HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-2016 PC Item 01 - 2223 Monterey - Motel Inn Use Permit
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a Planning Commission Use Permit request on a property with Special
Considerations. Project includes a request to allow a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational
vehicle park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements.
Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
Phone Number: 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: USE-1035-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Submittal Date November 9, 2015
Complete Date January 11, 2016
Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan
Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location to construct a 55-unit motel/hotel
and 23 space RV/Airstream park. The project was previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission (conceptual) on August 26, 2015 and the PC provided conceptual feedback to the
applicant. The subject location includes a Special Considerations Overlay which is governed by
Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series); which includes special standards that apply to the property
(Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 1130). Staff finds the majority of the project to be consistent with
Ordinance No. 1130 and recommends approval per the attached draft resolution (Attachment 1),
however, staff has provided two potential areas of conflict as provided in section 3.0 below.
An Initial Study (Attachment 9) has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for
adoption.
Meeting Date: March 23, 2016
Item Number: 1
PC1 - 1
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 2
PC Conceptual
Review
8-26-2015
ARC Conceptual
Review
10-19-2015
CHC Review
01-25-2016
PC Review
03-23-2016
ARC Review
03-21-2016
1.0 BACKGROUND & COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
1.1 Background
On August, 26, 2015, the PC conceptually reviewed the proposed project. The PC was generally
supportive of the proposed site plan (see Attachment 6: PC Staff Report 08-26-2015 &
Attachment 7: PC Minutes 08-26-2015)
On October 19, 2015, the ARC performed a conceptual review of the subject application. The
ARC was supportive of the conceptual plans and provided direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review; no specific directional items for changes to the design were
provided (see Attachment 7: ARC Minutes 10-19-2015).
On January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the subject application
and found the project consistent with historic preservation standards, recommending approval of
the project to the ARC.
On March 21, 2016, the ARC will formally review the design of the subject project. Staff will
provide the PC with an update regarding the ARC’s decision (see Attachment 8, ARC Staff
Report 3-21-2016).
1.2 Purview
The Commission is tasked with the following:
1. Review the project’s consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 (Attachment 3), the Zoning
Regulations, and applicable City standards.
2. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 11).
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Background and discussion regarding Ordinance No. 1130 is provided in the August 26, 2015
Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4) and the October 19, 2015 ARC Conceptual
Review Staff Report (Attachment 6). Ordinance No. 1130 is provided herein as Attachment 3.
2.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans):
1. Construction of a motel/hotel with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23
RV/Airstream Trailer hookups.
a. 15 rooms within the main lobby building
PC1 - 2
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 3
b. 40 rooms among twelve detached bungalow units.
2. 121 parking spaces provided
a. 10% parking reduction request (13 spaces).
2.2.1 Notable Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review
1. Use of vegetated split rail fencing adjacent to the creek (Attachment 2: Project
Plans, Sheet A5.0)
2. Additional entrances facing the creek (compare Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet
A1.2 & Sheet A4.1, “Site Elevation B to Attachment 12: Previous View from the
Creek)
3. Shortening of northern RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces (see Attachment 2:
Project Plans, Sheet A1.3)
4. Added three housekeeping buildings (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 and
A3.5 “Elevations - Housekeeping Bldgs”)
Table 2.2 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed Ordinance Standard
Street Yard ~45 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet + 10 feet for bell
tower/spire
45 feet1 + 10 feet for
architectural projections
Building Coverage (footprint) ~10% 75%
Parking Spaces 1212 131
Bicycle Parking 7 7 (1 short term, 6 long)
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
An analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan and Ordinance No. 1130 was
provided in the August 26, 2015 PC Staff Report (see Attachment 4, Section 3.0).
At the August 26th hearing, the Planning Commission expressed support of the conceptual plans and
the discussion mainly focused on lighting and noise adjacent to the creek/residential neighborhood.
The following analysis highlights the project components/conditions of approval which address
lighting and noise. Except as provided below, no significant changes to the project have been
proposed since the PC’s review of the project on August 26, 2015. As such, staff has provided
findings of consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 and the Zoning Regulations in the recommended
resolution (Attachment 1).
3.1 RV/Airstream Area
At the August 26, 2015 hearing, the Planning Commission expressed support for the location of
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are
within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces.
PC1 - 3
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 4
the RV/Airstream Area and indicated it’s consistency with spirit/intent of Ordinance No. 1130.
The following items/recommended conditions of approval are provided to address noise/light
associated with the RV/Airstream Area.
1. A vegetated split-rail fence (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A5.0) will be placed
adjacent to the creek to address glare from headlights and limit access to the creek area.
a. The use of a vegetated split-rail fence was recommended by the Natural
Resources Manager to be used in place of a sound wall due to the adjacency of
the creek. The Architectural Review Commission supported the use of split-rail
fencing as well.
2. All creek-adjacent RV spaces are designed as “back-in” spaces to limit headlights
facing toward the creek
3. Condition of approval #2 ensures that outdoor activities associated with the
RV/Airstream area will cease no later than 10:00 p.m., nightly.
4. Condition of approval #6c requires the use of bollard style lighting along the creek
rather than the proposed 20-foot tall parking lot pole lights (Attachment 2: Project
Plans, Sheet A5.0)
5. Condition of approval #1 requires compliance with the City’s Night Sky Preservation
Standards (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) which will be verified with photometric
plans submitted along with plans for a construction permit.
6. Condition of approval #3 requires that all creek-adjacent airstream trailers have their
entrance doors facing away from the creek or are buffered by another trailer.
7. Condition of approval #4 provides the Community Development Director with the
ability to require additional fencing height/material density (i.e. more opaque fencing)
within the portions of the split rail fence that are south of the two parking areas (one
located east of the main hotel/lobby building, the other located west of the bungalows)
3.2 Hotel Room Openings Facing the Creek
At the August 26, 2015 hearing, the PC indicated that balconies and primary outdoor spaces
facing the creek would not be consistent with Ordinance No. 1130. The PC did not express
concern with the creek-adjacent pedestrian walkway and also felt a minimal number of openings
facing the creek would be appropriate.
