Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 PH1 Monterey Hotel 1845-1865 Monterey Street Applicant West Coast Asset Management, LLC Representative George Garcia, Garcia Architecture + Design Zoning C-T-S & C/OS-5 (Tourist Commercial Special Considerations & Conservation/Open Space) General Plan Tourist Site Area 1.93 Acres Environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration ER Status 143-13 recommended for adoption PH1-1 Table 1.1 Site Information Site Size 1.93 Acres (62,353 sq. ft. C-T-S) & (21,920 sq. ft. C/OS-5) Present Use & Development One SFR to be removed and one commercial building and associated parking to remain Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C-T) with Special Considerations and Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) Access Monterey Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Hotels (C-T-S zoning) South: Hotels (C-T-S zoning) East: San Luis Creek and Single-family residences (R-1) West: Hotels (C-T zoning) PH1-2 Table 2.2: Project Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yard setback 10 feet 10 feet Side Yard Setbacks East (C-T) 0 feet 0 feet West (C-T) 0 feet 0 feet South (C/OS-5) 20 feet 20 feet PH1-3 Max. Height of Structure(s) 44.5 feet + 9 feet for 45 feet + 10 feet for Architectural Projections Architectural Projections Coverage (building/paving) 54% 75% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.85 2.5 Parking Spaces Vehicle 131 spaces (15% 153 spaces (130 w/ 15% shared-use parking reduction)3 reduction)3 Motorcycle 7 7 Bicycle 7 6 Notes: 1. 2. City Zoning Regulations 3. 15% (23 parking spaces) parking reduction requested Chart 1.3: Project Entitlement Timeline Use Permit Use Permit AppealPC DenialPC Appeal Approval (SLD Neighbors)(Appeal Upheld)(Applicant) 8-18-20148-28-201412-10-201412-17-2014 Council Review 2-17-2015 ARC Appeal ARC ContinuanceARC Approval (SLD Neighbors) 9-15-201410-20-2014 10-30-2014 PH1-4 PH1-5 PH1-6 PH1-7 PH1-8 Note: Note: Note: PH1-9 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment A pg.1 PH1-10 Attachment A pg.2 CŒ­; ,Œ-š“z;­ ›ŒŒ ©šš’­œ .Œ-š“ä Ez“z­w;7 EŒšš©­ ©;’šÝ;7 ›ŒŒ ©šš’­œ PH1-11 Attachment A pg.3 PH1-12 Attachment A pg.4 Please note: The project was deemed complete prior to the adoption of the new Land Use and Circulation Elements. Therefore, the project is not subject to the new policies but a discussion is provided below. PH1-13 Attachment A pg.5 PH1-14 Attachment A pg.6 PH1-15 Attachment A pg.7 PH1-16 Attachment A pg.8 PH1-17 Attachment A pg.9 PH1-18 Attachment A pg. 10 PH1-19 Attachment 1 PH1-20 Attachment 1 PH1-21 Attachment 1 PH1-22 Attachment 1 PH1-23 Attachment 1 PH1-24 Attachment 1 PH1-25 Attachment 1 PH1-26 Attachment 1 PH1-27 Attachment 1 PH1-28 Attachment 1 PH1-29 Attachment 1 PH1-30 Attachment 1 PH1-31 Attachment 1 PH1-32 Attachment 1 PH1-33 Attachment 1 PH1-34 Attachment 1 PH1-35 PH1-36 PH1-37 PH1-38 PH1-39 PH1-40 PH1-41 PH1-42 PH1-43 PH1-44 PH1-45 Attachment 4 PH1-46 Attachment 4 PH1-47 Attachment 4 PH1-48 Attachment 4 PH1-49 PH1-50 PH1-51 PH1-52 PH1-53 PH1-54 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH1-55 PH1-56 PH1-57 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH1-58 PH1-59 PH1-60 PH1-61 PH1-62 PH1-63 PH1-64 PH1-65 PH1-66 PH1-67 PH1-68 PH1-69 PH1-70 PH1-71 PH1-72 PH1-73 PH1-74 PH1-75 PH1-76 PH1-77 PH1-78 PH1-79 PH1-80 PH1-81 ATTACHMENT 9 PH1-82 ATTACHMENT 9 PH1-83 ATTACHMENT 9 PH1-84 ATTACHMENT 9 PH1-85 ATTACHMENT 9 August12,2014 PH1-86 ATTACHMENT 9 6. 7. PH1-87 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-88 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-89 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-90 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-91 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-92 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-93 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-94 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-95 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-96 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-97 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-98 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-99 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-100 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-101 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-102 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-103 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-104 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-105 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-106 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-107 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-108 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-109 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-110 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-111 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-112 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-113 ATTACHMENT 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 143-13 (A/ARC/LLA/ER 143-13) PH1-114 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment 10 PH1-115 PH1-116 PH1-117 PH1-118 PH1-119 PH1-120 PH1-121 PH1-122 PH1-123 PH1-124 PH1-125 PH1-126 PH1-127 PH1-128 PH1-129 PH1-130 PH1-131 PH1-132 PH1-133 PH1-134 PH1-135 PH1-136 PH1-137 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Acoustic Analysis For the Monterey Hotel San Luis Obispo, California Prepared by: David Dubbink Associates 864 Osos Street, Ste D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 10, 2014 PH1-138 Acoustic Analysis: The Monterey Hotel This report evaluates acoustic issues related to the proposed construction of the 102 room Monterey Hotel at 1845 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo. Several concerns have prompted this study. One concern is the extent to which noise produced by hotel guests on balconies fronting San Luis Creek might impact residential properties on the opposite side of the creek. A second concern is noise from two levels of parking under the hotel. Both are open to the creek side and could impact nearby residences. Figure 1 shows the location of the Monterey Hotel and identifies some other nearby hotels that front onto the creek. The Monterey Hotel is indicated by the white outline at the center of