monitoring and Oversight Plan to address security concerns
and ensure adequate outdoor lighting for the Safe Parking Program location.
G. Participants of the Safe Parking Program who are denied or suspended from the program
are provided with applicable resources and referrals for services offered within the City
and County.
H. CAPSLO will mail all property owners and tenants within a 300-foot radius their contact
information should any neighbor have concerns regarding the Safe Parking Program. In the
case any changes occur to the Safe Parking Program, neighboring property owners and
tenants within a 300-foot radius will be notified.
I. CAPSLO will meet whenever needed and requested by the City and/or other community
groups to review reports, issues and policies.
Page 427 of 429
Page 428 of 429
HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE RESOURCES:
NEIGHBORS OF SAFE PARKING PROGRAM
FOR ISSUES RELATED TO ILLICIT OR THREATENING ACTIVITY
Please call 911
FOR ISSUES RELATED TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
Please file a PC 602 Form and/or call SLO Police Department for enforcement
FOR ISSUES RELATED TO MENTAL HEALTH & SKILLED OUTREACH
Please call non-emergency dispatch (805) 781-7312 to request one of the following units:
Mobile Crisis Unit – EMT and Case Worker
Community Action Team – Police Officer and Case Worker
FOR ISSUES AT THE SAFE PARKING SITE DURING PROGRAM HOURS 7PM – 7AM
Please call Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO)
M-F 9am-5pm: (805)544-4004
Weekends & After Hours: (805)549-6899
FOR ISSUES RELATED TO PARKING ENFORCEMENT/OVERSTAY AT THE SAFE PARKING
Please call SLO City Parking Enforcement: (805)781-7230
FOR ISSUES RELATED TO DUMPSTER/PORTA POTTY MAINTENANCE AT THE SAFE PARKING
SITE
Please call SLO City Homelessness Response Manager, Daisy Wiberg: (805) 781-7025
FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE RESOURCES
Please visit slocity.org/homelessness for more information on resources and City efforts to
prevent and address homelessness.
FOR ALL OTHER HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE ISSUES OR QUESTIONS
Contact Daisy Wiberg, Homelessness Response Manager, with any additional questions or
concerns:
dwiberg@slocity.org
(805)781-7025
Page 429 of 429