Bungalow Entrances The applicant continues to propose a minimal number of window
openings facing the creek, however, the applicant modified the bungalow floor plans to
create separate entries to each unit, where entrances were previously shared. The revision
has created several additional “openings facing the creek” which may present an issue of
inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3 which states “building openings
(doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.”
Additional entrances facing the creek may result in an increase in potential noise producing
activity along the creek area that is associated with patrons entering/exiting hotel rooms
(e.g. doors opening/closing, loud conversations, additional pedestrian activity along the
Creekside walkway). The Planning Commission should discuss the consistency of these
PC1 - 4
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 5
additional openings with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3.
Balconies/Outdoor Patios (Suites 41/41) As shown on plans (Attachment 2: Project Plans,
Sheet A1.2) all balconies associated with the bungalow units face the inner courtyard,
however, Suites 41/42 (see “Suite 41/42 label” on Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2)
include ground level outdoor space and 2nd floor balconies (4’ by 7” in size) that are angled
toward the creek. Two units with balconies/outdoor patios facing the creek may be
considered “minimal” per Ordinance No. 1130, however, staff is looking to the Planning
Commission to discuss the consistency of these “openings” with Ordinance No. 1130
Criterion #3. Note: Staff has included a condition of approval (#5) to remove the proposed
patio hot tub shown on plans (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A2.0).
3.3 Parking Reduction Request
The proposed 13 space parking reduction (10%) request is appropriate at the subject location as
the proposed hotel/motel will share parking facilities with the previously approved restaurant, as
required by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.060.B) and encouraged by the Community
Design Guidelines (Chapter 3.1.C2.c)
3.4 Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces.
The northern RV spaces were shortened and the Airstream spaces were shifted per requirements
from the Utilities Department due to an existing utility easement with underground water main.
The site plan maintains the same level of maneuverability shown on previous plans.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 11).
The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, hazards & hazardous materials, and transportation/traffic
will be less than significant.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as
conditions of approval and/or code requirements.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130, the Zoning
Regulations, and/or other pertinent City standards.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
PC1 - 5
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 6
2. Project plans
3. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
4. PC Staff Report 08-26-2015
5. PC Minutes 08-26-2015
6. ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015
7. ARC Minutes 10-19-2015
8. ARC Staff Report 3-21-2016
9. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10. Previous View from the Creek (shown on previous plans)
PC1 - 6
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A 55-ROOM
MOTEL/HOTEL AND 23 SPACE RV/AIRSTREAM PARK INCLUDING A
10% SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS REPRESENTED
IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 23,
2016 (2223 MONTEREY STREET – USE-1035-2015)
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conceptual review of the subject project (USE-1035-
2015); Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of Use Permit review of the subject application; Motel
Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project (USE-1035-2015), based on the following findings:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those
working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s
zoning and property development standards, the requirements of Ordinance No. 1130 (1989
Series), and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety
codes.
3. That the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent creek and
residential uses along San Luis Drive in accordance with the design criteria set forth in
Ordinance No. 1130.
4. That the proposed 10% parking reduction will consolidate parking and minimize area
devoted exclusively to parking, consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations.
PC1 - 7
Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finding that it adequately
identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation of the following
mitigation measures and monitoring programs:
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the
November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
Monitoring Program AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition,
the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased
watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Biological Resources
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.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and
enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with
appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager as part of the
Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement
plan as necessary to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that
best practices are utilized while working within the creek corridor.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with
requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the
Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface
archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring
plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources,
archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until
the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective
measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section
4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to
work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and
PC1 - 8
Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 3
federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance
activities with clear notes and callouts.
Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and
building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for
the monitor shall be clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I
environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been
adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the
Fire Chief prior to construction.
Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be
shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any
contaminations issues must be presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further
action.
Transportation/Traffic
Mitigation Measure: TT-1: Prior to the issuance of 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.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Conditions
Planning Division - Community Development Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the Planning Commission. A separate full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin
of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved
plans or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director, Planning
Commission or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Outdoor activities in patron use areas (i.e. pool, reflecting pool/cabanas, RV/Airstream
activity areas) shall cease no later than 10:00 p.m., nightly.
3. Airstream trailers placed adjacent to the creek shall have their entrance doors facing away
from the creek or otherwise be buffered from the creek by another trailer.
PC1 - 9
Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 4
4. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, taller split rail fencing
may be required to appropriately screen headlights from vehicles traveling south in the west
and central parking lots.
5. The proposed hot tub(s) associated with suites 41/42 shall not be allowed.
6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-
sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that
light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3
b. Exterior wall sconce lighting (facing the creek) should be designed so that the light
can be switched on and off to avoid constant illumination of the exterior lights.
c. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, the
RV/Airstream area shall include bollard style lighting along the creek (rather than
pole mounted lighting).
7. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance
with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is
necessary upon significant change to the business as represented in the Planning Commission
Agenda Report dated March 23, 2016, or in the event of a change in ownership which may
result in deviation from the project description or approved plans.
8. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives
substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police
Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion
that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the
property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of the Use Permit review,
to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be
added, deleted, or modified.
9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on
the following roll call vote:
PC1 - 10
Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1
USE-1035-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 5
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of March, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 11
Attachment 2
PC1 - 12
Attachment 2
PC1 - 13
Attachment 2
PC1 - 14
Attachment 2
PC1 - 15
Attachment 2
PC1 - 16
Attachment 2
PC1 - 17
Attachment 2
PC1 - 18
Attachment 2
PC1 - 19
Attachment 2
PC1 - 20
Attachment 2
PC1 - 21
Attachment 2
PC1 - 22
Attachment 2
PC1 - 23
Attachment 2
PC1 - 24
Attachment 2
PC1 - 25
Attachment 2
PC1 - 26
Attachment 2
PC1 - 27
Attachment 2
PC1 - 28
Attachment 2
PC1 - 29
Attachment 2
PC1 - 30
Attachment 2
PC1 - 31
Attachment 2
PC1 - 32
Attachment 2
PC1 - 33
(
E
)
O
a
k
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
Pa
v
e
r
s
E
)
O
a
a a
k
k k k
O
a
a a
(
E
)
O O
k k
29
5
30
0
30
5
295
30
0
30
0
30
5
29
6
29
7
298
299
30
1
302
303
304
29
6
29
7
2
9
8
2
9
9
30
1
297
2
9
8
299
301
302
303
304
30
6
30
7
30
8
29
5
29 29 29
5
29 29 29
5 95
29 9 29 29
5
29 29 2 29
5
29 29
29977797972929
01 01
30 0 30 0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
Th
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
s
t
o
c
a
p
t
u
r
e
t
h
e
e
s
s
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
of
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
.