the graphic. The light red lines are property lines. Figure 1: Aerial of Project Site Figure 2 shows a close up view of the hotel as a semi-transparent overlay on the aerial. The property is on a slender parcel that extends from Monterey Street to the far side of San Luis Creek. Pappy McGregors Pub is located within the parcel that is to be developed and will remain on the site. The hotel is in two separated structures shown in tan. The parking for the hotel is below, on two levels; one at the present site level with a second level underneath. The parking structure stops well short of the creek, ending at approximately the same location Figure 2: Hotel Site Plan Overlaid on Aerial as the current parking lot for the pub. David Dubbink Associates 2 of 18 PH1-139 The Acoustic Setting In order to determine the present ambient noise at the location, monitored a several days, at different times of the day. Table 1 1 collected during multiple ten minute monitoring periods. 1-Oct 2-Oct 27-Sep 6:00 PM 10:30 AM1:00 PM Leq 57.4 53.4 - Monterey Street Lmax 64.1 68.2 - @ 64 feet Lmin 51.8 40 - Leq 57.6 48.1 - Mid Parcel Lmax 61 63 - @ 210 feet Lmin 46.7 44.2 - Leq 48.6 44.9 48.1 Base of parking Lmax 53.1 53.7 60 @ 342 feet Lmin 43.3 42 38 Table 1: Monitoring of Background Levels The hotel site drops in elevation from the side of the parcel fr the lowest level parking close to San Luis Creek and the rear pr sound level varies with distance from traffic on Monterey Street However, the drop in topography has an effect too. At the lower noise is screened by topography and by the line of buildings fro The character of the sounds varies with elevation also. Near Mon is the dominant feature. At creek level, traffic sounds are mute evidence being the occasional vehicles with loud mufflers or rum the distant traffic sounds, the loudest noise events lower eleva activities on the opposite side of the creek. The sounds vary; p calls to people outdoors, children playing, dogs barking and yar At the lower elevations, traffic sounds from Highway 101 can be direction of Cuesta Grade. The hotel site is bracketed on Monterey Street by the Best Weste north and a Travelodge to the south. The access to the upper lev continuous balconies that, in both cases, face away from the pro Both hotels have parking areas that extend as deeply as the exis McGregors. However, patrons choose to park closer to hotel regi monitoring period, the lowest levels of the hotel parking was no 1 A Br¹el & Kj®r Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, Type 22 measurements. The meter was calibrated before and after the survey using a B&K Model 4231. The readings were determined to be accurate. David Dubbink Associates 3 of 18 PH1-140 Figure 3: Cross Section of the Hotel Site Viewed from the South Project Plans Figure 3, shows a cross sectional view of the hotel and the topo is from the €south with Monterey Street at the left of the diag the right. There are two parking levels beneath the hotel which building. Where the parking levels are open to the sides, they w high €headlight wall. The column of numbers at the center of th floor elevation of each level of the building. The rear property San Luis Obispo Creek; at a ground elevation of 280 feet. The to side of the creek is not as steep as on the hotel side. The red indicate the location of sound sources evaluated in the analysis dot at the property line represents the receptor location. Applying the Citys Noise Regulations Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Stationary Noise Sources Daytime Nighttime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) ========================================================= 1, 2 Hourly Leq, dB 50 45 1, 2 Maximum level, dB 70 65 1, 3 Maximum level, dB-Impulsive Noise 65 60 1 As determined at the property line of the receiver. 2 Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter respons Table 2: Noise Element Standards The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted multiple strategies dealing with noise iss The Municipal Code and the Noise Element of the General Plan spe levels for the noise that can be produced by land use activities David Dubbink Associates 4 of 18 PH1-141 sources. The Citys Noise Element, adopted in 1996, includes a 2 maximum noise exposure levels as shown in Table 2. In the case of the Monterey Hotel there are two areas of concern, based on two di metrics. There is a question of whether noise from day and night activities will contribute to a sound level in excess of the per Similarly, there is a question of whether noise from individual specified levels for Lmax. CEQA standards are also a consideration. While CEQA does not set standards it requires that local governments make specific deter levels. The Citys Noise Guidebook includes a table describing p 3 reaction to changes in noise levels. It suggests that increase of 1 decibel is the minimum noticeable change and that a 3 decibel change is usually noticeable. On question is whether the permitted activity will significantly al environment. The Citys Code includes a number of exemptions. Some bothersome generated by car alarms or by drivers sounding horns. But, the C 4 Devices or sounds alerting people to the existence of an emerge. €Emergency Signaling Devices are not covered by the code, including car alarms, as long 5 not sounded longer than 30 minutes. The Code also permits the testing of such devices. The Code also includes a provision that, when measurements are made on the boundar of two different land use zones, the noise level of the more res 6 5 decibels. In this case, where a single family area borders a commercial specified limits increase by 5 decibels. The City Code includes a separate collection of standards regula produced by individuals. This is based on €public nuisance law that adversely affect community welfare. If people were producin disturbing to neighbors, the activity could be treated as an inf The maximum noise production from mobile vehicle sources is regu drivers with exceptionally loud vehicles could be ticketed and r supervised inspection. Analysis In order to construct this analysis it was necessary to assemble and to collect original data where reference material was absent 2 Noise Element, page 26. 3 City of SLO Noise Guidebook, page 5. 4 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 9.12.090, page 11. 5 Ibid, Section 9.12.050 B.9, page 7 6 Ibid, Section 9.12.060 A.4, page 6 David Dubbink Associates 5 of 18 PH1-142 of this work is included in Appendix A. The analysis presented h data described in this appendix. The noise associated with the restaurant/pub operations or custo included in the analysis of the Monterey Hotels acoustic impact condition and activities will not be substantially changed becau hotel. The present parking area for the restaurant/pub extends c than the limit of the hotels parking. Lmax Levels As noted, the maximum noise levels that can be produced in the C are 70 decibels during daytime (7AM to 10PM) and 65 decibels at balconies would produce sound at 50 decibels at a 50 foot refere extrapolates to a level of 39 decibels heard at the property lin residential uses. These voice levels do not exceed the Citys Le Measured at a 50 foot distance, typical parking lot events were maximum sound level of 73 decibels for a horn beep (such as when and the alarm set with a remote), 60 decibels for a door slam an closing. Based on our test situation, the same events within the lower parking level would be amplified by 8 decibels. The €headl the parking levels will act as a noise barrier, reducing sound b property line (this reduction factor includes a consideration of the source, boundary wall and receptor). Table 3 shows the estim associated with the different parking area noise events. At 50 footAt PropertyEnclosure Barrier Source ReferenceBoundary AmplificationEffect Result horn beep 73 60 8 -5 63 door closing 60 47 8 -5 50 trunk closing61 48 8 -5 51 Table 3: Computed Lmax Levels for Parking Lot Events The sounds associated with door and trunk closings do not exceed €impulsive noise as expressed in the Noise Element. The Code de 7 of a short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrup. Horn beeps, within the enclosed portion of the parking structure do not exceed th daytime limit of 65 decibels but do exceed the nighttime limit. noted, the City Code exempts the brief testing of warning device specifically mentioning car alarms. If the brief signal beeps as un-opening car doors with a remote are excepted, the other typic do not exceed the Citys Lmax standards. However, it is appropri 7 Ibid, Municipal Code, page 2 David Dubbink Associates 6 of 18 PH1-143 for reducing the sound of events taking place within the covered structure. Leq Levels The Leq is a time-averaged metric depicting the average noise en period of time. The City code establishes one hour as the time provides information on how the hourly Leq values for hotel nois computed. Table 4 shows the reference and property line Leq valu balcony voices and parking lot events at the two parking levels. balcony values are shown which represent the worst case for the Leq @ Leq @ 50 Foot BarrierPropertyDuration Source+ Source Ambient Reference Effect Line (minutes)Ambient Balcony Voices (Level 2) 51 0 39 10 47 47.11 Level 1 Parking 50 -5 33 8 47 47.02 Lower Level Parking 58 -5 41 4 47 47.15 Table 4: Computation for Leq at the Property Line. (It is not customary to show decibels to the hundredth place in illustrate the increment of change when the source and ambient s Loud voices from the balconies, heard for the specified duration raise the Leq level at the property line. Sound from the several the hourly Leq, but minimally. It is conceivable that all hotel present during the same hour. A computation including all sound durations plus ambient levels would produce less than a 1 decibe Figures 4 through 6 on the following pages are noise maps showin patterns associated with people speaking loudly at each of the 3 The numeric values on the graphics combine the source and backgr little difference between the sound dispersion patterns. None ap level at the property line. The minor distinction is that the so changes with its elevation. Figures 7 and 8 show the dispersion pattern associated with vehi parking levels. These contour patterns include the noise level r perimeter €headlight wall. As with the balcony diagrams the sig sound exposure are close by the source and, at the property line from the 47 decibel background. Figures 4 through 8 are on the following pages David Dubbink Associates 7 of 18 PH1-144 Figure 4 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Balcony at Hotel Level 2 David Dubbink Associates 8 of 18 PH1-145 Figure 5 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Balcony at Hotel Level 3 David Dubbink Associates 9 of 18 PH1-146 Figure 6 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Balcony at Hotel Level 4 David Dubbink Associates 10 of 18 PH1-147 Figure 7 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Parking on Level 1 David Dubbink Associates 11 of 18 PH1-148 Figure 8 Sound Dispersion Pattern, Parking at Lower Level David Dubbink Associates 12 of 18 PH1-149 Conclusion Sound produced by guests using the balconies of the Monterey Hot unloading cars in the parking levels will not produce sound at l limits specified in the Citys Noise Element. Evaluated at the p minimal increase in the Leq level. That is not to say that hotel activities will be inaudible at ne detect the presences of intruding sounds at levels well below am levels vary from moment to moment. Peoples balcony conversation vehicle loading and unloading will generate sounds that will be hotels property line. This analysis indicates that these events sufficient frequency to produce changes that are significant mea in the Citys Noise Element or Municipal Code. Recommendations While the project, as proposed, will not produce noise levels th Citys standards there are steps that can be taken to reduce the disturbance in adjacent neighborhoods. The hotel should maintain a nighttime staff that can quickly res neighbors complaints about excessive noise. The surface of the parking areas should be finished with a textu potential for tire squeal. Concrete surface treatments that can drag texturing. The echo effects within the parking levels can be reduced by sur ceiling with sound absorbing material. A variety of products are including foam or porous expanded polypropylene panels. The €headlight wall bordering the parking area should be constr with no openings or gaps. The driveway ramp that connects the tw be enclosed