Th
i
s
o
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
d
m
a
n
y
f
i
n
e
s
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
pl
a
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
a
t
e
r
a
a
n
d
wh
i
c
h
c
a
n
b
e
s
e
e
n
i
n
m
a
n
y
p
l
a
c
e
s
i
n
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
a
s
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
in
o
l
d
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
.
Wh
i
l
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
n
a
n
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
y
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
,
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
i
t
r
u
s
tr
e
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
.
T
h
e
ta
b
l
e
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
L
-
3
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
.
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
p
l
a
n
t
s
t
o
be
r
e
-
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
r
e
:
•
H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
/
B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a
x
b
l
a
k
e
a
n
a
•
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
/
S
y
z
i
g
i
u
m
p
a
n
i
c
u
l
a
t
u
m
•
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
/
P
i
t
t
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
u
n
d
u
l
a
t
u
m
•
N
o
r
f
o
l
k
I
s
l
a
n
d
P
i
n
e
/
A
r
a
u
c
a
r
i
a
e
x
c
e
l
s
a
•
B
i
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
/
S
t
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
r
e
g
i
n
a
•
W
i
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
l
a
m
/
T
r
a
c
h
y
c
a
p
r
u
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e
i
In
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
,
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
s
li
s
t
e
d
o
n
s
h
e
e
t
L
-
2
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
e
or
i
g
i
n
a
l
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Sh
e
e
t
L
-
2
t
a
b
u
l
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
us
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
.
T
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
wi
l
l
u
s
e
6
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
(
M
A
W
U
)
a
n
d
m
e
e
t
s
C
A
L
G
r
e
e
n
T
i
e
r
2
f
o
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
.
M
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
pl
a
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
a
r
e
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
a
n
d
dr
o
u
g
h
t
t
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
.
F
E
B
1
7
,
2
0
1
6
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
F
i
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
F
i
r
m
a
_
M
o
t
e
l
_
I
n
n
_
P
R
E
L
I
M
1
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
2
_
1
2
_
1
6
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
/
1
5
/
1
6
L-
1
.
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
M
a
t
c
h
l
i
n
e
S
e
e
S
h
e
e
t
L
-
2
.
0
Qu
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s
)
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Ti
p
u
T
r
e
e
/
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Tr
e
e
s
Re
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
G
u
m
/
S
w
e
e
t
S
h
a
d
e
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
/
N
e
w
Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
T
r
e
e
Ol
i
v
e
/
C
o
a
s
t
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
Wi
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
a
l
m
/
M
e
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
F
a
n
P
a
l
m
Ci
t
r
u
s
/
B
a
u
h
i
n
i
a
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
in
t
h
e
O
l
d
M
o
t
e
l
I
n
n
s
t
y
l
e
Na
t
i
v
e
R
I
p
a
r
i
a
n
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
/
S
u
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
h
r
u
b
s
an
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
s
LA
W
N
No
r
t
h
0
1
0
'
2
0
'
40
'
4
0
'
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
4
0
'
-
0
"
SU
R
V
E
Y
E
D
T
O
P
O
F
C
R
E
E
K
NO
D
I
S
T
U
R
B
A
N
C
E
B
E
L
O
W
Ho
n
g
K
o
n
g
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
Au
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
Wi
n
d
m
a
l
l
P
a
l
m
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
No
r
f
o
l
k
I
s
l
a
n
d
P
a
l
m
Attachment 2
PC1 - 34
2
F
i
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
F
i
r
m
a
_
M
o
t
e
l
_
I
n
n
_
P
R
E
L
I
M
2
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
_
2
_
1
2
_
1
6
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
0
2
/
1
2
/
1
6
L L -2
.
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
N
o
t
e
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Un
i
f
o
r
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
l
o
w
t
o
m
e
d
i
u
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
La
w
n
i
s
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
u
s
e
i
c
a
n
o
c
c
u
r
;
l
a
w
n
a
r
e
a
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
5
%
o
f
o
v
e
r
a
l
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
.
.
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
b
e
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
3
"
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
u
l
c
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
to
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
o
i
l
.
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
N
o
t
e
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Un
i
f
o
r
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
Al
l
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
l
o
w
t
o
m
e
d
i
u
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
pe
r
W
U
C
O
L
S
.
T
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(
M
A
W
A
)
a
n
d
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
(
E
T
W
U
)
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
E
T
W
U
i
s
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
t
h
e
M
A
W
A
.
Wa
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
i
t
y
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
m
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
re
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
u
s
e
.
Th
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
f
i
n
-
l
i
n
e
d
r
i
p
e
m
i
t
t
e
r
s
.
E
a
c
h
c
i
r
c
u
i
t
sh
a
l
l
b
e
a
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
•
S
h
a
d
y
a
r
e
a
h
y
r
d
o
z
o
n
e
•
S
u
n
n
y
a
r
e
a
h
y
r
d
o
z
o
n
e
•
L
I
D
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
b
o
t
t
o
m
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
•
S
l
o
p
e
s
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
o
i
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
s
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
b
a
s
e
d
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
in
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
p
l
a
n
t
'
s
n
e
e
d
s
,
a
s
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
L
I
D
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
T
i
e
r
1
o
r
T
i
e
r
2
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
•
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
o
n
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
i
l
m
e
d
i
a
,
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
•
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
e
t
/
d
r
y
a
d
a
p
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
•
C
o
b
b
l
e
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s
i
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
.
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
L
i
s
t
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
Z
o
n
e
Tr
e
e
s
Ar
e
c
a
s
t
r
u
m
r
o
m
a
n
z
o
f
f
i
a
n
u
m
Qu
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
Eu
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
f
i
c
i
f
o
l
i
a
Re
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
G
u
m
Ch
a
m
a
e
r
o
p
s
h
u
m
u
l
i
s
Me
d
i
t
e
r
r
a
n
e
a
n
F
a
n
P
a
l
m
Ci
t
r
u
s
s
p
.
Ci
t
r
u
s
(
t
o
b
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
)
Hy
m
e
n
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
f
l
a
v
u
m
Sw
e
e
t
S
h
a
d
e
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
m
i
m
o
s
i
f
o
l
i
a
Ja
c
a
r
a
n
d
a
Me
t
r
o
s
i
d
e
r
o
s
e
x
c
e
l
s
a
Ne
w
Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
T
r
e
e
Ol
e
a
e
u
r
o
p
e
a
Ol
i
v
e
Pl
a
t
a
n
u
s
r
a
c
e
m
o
s
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
a
g
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Li
v
e
Oa
k
St
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
n
i
c
h
o
l
a
i
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Ti
p
u
a
n
a
t
i
p
u
Ti
p
u
T
r
e
e
Tr
a
c
h
y
c
a
r
p
u
s
f
o
r
t
u
n
e
i
Wi
n
d
m
i
l
l
P
a
l
m
Sh
r
u
b
s
Al
y
o
g
y
n
e
h
u
e
g
e
l
i
i
Bl
u
e
H
i
b
i
s
c
u
s
Ca
l
l
i
s
t
e
m
o
n
‘
L
i
t
t
l
e
J
o
h
n
’
Dw
a
r
f
B
o
t
t
l
e
b
r
u
s
h
Sa
l
v
i
a
l
e
u
c
a
n
t
h
a
Me
x
i
c
a
n
S
a
g
e
St
r
e
l
i
t
z
i
a
r
e
g
i
n
a
e
Bi
r
d
o
f
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
Vi
n
e
s
Di
s
t
i
c
t
i
s
b
u
c
i
n
n
a
t
o
r
i
a
Bl
o
o
d
-
r
e
d
T
r
u
m
p
e
t
V
i
n
e
Ma
c
f
a
d
e
n
y
a
u
n
g
u
i
s
-
c
a
t
i
Ca
t
’
s
C
l
a
w
Wi
s
t
e
r
i
a
s
i
n
e
n
s
i
s
Ch
i
n
e
s
e
W
i
s
t
e
r
i
a
Su
c
c
u
l
e
n
t
s
Ag
a
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
‘
M
e
d
i
o
-
p
i
c
t
a
’
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
Ag
a
v
e
‘
B
l
u
e
G
l
o
w
’
Bl
u
e
G
l
o
w
A
g
a
v
e
Al
o
e
n
o
b
i
l
i
s
Go
l
d
e
n
T
o
o
t
h
e
d
A
l
o
e
Al
o
e
s
t
r
i
a
t
a
Co
r
a
l
A
l
o
e
Na
t
i
v
e
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
Z
o
n
e
Sh
r
u
b
s
Mu
h
l
e
n
b
e
r
g
i
a
r
i
g
e
n
s
De
e
r
Gr
a
s
s
Rh
a
m
n
u
s
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Co
f
f
e
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ri
b
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
o
s
a
Fu
c
h
s
i
a
F
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
Go
o
s
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ro
s
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
W
i
l
d
R
o
s
e
Su
b
t
r
o
p
i
c
a
l
S
h
a
d
e
Z
o
n
e
(N
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
)
Sh
r
u
b
s
Al
p
i
n
i
a
z
e
r
u
m
b
e
t
Sh
e
l
l
G
i
n
g
e
r
Be
g
o
n
i
a
r
i
c
h
m
o
n
d
e
n
s
i
s
Be
g
o
n
i
a
Cl
i
v
i
a
m
i
n
i
a
t
a
Ka
f
f
i
r
L
i
l
y
Li
r
o
p
e
m
u
s
c
a
r
i
Bi
g
B
l
u
e
L
i
l
y
T
u
r
f
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
r
o
e
b
e
l
l
i
n
i
Py
g
m
y
D
a
t
e
P
a
l
m
Ra
p
h
i
o
l
e
p
i
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
‘
B
a
l
l
e
r
i
n
a
’
Ba
l
l
e
r
i
n
a
In
d
i
a
H
a
w
t
h
o
r
n
Ti
b
o
u
c
h
i
n
a
u
r
v
i
l
l
e
a
n
a
Pr
i
n
c
e
s
s
F
l
o
w
e
r
Tu
p
i
d
a
n
t
h
u
s
c
a
l
y
p
t
r
a
t
u
s
Um
b
r
e
l
l
a
T
r
e
e
F
E
B
1
7
,
2
0
1
6
No
r
t
h
0
10
'
2
0
'
4
0
'
40
'
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
4
0
'
-
0
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
A
T
E
P
A
L
M
RE
T
A
I
N
O
R
R
E
P
O
S
I
T
I
O
N
O
N
S
I
T
E
30
6
xt25;AeccDbFace (AeccLand100)
xt0
.
0
2
6
0
4
;
3
6
"
E
U
C
31
1
29
5
30
0
29
0
2
8
5
29
0
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
31
0
2
9
0
3
0
0
2
9
5
3
0
1
3
0
2
30
6
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
M
a
x
A
n
n
u
a
l
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
A
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
(
M
A
W
A
)
a
n
d
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
(
E
T
W
U
)
:
97
%
C
i
t
y
St
a
t
e
Z
i
p
!
!
"
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
l
o
c
i
t
y
.
o
r
g
/
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
/
d
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
/
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
.
p
d
f
En
t
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
:
MA
W
A
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
7
1
2
,
8
0
4
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
5
4
9
7
5
M
A
W
A
U
n
i
t
s
9
5
2
.
9
5
Tu
r
f
2
7
4
5
Lo
w
(
D
r
o
u
g
h
t
T
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
)
3
9
1
4
0
E
T
W
U
G
a
l
l
o
n
s
6
8
9
,
9
0
8
.