by a sound blocking wall that is at least as high as Construction activities should be conditioned to take place only AM to 7 PM. This condition is consistent with City standards. David Dubbink Associates 13 of 18 PH1-150 Appendix A Estimating Sound Levels for Hotel Sources This narrative describes the process that was used for evaluatin Monterey Hotel project. The Citys noise regulations use several sound levels. One is Lmax, which is the maximum noise level reac second is hourly Leq which is the average noise energy over an h Lmax level for an event is straightforward but determining Leq i requires information about the loudness of the source, but also In times when the source is silent, the ambient background level Ambient Sound Ambient sound is often represented by the hourly Leq value. Sinc vary over a day it is important to identify a period that is mos the acoustic impacts of a specific project. In this case, for a representative time period might be the peak times of guest arri four to six PM hours. This would be when the greatest amount of would occur with the sound of vehicle maneuvering, door and trun suitcases and the horn peeps as car locks are set. Table 1 in th background noise levels at different locations on the project si Noise Produced by Hotel Guests There are limits to the loudness of sounds that individuals can amplification. There is a substantial body of research on this t 8 recognition is so critical to proper communication. Normal conversation, heard at 3 feet, is at the level of 60 to 65 decibels. A person speaking in a raised voice, such as talking to a group, is in the 70 to 75 decibel range. A person s . heard at a three foot distance, would generate sound in the 80 t In computing Leq, there also need to be assumptions concerning the frequency a duration of the sound events. The Madonna Inn has 110 rooms and commercial and holiday travelers. I asked Clint Pierce, of Madon frequency of complaints about guest noise. He reports that this with about one incident per night. He says that it typically is time the desk receives a complaint and hotel staff quiets the pr Parking Lot Noise While voice communication has long been a subject of study and t information available, noise from parking lot activities is less only a few California EIRs were identified where this was studie major parking structures. There is has been some careful researc 8 http://www.alfwarnock.info/profess/Average%20Speech%20Levels.pd David Dubbink Associates 14 of 18 PH1-151 Germany but the projects studied and the metrics used differ fro 9 for the Monterey Hotel. We decided to conduct several studies in settings that resemble the situation at Monterey Hotel. The several questions that were addressed were: · Determining the noise levels associated with a typical parking l would include car door and trunk slams, conversation across the horn beep of a car alarm being set. · The hotels parking levels are above the level of the rear prope houses on the far side of the creek. The question is the extent elevation change would modify sound propagation and how echoes f interior of the structure might affect what is heard. Table 1 shows the sound levels associated with a multiple 15 sec included motor sounds, door and trunk closures, voices, and the locked with a remote. The sounds were evaluated at a distance of were done in a remote setting with little background noise. Event Leq Level 1 48.1 2 49.7 3 47.1 4 48 Table 1: Leq values for combined parking lot activities In the mathematical averaging of sound events, the louder sounds analysis it will be assumed that a parking lot event, heard at 5 the 50 dB level. The maximum sound level output of the various events was also ev repeated for several events from the same source. The maximum so slamming was 60 dB. For a trunk lid closing the maximum was 61. horn on locking produced a maximum level of 73 decibels. The elevation difference between the parking levels and the clos substantial. The floor of the upper parking lot level is at 311 the closest residences is at a 280 foot elevation; a difference at the property line would be looking upward toward the parking closest row of parked vehicles. The lower level of the parking s elevation difference of 21 feet. The closest edge of the parking property line. The best local analogy for parking lot noise exposure was found Citys Chinatown parking structure. This backs up to apartment s 9 References to studies go here. David Dubbink Associates 15 of 18 PH1-152 Mill Street. Figure 1 shows an aerial view of the setting. The red €X is the measurement position which is 70 feet from the wall of the parking structure. Figure 2 shows a photo of the parking structure taken from this location. The floor of the parking on the top of the structure is estimated to be 27 feet above ground level compared to the measurement location. The floor surface of the level Figure 1 (Appendix): Location of Monitoring Site for the Chinato below this is 16 feet above Parking Structure and the View from the Monitoring Location. the measuring point. The perimeter of both levels is enclosed by €headlight walls but th plates with spaces between. They would block some parking lot no would a solid wall. We evaluated the changes associated with an elevated parking lev a parking level enclosed within a structure but open on the side was parked on the top level in the closest rank of spaces, direc point. The horn was sounded for five seconds to establish a soun the car was moved to the enclosed area of the structure, directl location and parallel to the measuring point. Again the horn was experiment was done on two different days using two different ca Table 2 shows the results. Oct. 2, 2014 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Average Roof Level 64.9 64.8 64.9 62 64 Level Below 70.9 72.5 71.8 Not done 72 Oct. 3, 2014 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average Roof Level 59.7 60.1 60.4 60 Level Below 69.9 66.5 69.0 68 Table 2: Effects of open and enclosed parking levels (and elevat In the first experiment the horn sounded on the open rooftop par above the monitoring point, the average decibel reading was 64 d but with the horn sounded within an enclosed structure and at a decibels louder. In the second experiment the car horn was not a difference between the