0
0
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
1
3
0
9
0
E
T
W
U
U
n
i
t
s
9
2
2
.
3
4
Hi
g
h
(
T
h
i
r
s
t
y
)
0
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
0
Ve
g
e
t
a
b
l
e
s
0
[c
h
e
c
k
t
o
t
a
l
]
5
4
9
7
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
Mo
t
e
l
I
n
n
Na
m
e
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
Ti
t
l
e
Te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
N
o
.
Fa
x
N
o
.
Em
a
i
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
Co
m
p
a
n
y
St
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
Sa
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
A
%
!
#
!
$
"
"
#
&
,
4
3
3
3
+
4
3
3
;
-
@
6
;
)
5
7
"
*
&
!
#
$
"
#
#
#
!
@
3
)
9
3
%
!
"
#
!
,
"
#
"
$
!
#
-
@
3
)
8
4
@
"
!
@
"
!
,
"
!
#
"
(
%
#
!
-
$
"
#
#
#
!
@
3
)
5
3
@
#
#
!
!
@
&
!
'
!
"
$
!
#
@
!
!
#
&
,
:
3
>
-
#
"
@
#
"
!
9
6
:
"
@
,
#
-
,
3
)
8
4
-
.
3
)
6
7
0
?
3
)
7
7
0
/
@
,
#
-
,
)
3
8
4
-
,
,
0
-
*
?
-
Attachment 2
PC1 - 35
xt0
.
0
2
6
0
4
;
3
6
"
E
U
C
31
0
31
2
297
295
2
9
4
2
9
4
2
9
4
30
2
2 2
30
2
30
293
29292
291
2
29191
2
9
0
298
2
9
9
9
8
2
8
5
2
9
0
2
9
5
29
6
30
5
30
6
30
7
30
8
296
2
9
6
2
9
6
29329
30
3
30
4
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
F
i
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
F
i
r
m
a
_
M
o
t
e
l
_
I
n
n
_
P
R
E
L
I
M
3
_
t
r
e
e
_
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
_
2
_
1
2
_
1
6
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
/
1
6
/
1
6
L-
3
.
0
Tr
e
e
R
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
No
r
t
h
0
1
0
'
2
0
'
4
0
'
40
'
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
T
r
e
e
C
a
n
o
p
y
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
Pa
v
e
r
s
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
CA
N
O
P
Y
,
T
Y
P
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
T
r
e
e
s
C
a
l
i
p
e
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
1.
C
a
n
a
r
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
D
a
t
e
P
a
l
m
3
0
"
S
a
v
e
/
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
2.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
3
0
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
3.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
4.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
5.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
2
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
6.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
2
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
7.
Q
u
e
e
n
P
a
l
m
1
4
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
8.
E
u
c
a
l
y
p
t
u
s
3
6
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
9.
F
i
c
u
s
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
10
.
O
r
c
h
i
d
T
r
e
e
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
11
.
W
e
e
p
i
n
g
B
o
t
t
l
e
b
r
u
s
h
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
12
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
1
0
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
13
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
/
B
r
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
14
.
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
1
0
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
15
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
8
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
16
.
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
n
B
o
x
1
4
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
17
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
1
4
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
18
.
M
a
g
n
o
l
i
a
8
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
20
.
C
i
t
r
u
s
8
"
T
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
21
.
C
e
d
a
r
1
6
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
22
.
O
a
k
2
4
"
S
a
v
e
23
.
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
B
u
s
h
C
h
e
r
r
y
1
8
"
S
a
v
e
24
.
P
i
t
t
o
s
p
o
r
u
m
u
n
d
u
l
a
t
u
m
G
r
o
u
p
R
e
m
o
v
e
25
.
B
l
a
c
k
A
c
a
c
i
a
1
6
"
R
e
m
o
v
e
4
2 3
5
9
10
15
16
1718
19
20
21
F
E
B
1
7
,
2
0
1
6
8
14
13
12
11
6
7
22
232425
Attachment 2
PC1 - 36
Attachment 2
PC1 - 37
Attachment 2
PC1 - 38
Attachment 2
PC1 - 39
Attachment 2
PC1 - 40
Attachment 2
PC1 - 41
Attachment 3
PC1 - 42
Attachment 3
PC1 - 43
Attachment 3
PC1 - 44
Attachment 3
PC1 - 45
Attachment 3
PC1 - 46
Attachment 3
PC1 - 47
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual Review of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new
motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: USE 1035-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy
Director
Phone Number: 781-7177
E-mail: ddavidson@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff
and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with Ordinance 1130.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Zoning C‐T‐S (Tourist‐Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Subject to preparation of an
Initial Study due to creek
adjacency, historic property
status and highway 101 location.
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of a project
that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various
buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the
creek. Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria.
After complying with Planning Commission direction on consistency with Ordinance 1130,
the project applicant will finalize plans to move forward to the Cultural Heritage Committee and
Architectural Review Commission prior to returning to the Planning Commission for final
action.
Meeting Date: August 26, 2015
Item Number: 1
PJD
PJD
DD
Attachment 4
PC1 - 48
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project is expansion of a formerly existing motel use and includes a new RV parking use.
Both aspects are subject to a Planning Commission Use Permit. The purpose of the use permit is
to review the project for consistency with specific design criteria that are intended to protect the
creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood. This conceptual review process is
intended to receive feedback and early direction regarding the consistency of the project with
Ordinance 1130 prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with detailed
design plans.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres
Present Use & Development Parking lot , accessory structures, and ruins of the Historic Motel
Inn
Topography Generally level
Access North end of Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: C‐T‐S, Apple Farm Inn
South: R‐1‐S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood
The project site is roughly four acres on the very northeast end of Monterey Street, adjacent to
Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property. On the
south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are adjacent to
the motel portion of the property.
The former Motel Inn on this site was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as
the Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed around 1925 when Monterey Street
was the highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade.
Many of the motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration;
however the original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original
restaurant. Portions of the site are paved with asphalt and contain foundations of the original
motel structures and pool. The site is included in the City’s Master List of Historic resources.
2.2 Project Description
The project intends to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn, along with a
restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a courtyard setting. The remaining
portions of the original structures would be retained and integrated into the project. Thirty-two
(32) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings with some of
the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a separate building at
the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of the Motel Inn.
Attachment 4
PC1 - 49
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 3
The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to
accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short term park. A total of 25 RV spaces are
proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site available
for overnight guests.
The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking
requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The
restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would
occur with final review of the use permit.
2.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2
Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 30 feet 45 feet1
Building Coverage (footprint) 13% 75%
Parking Spaces 119 1302
Bicycle Parking 29 16
Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to
HWY 101
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The C-T zone is designed to accommodate visitor serving uses such as a motel. However, new or
expanded uses require Planning Commission review due to Ordinance 1130 and the RV park use
triggers the review of PC Use Permit regardless of Ordinance 1130. The Use Permit is contingent
on findings for consistency with Ordinance 1130 and for compatibility with this unique location
adjacent to the creek, the highway and a residential neighborhood. The CHC’s future review
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within
the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The
restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses.
Attachment 4
PC1 - 50
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 4
will rely on the project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Program guidelines while the
ARC’s future review will rely on the Citywide Community Design Guidelines.
A very similar project, absent the RV park, was reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission for this site in 2003. The previous project was larger in scale. Construction permits
were not pursued for the previous project and the entitlements have since expired.
3.1 General Plan Policy
The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially
appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper MontereyStreet region is
concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants.
Land Use Element policy 3.6.2 is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses:
“The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses,
including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train
station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be
located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts,
where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses
have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area;
at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.”
Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential
neighborhoods as the first priority.
Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3:
“In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential
uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.”
The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the
project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are
multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between
the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these
policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses.
Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay)
In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were
rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility
concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential
land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect
the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3).
Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130
since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are
detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways.
Attachment 4
PC1 - 51
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 5
However, staff’s primary concern is that the RV park may conflict with the spirit of the
ordinance since it may be viewed as an outdoor recreation use. Ordinance 1130 states that
outdoor recreation uses or parking areas be on the interior of the site or should be shielded from
the creek by buildings. The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key
design criteria of Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity.
1. Creek setbacks
Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking
areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan).
2. Building openings
Openings facing creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard setting
surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the creek are
detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the buildings
contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the buildings
appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of the patios
and decks face inward towards the center of the site.
3. Screening between buildings and creek
This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other
sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis
Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from
the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood.
4. Lighting between buildings and creek
At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify
lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed
with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions
can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek.
5. Common driveways
The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be
perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is
instead alongside the proposed development.
6. Land Use compatibility
The low scale motel use is an ideal complementary use adjacent to the creek and the San
Luis Drive neighborhood. However, the RV park may be contrary to the objective of
Ordinance 1130 by positioning RV spaces facing the creek along with potential noise,
additional light and glare. Although the RV park is conceptually a good use for this
freeway oriented, narrow site, its accompanying potential impacts may not be compatible
with riparian or residential land uses as expressed in the ordinance.
Attachment 4
PC1 - 52
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 6
7. Noise generating uses such as parking and active recreation uses
This is the criteria that appears to specifically conflict with the RV parking use.
Ordinance 1130 specifically notes that parking and “active recreation” uses should be on
the interior of the site using buildings as a buffer from the creek and residential uses. The
project proposal identifies seven RV parking spaces located at the creek setback, along
with spaces for several of the applicant installed airstream trailers. The RV parking
spaces would act as camp sites, and although outdoor fire pits are not allowed in the City,
this may be considered an outdoor active use. Fortunately, the creek provides heavy tree
screening at this location and much of the land opposite the creek is not lined with
sensitive residential uses. Although this is a creative use for the site, it appears to be
inconsistent with Ordinance 1130 unless it can be clearly buffered from the creek.
Figure 2: Site plan identifying proposed RV park location
8. Site drainage
Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff
or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria
have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will
guide the project design.
Attachment 4
PC1 - 53
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 7
9. Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary.
The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court
development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone.
3.5 Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130:
a. Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common
area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review
by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants
receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and
lighting will be required.
b. Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the
western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on
Monterey Street while allowing logical access. Details of enclosures will need to be
included with the final project design.
c. Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and
motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a
more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking
spaces, however the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The
parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces
are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use
for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as
guests as the hotel.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As proposed the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101,
and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the
initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the
project’s consistency with Ordinance 1130. The design of the motel project appears consistent
with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130. However, the unique RV parking
proposal may conflict with the ordinance provisions and may need additional creek buffering in
order for the Commission to make positive use permit findings. The following discussion items
have been identified to formulate discussion:
1. RV Park creek buffering. A landscaped screening wall with a natural stone appearance
designed with varying heights and setbacks may allow the RV sites to be consistent with
Ordinance provisions while helping to block light and potential noise. However, this wall
would alter the quality of the RV park from the users perspective.
2. Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with
walls or removed from the proposed building design.
Attachment 4
PC1 - 54
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – August 26, 2015)
Page 8
Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in
the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include
public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity (Land Use) map
2. Reduced-scale project plans
3. Ordinance 1130
Attachment 4
PC1 - 55
Attachment 5
PC1 - 56
Attachment 5
PC1 - 57
Attachment 5
PC1 - 58
Attachment 5
PC1 - 59
Attachment 5
PC1 - 60
Attachment 5
PC1 - 61
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)
SUBJECT: Conceptual Review of a proposal to redevelop the Motel Inn property with new
motel units, a restaurant and 25 recreational vehicle (RV) parking spaces.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street BY:Steve Matarazzo, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1992-2015 FROM: Tyler Corey, Interim Deputy
Director
Phone Number: 781-7169
E-mail: tcorey@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff
and the applicant regarding the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
other direction that may be a part of the conceptual review hearing.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan
Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Subject to preparation of an
Initial Study due to creek
adjacency, historic property
status and highway 101 location.