open rooftop parking level and the enclos This difference is due mostly to the echo effects of the enclosu David Dubbink Associates 16 of 18 PH1-153 the varying elevation of the source and the slightly closer meas mostly to the echo effects of the enclosure. It should be noted that steady horn soundings, as done in the ex a typical parking lot event. The most common horn sounding is th a remote is used to lock or open a car. (This sound was included with the door and trunk closings and motor noise.) To determine the frequency of the sort of parking lot events tha consulted the Trip Generation Manual compiled by the Institute o Engineers. The ITE manual contains averages of trip generations land use activities, including hotels and motels. For a €Resort generation rate is .49 per occupied room. For a €Motel the PM t per occupied room. It would be likely that not all trips made to guests loading and unloading equipment or that the hotel would a occupancy. However, this 100% number is used to insure estimates Applying the ITE data (assuming .48 trips per occupied room) the would number 49. The cumulative time period with events occurrin 12 minutes in an hour if these were to occur sequentially. In the analysis, we chose to examine the Leq levels produced by independently by floor level. The reasoning is that noise events balcony or car unloading in the parking lot would occur at diffe the frequency of car unloading there needs to be a proportioning parking levels. People typically park as close to their rooms as area, closest to the elevators. The analysis makes the assumptio parking lot activity will take place on the upper level of parki lower level. The associated time durations are 8 minutes of acti and 4 minutes of activity at the lower level. Car Alarms We did try to establish the likelihood of car alarms sounding, e exempts sound produced by warning devices. We questioned personn several of the Citys downtown parking structures, asking them t of such events. The following estimates were received: Parking Structure Spaces Estimated Events Chinatown 412 Once Daily 919 Palm 192 Infrequent Marsh Street 520 Several Daily Table 3: Frequency of Car Alarm Events in City Parking Structure It was noted that the Marsh Street structure serves a different there is more in and out activity. David Dubbink Associates 17 of 18 PH1-154 The Monterey Hotel along with the restaurant will have 141 space the City experience suggests that car alarm events will be €infr one or two a week. David Dubbink Associates 18 of 18 PH1-155 APPLE FARM 2015 MONTEREY 1984 1950 1940 1920 1900 1890 1872 1885 1879 1854 1842 1867 1830 1855 1843 1818 1804 1831 1819 1805 1794 1780 1778 1760 1750 1740 1730 1720 PH1-156 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH1-157 PH1-158 Attachment 15 October 8, 2014 Garcia Architecture + Design 1330 Monterey Street, Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attention: George Garcia RE: The Monterey Hotel Photometric Analysis Dear George: Our office has prepared photometric analysis for the above refer the East project boundary. Exterior luminaire selections are con ·w; ;ã-;¦·zš“ šE ·w; -;zŒz“m ’šÒ“·;7 Œzmw· Ezã·Ò©; { | Œš-·;7 z attached luminaire specification sheets. The following summarizes our review, outlining any assumption ma lighting design proposed. 1.Iš·;Œ mÒ;­· ғz·­ ©; ¦©šÝz7;7 Þz·w  ­z“mŒ; ÞŒŒ ­-š“-; ›·ä¦; { luminaire is orientated down, and considered full cut off. Mount ­­Ò’;7 · Zx !CC šE ·w; ,Œ-š“äu 2.Parking garage lighting is provided with a type five (5) wide di photometric analysis, the iso-curve has been placed at a 0.2fc t selected for its performance, and ability to minimize light spil The proposed luminaire is capable of bi-level control through in when vacant, luminaire output can reduce by 50% (or any other de 3.twš·š’;·©z- -Œ-Ҍ·zš“ ¦Œ“;­ wÝ; ,;;“ 7;Ez“;7 · ·w; ¦©š†;-· project boundary, and the creek area. Refer to photometric plan that each of these areas have a maximum foot-candle level of 0, D©;;“ .ÒzŒ7z“m /š7; u ur {[zmw· tšŒŒÒ·zš“ w;7Ò-·zš“|r Þw;©; ŒŒšÞ;7 ·š ;­-¦; x “7 ,;䚓7 ·w; ¦©š†;-· ­z·; ,šÒ“7©äu Feel free to contact our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Heather A. Gray, P.E., LEED AP BD+C Principal Electrical Engineer Gray Electrical Consulting + Engineering, LLC Attachments: (1) Photometric Analysis, (2) Luminaire Specificat Gray Electrical Consulting + Engineering, LLC P.O. Box 368, Santa Maria, CA 93456 Tel: (805) 234-6058 E-mail: info@GECELLC.com 1 | Page PH1-159 Attachment 15 PH1-160 Attachment 15 PH1-161 Attachment 15 PH1-162 Attachment 15 PH1-163 Attachment 15 PH1-164 Attachment 15 PH1-165 Attachment 15 Catalog D-Series Number LED Parking Garage Notes Type Hit the Tab key or mouse over the page to see all interactive el Introduction The D-Series LED Parking Garage luminaire provides energy savings of 88% when replacing 175W metal Speci“cations halide luminaires. With an expected service life of over 100,000 hours (10+ years of 24/7 operation), up 17-3/4Ž Length: to ten metal halide lamp changes are avoided over (45.1 cm) the life of the product. All of this adds up to quick 8-1/2Ž L Width: (21.6 cm)paybacks and a very low total cost of ownership. 3-7/16Ž Height: Five dedicated precision refractive optics allow (8.7 cm) the D-Series Parking Garage luminaire to meet Weight H 16 lbs the desired criteria for minimums, verticals and (max): (7.3 kg) uniformity. Exceptional glare control is achieved while delivering the required vertical illumination. W Ordering Information EXAMPLE: DSXPG LED 20C 1000 40K T5M MVOLT DWHXD DSXPG LED Series LEDs Drive currentColor temperatureDistributionVoltageMountingOptionsFinish 4 DSXPG LED10C 10 LEDs 350 350 mA 30K 3000 K T5E Type V, MVOLT Shipped includedShipped installed DWHXD White (one entryway 530 530 mA 40K 4000 K DMG 0-10V dimming driver (no controls) DNAXD Natural 4 120 (blank)Pendant 1, 2 engine) T5M Type V, aluminum 6 mount 7 700 700 mA 50K 5000 K HS House-side shield (housing visor) 4 208 20C 20 LEDs medium SRM Surface DDBXD Dark bronze 8,9 1000 1000 mA AMBPC Amber SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) (two 4 240 T5W Type V, wide mount (1 A)phosphor engines) 8,9 DF Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) 4 277 3 converted T5R Type V, 30C 30 LEDs PIR360SS Motion/ambient sensor, 8-15 rectangular 5 347 Shipped (three 9,10 mounting height ASY Asymmetric separately engines) 5 480 PIRH360SS Motion/ambient sensor, 15-30 mount- YK Yoke/ 9,10 ing height trunnion 11 SPD Separate surge protection 7 mount 12 XAD XPoint Wireless enabled 13 CFMH Cover “nish matches housing Shipped separately SLVRD Pendant swivel cover for round or octagonal j-box SLVSQ Pendant swivel cover for 4Ž square j-box 7 BDS Bird shroud Motion SensingMounting Options Surface MountingYoke/Trunnion The motion sensor options TOP VIEW Mounting (PIR360SS or PIRH360SS) have 9.431 360 of passive infrared sensing ° W 4.815.5 and adjustable bi-level dimming to save energy when there is no 0 m0 ft occupancy. 