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2, reduced scale plans) for the review of a project
that will redevelop the historic Motel Inn property with 52 motel guest rooms in various
buildings and parking for up to 25 RVs at the rear of the site adjacent to Highway 101 and the
creek. Ordinance 1130 requires that expansion of existing uses and new uses be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to ensure compliance with specific design criteria.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project conceptually on August 26, 2015 and found the
project to be consistent with land use and zoning designations of property; and, consistent with
the “S”, special considerations, overlay zone (Ordinance 1130). The applicant is now requesting
a conceptual architectural review of the preliminary site and architectural plans prior to
proceeding with final review of more complete plans to the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission.
Meeting Date: October 19, 2015
Item Number: 1
TAC
SM
Attachment 6
PC1 - 62
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 2
The developer is also working with the City and Caltrans to determine the extent of roadway
improvements/restrictions that may be needed to reduce the speed of vehicles accelerating onto
the Highway 101 north-bound on-ramp, immediately adjacent to the site. Other conflicting
traffic movements at the on-ramp/off-ramp locations will also be evaluated with final
recommendations going to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project proposes an expansion of a former, existing motel (the historic Motel Inn) and would
include a new RV parking use. Both land uses are subject to Architectural Review Commission
site and architectural plan approval and Planning Commission use permit approval. This
conceptual architectural and site plan review process is intended to receive feedback and early
direction regarding the consistency of the project with Ordinance 1130 and the community
design guidelines prior to completing the environmental document and proceeding with more
detailed design plans.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size Approximately 4.19 acres
Present Use & Development Parking lot , accessory structures, and remnants of the Historic
Motel Inn
Topography Generally level
Access North end of Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Highway 101
East: San Luis Creek
West: C-T-S, Apple Farm Inn
South: R-1-S San Luis Drive residential neighborhood
The project site is approximately four acres, on the very northeast end of Monterey Street,
adjacent to Highway 101 on its north side. San Luis creek borders the south side of the property.
On the south side of the creek, there are several single family residential properties that are
across the creek and otherwise adjacent to the motel portion of the property.
The former Motel Inn was the first known motel in the country. Originally known as the
Milestone Motel Inn, the site was originally developed circa 1925 when Monterey Street was the
highway. This was the last stop for travelers passing north and south over the grade. Many of the
motel units and accessory buildings were demolished due to extensive deterioration; however the
original Motel lobby remains along with a portion of the wall of the original restaurant. The site
is also included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources.
Attachment 6
PC1 - 63
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 3
2.2 Project Description
The project proposes to resurrect a motel in the theme of the original Motel Inn (Mission revival
architectural style), along with a restaurant, pool and garden areas with detached buildings in a
courtyard setting. The remaining portions of the original structures would be retained and
integrated into the project. The developer has agreed to design the new structures attached to the
historic building remnants so that there is sufficient differentiation between the old and new.
Fifty-two (52) hotel rooms would be arranged in small one and two story detached buildings
with some of the rooms attached to the main lobby building. The restaurant would be in a
separate building at the front of the site and would integrate the original remaining portions of
the Motel Inn.
The easterly half of the site, sandwiched between the creek and Highway 101 is proposed to
accommodate RV spaces in the form of a short-term rental park. A total of 25 RV spaces are
proposed, 10 of which are proposed to be Airstream trailers that would remain on site (with
permanent utility hookups) available for overnight guests.
The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction which would reduce the parking
requirement of 130 spaces down to 117 spaces; 119 spaces are proposed on the site plan. The
restaurant and motel would share the parking areas. Action on the parking reduction would
occur with final review of the use permit.
2.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2
Street Yard 75 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 30 feet 45 feet1
Building Coverage (footprint) 13% 75%
Parking Spaces 119 1302
Bicycle Parking 29 16
Figure 1: Rendering of the proposed Motel Inn restaurant and lobby area adjacent to
HWY 101
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are within
the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces. The
restaurant and hotel use may be considered shared parking as they are different and complementing uses.
Attachment 6
PC1 - 64
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 4
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Design
Conceptually, the project satisfies the Community Design Guidelines regarding commercial
project design outside of the downtown area. Section 3.1 of the commercial project guidelines
addresses the following design objectives:
1. Consider the city’s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding area;
2. Avoid boxy structures with large flat wall planes;
3. Preserve the design integrity of historically significant structures;
4. Provide landscaping to help screen parking and storage areas;
5. Provide safe access to the site and design parking to avoid awkward turning movements;
6. Consider the need for signs and their appropriate scale early in the design process;
7. Locate outdoor equipment and trash enclosures in the least conspicuous parts of the site;
8. Neighborhood compatibility design objectives include having an appropriate design theme,
having buildings of proportional scale and size, having appropriate building setbacks and
massing and using appropriate colors, textures and building materials;
9. Architectural design should involve a consistent use of colors, materials and detailing
throughout all elevations of the buildings.
The proposed project is consistent with the above guidelines by keeping the scale of
development relatively low profile, and it is well buffered from the adjoining neighborhood by
creek vegetation and setback. The Mission Revival style reflects the historic parts of the former
motel and avoids boxy building shapes, providing consistent design, materials and detailing (e.g.,
tiled gabled roofs, trellis and porch elements, cap pieces, recessed windows, small paned
windows, wood framing above windows, and decorative exterior stairways).
As there are no permanent buildings proposed on the other half of the property, primarily site
plan considerations are directed toward the recreational vehicle park. The site plan is well-
designed for its purpose easily accommodating the proposed 25 RVs. The 10 proposed Airstream
vehicles will be of a more stationary nature, but still moveable. Therefore, what appears to be a
“tandem parking” situation adjacent to the short-term RV parking, will not present a problem.
Further, some of these mobile vehicles are shown to be located within an existing water
easement (along the northerly property line) and an access easement (along the easterly property
line). The developer will need to contact the water department to coordinate activities in the
water line easement area. The 50 foot access easement is currently being researched by staff.
However, this easement area should not present a problem for the site plan as the Airstreams are
moveable, if and when required. (The applicant believes this is some kind of trail easement
which would eventually go under the freeway to connect with a future trail system.) The
Commission should also consider any screening issues of the RV park within its site plan
orientation. Existing vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way on one side, and the riparian
corridor of San Luis Creek on the other appear to provide excellent visual screening from the
traveling public on Highway 101 and across the creek to the adjacent neighborhood.