4.815.5 9.431 Accessories SIDE VIEW Ordered and shipped separately. 0 ft0 m DSXPGHS UHouse-side shield (1 per light engine) 11 See the electrical section on page 3 for more available) details. 103 DSXPGBDSSJ DWHXD UBird shroud for SRM on surface J-box only, whi 9.4 7 4.8 2.3 0 m 2.3 4.8 7 9.4 31 23 15.5 8 0 ft 8 15.5 23 31 www.lithonia.com © 2013-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. PH1-166 Attachment 15 Performance Data 30K40K50K Dist. Light Drive Current Performance System (3000 K, 80 CRI)(4000 K, 70 CRI)(5000 K, 65 CRI) Engines(mA)PackageWatts Type LumensBUGLPWLumensBUGLPWLumensBUGLPW ASY 1,792 00169 2,253 10187 2,428 10193 T5E 1,882 10072 2,366 10091 2,550 10098 700 mA10C 700--K26WT5M 1,889 10073 2,375 20091 2,560 20098 T5R 1,860 20272 2,339 20290 2,521 20297 10C T5W 1,771 20168 2,226 20186 2,399 20192 ASY 2,444 10166 3,074 10183 3,314 10190 (10 LEDs) T5E 2,566 10069 3,227 20087 3,479 20094 1000 mA10C1000 --K37WT5M 2,576 20070 3,241 20188 3,493 20194 T5R 2,537 20269 3,191 20286 3,440 30393 T5W 2,414 20165 3,037 20182 3,274 30188 ASY 1,995 10180 2,511 101100 2,705 101108 T5E 2,095 10084 2,637 100105 2,840 200114 350 mA20C 350 --K25WT5M 2,103 20084 2,647 200106 2,851 201114 T5R 2,071 20283 2,607 202104 2,808 202112 T5W 1,971 20179 2,481 20199 2,672 201107 ASY 2,803 10176 3,526 10195 3,799 101103 T5E 2,943 20080 3,702 200100 3,989 200108 530 mA20C 530 --K37WT5M 2,955 20180 3,717 201100 4,005 201108 T5R 2,910 20279 3,660 30399 3,944 303107 20C T5W 2,770 20175 3,483 30194 3,754 301101 ASY 3,449 10175 4,337 10194 4,675 101102 (20 LEDs) T5E 3,621 20079 4,554 20099 4,909 200107 700 mA20C 700 --K46WT5M 3,636 20179 4,572 30199 4,928 301107 T5R 3,580 30378 4,502 30398 4,853 303106 T5W 3,407 30174 4,285 30193 4,619 301100 ASY 4,632 10163 5,828 10179 6,283 10285 T5E 4,864 20066 6,119 20083 6,597 20189 1000 mA20C 1000 --K74WT5M 4,883 30166 6,143 31183 6,623 30190 T5R 4,808 30365 6,050 30382 6,522 30388 T5W 4,577 30162 5,758 30278 6,207 30284 ASY 3,022 10186 3,799 101109 4,097 101117 T5E 3,172 20091 3,989 200114 4,302 200123 350 mA30C 350 --K35WT5M 3,185 20191 4,005 201114 4,319 301123 T5R 3,137 20290 3,944 303113 4,253 303122 T5W 2,985 20185 3,754 301107 4,048 301116 ASY 4,239 10180 5,333 101101 5,748 101108 T5E 4,451 20084 5,599 200106 6,035 200114 530 mA30C 530 --K53WT5M 4,468 30184 5,622 301106 6,059 301114 T5R 4,400 30383 5,536 303104 5,967 303113 30C T5W 4,188 30179 5,269 30199 5,679 301107 ASY 5,170 10177 6,504 10297 7,011 102105 (30 LEDs) T5E 5,428 20081 6,829 301102 7,362 301110 700 mA30C 700 --K67WT5M 5,450 30181 6,856 301102 7,391 302110 T5R 5,367 30380 6,752 303101 7,278 303109 T5W 5,108 30176 6,426 30296 6,927 302103 ASY 6,775 10263 8,520 20280 9,187 20286 T5E 7,113 30166 8,946 30184 9,646 30190 1000 mA30C 1000 --K107WT5M 7,141 30167 8,982 30284 9,685 30291 T5R 7,032 30366 8,845 40483 9,537 40489 T5W 6,693 30263 8,418 40279 9,077 40285 Note: Available with phosphor-converted amber LEDs (nomenclature AMBP calculated by applying a 0.7 factor to 4000 K lumen values and www.lithonia.com DSXPG © 2013-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. PH1-167 Attachment 15 Photometric Diagrams T5WT5MT5ET5R FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INSTALLATION INTENDED USE The energy savings, long life, and easy-to-install design of the others) for pendant mounting. The surface mount option attaches Parking Garage luminaire make it the smart choice for commercial recessed or surface mount outlet box using a quick-mount kit (in garage applications. It is designed to meet or exceed recommende kit contains galvanized steel luminaire and outlet box plates an criteria when installed as a direct replacement of most HID park gasket. Kit has an integral mounting support that allows the lum luminaires. down for easy electrical connections. Luminaire and plates are s CONSTRUCTION Two-piece die-cast aluminum housing has integral heat sink “ns t provision for ”exible conduit entry (conduit by others); height ca thermal management through conductive and convective cooling. Mo from 10-18Ž. Supply leads are 12Ž in length as standard. For lo design allows for ease of maintenance and future light engine up leads, please consult factory. drivers are mounted in direct contact with the casting to promote low operating LISTINGS temperature and long life. Housing is completely sealed against environmental contaminants (IP66) and is suitable for hose-down. IP66 rated. Rated for -40 ° FINISH powder coat “nish that provides superior resistance to corrosion and weathering. www.designlights.org to A tightly controlled multi-stage process ensures a minimum 3 mil con“rm which versions are quali“ed. “nish that can withstand extreme climate changes without crackin WARRANTY OPTICS Precision-molded proprietary acrylic lenses provide “ve different photometric . distributions tailored speci“cally to parking garage application Note: Speci“cations subject to change without notice. con“gurations. ELECTRICAL Light engines consist of 10 high-ef“cacy LEDs mounted to a metal board to maximize heat dissipation and promote long life. The electronic driver ordering the SPD option, a separate surge protection device is i www.lithonia.com DSXPG © 2013-2014 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. PH1-168 Photometric Type "B" (Also referenced as "3" on A9.0) Attachment 15 422 DELWA WIDE Design by CDC LED 120VAC 1.76 30000 2pce. Bulb:Versions:Art. No.: COB LED (incl.)3000K, 460lm, CRI 80 2x 3,5Wwhite 3230791U silver grey 3230794U Material: Aluminum/glass Accessory/Included parts: LED driver (incl.) 5.51 2.36 SLV Lighting North America, Inc. 7.09 5731 Benjamin Center Drive Tampa, FL 33634 PH1-169 Main Line: (813) 349…Fax Line: (813) 349…1907 www.slvlighting.com THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment 16 Site Size 1.93 Acres (62,353 sf C-T-S & 21,920 sf C/OS-5) Present Use & Development One SFR to be removed and one commercial building and associated parking to remain Land Use Designation Tourist Commercial (C-T) with Special Considerations and Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5) Access Monterey Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Hotels (C-T-S zoning) South: Hotels (C-T-S zoning) East: San Luis Creek and Single-family residences (R-1) West: Hotels (C-T zoning) PH1-170 Attachment 16 Project Statistics Table Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yard setback 10 feet 10 feet Side Yard Setbacks East (C-T) 0 feet 0 feet West (C-T) 0 feet 0 feet South (C/OS-5) 20 feet 20 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 44.5 feet + 9 feet for Arch 45 feet + 10 feet for Arch Projections Projections Coverage (buildings & paving) 54% 75% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.85 2.5 Parking Spaces Vehicle 141 153 (138 w/ shared parking reduction) Motorcycle 7 7 Bicycle 7 7 Notes: 1. dated July 2, 2014 2. City Zoning Regulations Staff analysis PH1-171 Attachment 16 Staff analysis Staff analysis Staff analysis Staff analysis: Staff analysis: PH1-172 Attachment 16 Staff analysis Staff analysis. Staff analysis PH1-173 Attachment 16 Staff analysis Staff analysis Staff analysis PH1-174 Attachment 16 PH1-175 PH1-176 PH1-177 PH1-178 PH1-179 PH1-180 PH1-181 PH1-182 PH1-183 PH1-184 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH1-185 PH1-186 PH1-187 PH1-188 PH1-189 PH1-190 PH1-191 PH1-192 PH1-193 PH1-194 PH1-195 PH1-196 PH1-197 PH1-198 PH1-199 PH1-200 PH1-201 PH1-202 PH1-203 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment 19 PH1-204 Attachment 19 PH1-205 PH1-206 PH1-207 PH1-208 PH1-209 PH1-210 PH1-211 PH1-212 PH1-213 PH1-214 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment 20 PH1-215 Attachment 20 PH1-216 Attachment 20 PH1-217 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Filing Fee Dale Received Tree Appeal: $109.00 All Other Appeals A city of DEC 17 2014 71-1 SAn WIS OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 0 % ", Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL. 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1,20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: . �? - I, !., 3, The application or project was entitled: ku 'It C>-J r 4, 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: (Staff (Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5: Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: J'-\ �)_ C , , , SECTION 3, REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionis you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what ­evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may att,,,)ch additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the otherside, Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $273 , which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form, You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. 1 hereby agree to appear and /or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled fora- public hearing before the City Council. ' (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $109. 2) The above -named appellant has already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for ec: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) Page 2 of 3 � LltSTONEPARK.. To City Council of San Luis Obispo, CA This is an appeal of the decision by the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission to uphold the appeal of the San Luis Drive neighborhood of the Use Permit for proposed hotel project at1845 & 1865 Monterey Street. - Specifically, this appeal is in regard to the findings of the Planning Commission as they pertain to our project, and more specifically as they pertain to "Ordinance 1130". This is an overriding set of guidelines related to our property and the adjacent creek and neighborhood that we have studied very closely, and usedasou/Quidingdocumentaswedesi0nedthe|aynutofthehoteiTho/paneaxpectso[Ordivamce 1130 that are clearly defined, and others that are more suggestive in nature and therefore are open to interpretation. |n the Planning Commissions' deliberations they described o 'vague recoUe¢ion^ofthe genesis and background of this 25 year old Ordinance 1130, and went on to state that the basis oc theoryofthismrdinancewaoiniendedtoadd/eothenox+mukjated^mote|"buiNing type, which iso completely different hospitality model than contemporary hotel facilities of today, And although our proposal is for the latter, we contend that our hotel design addresses and conforms to both the prescriptive and subjective requirements ufOrdinance 1130. Therefore, with respect to the Planning, Commission's ruling, we offer the following information in support of our appeal: Planning Commission Findings- 1)The parking in the creek setback is not in conforrnance with the City' s Zoning Regulations, Response: The ten (lO) spaces in question are existing noo-confonning,parking spaces. The current hotel design proposes to retain these 10 spaces as-is, with the exception of adding a sound and headlight wall ao directed by city staff, Therefore, vve are not seeking to add now nr additional parking in this clearly established and protected set back area. 2) The balconies proposed in the rear building elevation are not in conformance with Criterion No. 2 of Ordinance Il]D, which states that "buikjing openings facing the creek shall heminimbed," Response- The term "minimizccl" is difficult to define, whether one considers the entirety of the building, or only for the area that ison the creek. |nregards tu the entirety o[ the building, the openings have been minimized as they represent Iless than 28% of the openings of the whole building. In addition, as suggested by the neighbors, arid further directed by staff and the ARC, we had already previously removed 3 of the creek-facing balconics and drastically IWILIced the size of 3 additional balconies as opposed to the original design of the building, 3) The proposed parking is not in conformance with Criterion 7 of Ordinance 1:130 stating that "noise generating uses such as parking and outdoor recreation uses should be located on the interior of the site, using buildings as a buffer." Response: The design of our parking structure includes many sound and light attenuation strategies, and does provide a buffer between the parking and the creek, In fact, we took direction from previous comments by the neighbors and added additional height and mass to the sound+headiight wall design. In addition, a number of additional sound attenuation measures were added to the project, including sound absorbing acoustic panels within the interior of the structure, a denser wall material, and scoring or "tining" of the concrete floor to prevent tire squeal, all in response to specific directive from staff, the ARC, and the neighbors. 4) The proposed building height creates overlook, noise and glare issues. Response: The design of the building is within the allowed 45' height allowance, as supported in both the Zoning Code and Ordinance 1130. We understand that Ordinance 1130 was established to balance the commercial /tourism area of Monterey Street with consideration for land use compatibility of the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood, therefore establishing an even greater set -back from the creek than normally required by the City's Zoning Code and Development Standards. Dire to the fact that we were cognizant of the concerns of our neighbors, our project is set bark even further than required by Ordinance 1130 in order to respect that privacy and provide an added measure of consideration for the San Luis Drive neighborhood. In addition, supporting documentation including Noise & Acoustic Studies, a Photometric Analysis, and a Viewshed Study- were conducted at the request of staff and the neighbors, all which conclude that the Concerns regarding overlook, noise, light and glare fall well below the thresholds established by city ordinances. 5) The project needs to consider the corments in the recently-adopted Land Use and Circulation Element regarding Upper Monterey, especially those that prornote an enhanced pedestrian experience. Response: One of our primary goals for this project is to "promote an enhanced pedestrian experience" for all hotel guests. We hope to accomplish this by adding a beautifully designed "destination" hotel that tourist and local guests can use as a hospitality hub while accessing downtown via alternate transportation methods, such as walking, biking, or public transportation. To that end, we are rnernbers of the SLO Bike Coalition and will be collaborating with them to provide local information and resources to our guests about San Luis Obispo's "bike - friendly" atmosphere. In addition, the LUCE also describes policies and objectives that look to "incentivize reinvestment in the upper Monterey Street area ", We agree, and our proposed hotel facility will help the city achieve these LUCL goals and objectives with a smartly designed facility that is eco- friendly yet sensitive to the needs and concerns of our neighbors We look forward to the opportunity to present our project to City Council. Andrew Firestone Principal StonePark Capital THE Newspaper of the Central Coast MBUNE 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406 -0112 • (805) 781 -7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Crff OF 081MLIMBOBISPO AD # 1549640 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to attend public hear- ings on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Mall Council Cham- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, relative to the following: ss, 1845/1866_MON1ER) =Y STREET - COUnty of San Luis Obispo ARPEA! S of A PF1DROSEn_- ,>_ax -uMIT FOUR -STORY HOTEL BLIILdI.NG_WJTFI ASSOCIATED SIT9Jk4yyR vEMENTS I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not A public hearing to consider appeals of the Architectural Review Commisslon's and interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at > > Planning Commission's decisions related to project design, Administrative Use Per - all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned mil, 15% parking reduction, and Mitigated was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of Negative Declaration of Environmental Im- pact for a proposed 102 -unit, four -story ho- THE TRIBUNE a newspaper of general Circulation, � � with associated site Improve - m snts located at 1845 /1665 Monterey printed and published daily at the City of San Luis Street, San Luis Obispo, California, The Ar- Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice chitectural Review Commission approved the pro*l's design on October 20, 2014 at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was and the Planning Commission denied an published in the above -named newspaper and not in any Administrative Use Permit on December 10, 2014. supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; This application is on file at the City of Luls FEBRUARY 6, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and Obispo Community Development Depart- re ularl ascertained and established a newspaper of g y ment, 1, 919 Palm Street. For more iMarcu- you are invited to contact Marcus general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior Carlon! f the City's Boy uni 71De el b Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on Department email mcarloni@siocity org y June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code The City Council may also discuss other of the State Of California. ihearings or business items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the proposed project in court, you may be limit - limit- I certify or declare under the chat of that the penalty perjury ed to raising only those issues you or foregoing is true and correct. someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Sigliat e of Principal Clerk) Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office and on- DATED: FEBRUARY 6 2015 line at www,sloctty,,QWQn Wednesday, Feb - AD COST: $169,60 ruary 11, 20 15. Please call the City Clerk's i Office at (805) 761 -7100 for more informa- tion. The City Council meeting will be tele- vised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www.slocitv.org Anthony J. Mejia City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo Fobruary 6, 2015 1549640