Attachment 6
PC1 - 65
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 5
3.2 General Plan Policy
The General Plan encourages visitor- serving uses and notes that such uses are especially
appropriate where such uses are already concentrated. The upper Monterey Street region is
concentrated with visitor-serving uses such as hotels and restaurants.
Land Use Element policy 3.6.2 is specific to the location of Tourist Commercial uses:
“The City shall encourage integration of visitor-serving uses with other types of uses,
including overnight accommodations Downtown, near the airport, and near the train
station; small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed-and-breakfast places) may be
located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts,
where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where such uses
have already concentrated: along upper Monterey Street; at the Madonna Road area;
at certain freeway interchanges; and in the Downtown.”
Other important policies of the General Plan emphasize the protection of residential
neighborhoods as the first priority.
Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3:
“In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-residential
uses, the City shall make protection of a residential atmosphere the first priority.”
The other factor on this development site is the location of San Luis Creek, which follows the
project boundary and separates the project area from the R-1 zone on San Luis Drive. There are
multiple policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element that speak to the interface between
the natural environment and development. Ordinance 1130 was designed to implement these
policies and serves to enhance the relationship between the creek and the visitor-serving uses.
3.3 Ordinance 1130 (Special Considerations Overlay)
In 1989 the properties on the southeast side of Monterey Street adjacent to San Luis Creek were
rezoned with an “S overlay” (Special Considerations) zone to address land use compatibility
concerns applicable to the surrounding area and particularly between commercial and residential
land uses adjacent to San Luis Creek. The Ordinance includes design criteria designed to protect
the creek habitat and nearby residential uses (Attachment 3).
Many of the components of the Motel Inn project respect the criteria within Ordinance 1130
since the project complies with creek setbacks, proposes low-scale development (units are
detached and less than 25 feet in height), and makes use of common access and driveways. The
The following analysis evaluates the project in comparison with the key design criteria of
Ordinance 1130. The design criteria have been abbreviated for clarity.
Attachment 6
PC1 - 66
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 6
1. Creek setbacks
Project complies with creek setbacks and illustrates that all new structures and parking
areas are at least 20 feet from C/OS 5 boundary line (Attachment 2, site plan).
2. Building openings
Openings facing the creek are minimized as the project is designed with a courtyard
setting surrounding pools and garden areas. The bungalow hotel units adjacent to the
creek are detached two-story buildings that do not exceed 25 feet in height. Each of the
buildings contains four hotel units, two upstairs and two downstairs. At least three of the
buildings appear to have units with patios that face the creek. However, the majority of
the patios and decks face inward towards the center of the site.
3. Screening between buildings and creek
This portion of San Luis Creek is heavily vegetated with trees and shrubs. Unlike other
sites along Monterey Street, this site is not sloped and is at a similar grade to San Luis
Drive. The natural vegetation serves to adequately screen the proposed development from
the creek and the San Luis Drive neighborhood.
4. Lighting between buildings and creek
At this time, detailed plans have not been submitted with sufficient clarity to identify
lighting adjacent to the creek. Other than the RV parking area, the project is designed
with pedestrian paths and low scale development adjacent to the creek. Project conditions
can be designed to restrict lighting to appropriate levels adjacent to the creek.
5. Common driveways
The project shares one driveway access from Monterey Street. Parking is designed to be
perpendicular to the creek and is not directly aligned with the rear of the site but is
instead alongside the proposed development.
6. Land Use compatibility
The low scale motel use is consistent with the zoning, will not adversely affect the creek
and will be well buffered from the San Luis Drive neighborhood. Also, in its conceptual
review, the Planning Commission did not see a problem with the complementary use of a
small RV parking area within the motel site.
7. Site drainage
Ordinance 1130 provides for specific criteria to protect the creek from erosive site runoff
or site contaminants. Since the ordinance adoption in 1989, far more restrictive criteria
have been adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City which will
guide the project design.
8. Building height restricted to 25 feet within 50 feet of C/OS-5 boundary.
The project complies with specific height criteria by proposing low scale, bungalow court
development for the hotel portion of the project within the 50-foot buffer zone.
Attachment 6
PC1 - 67
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 7
3.4 Other Site Improvements not specifically addressed by Ordinance 1130:
a. Landscaping: A landscaping plan providing for parking lot shade trees, common
area landscape and landscape at the street yard will be required prior to final review
by the ARC. At this time, only conceptual plans have been supplied. If the applicants
receive direction to move forward, additional details regarding site landscaping and
lighting will be required. Highway vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way
appears adequate to screen the property, and in particular the RV parking area.
b. Trash and Storage Areas: Preliminary plans show a trash/recycling enclosure in the
western edge of the site at the parking area, which would be shielded from views on
Monterey Street while allowing easy access. Details of enclosures will need to be
included with the final project design.
c. Parking: The parking plan provides for 119 vehicle parking spaces. Bicycle and
motorcycle spaces have not been identified at this time and will be required upon a
more detailed project review. The project would normally require 130 vehicle parking
spaces; however, the applicant is requesting shared parking reduction of 10%. The
parking reduction would reduce the requirement to 117 spaces, however 119 spaces
are proposed at this time. The restaurant and hotel use would qualify as a shared use
for the parking reduction since the hotel guests would likely use the restaurant as
guests of the hotel.
d. Signs: The project will retain the historic free-standing motel sign. Other signage
will be subject to future ARC review and approval.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As proposed, the project is not exempt from CEQA due to the location of the creek, HWY 101,
and for the evaluation of modifications to a significant historic resource. Staff will complete the
initial study for the Planning Commission’s review at a future hearing.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
Continue the project to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant on the
project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The design of the motel project
appears consistent with the C-T zone and with the spirit of Ordinance 1130. The following items
have been identified to formulate discussion:
1. RV Park creek buffering. The City’s Natural Resources Manager is recommending a
wooden rail fence with appropriate signing to address potential trespass into the riparian
area. This type of pedestrian restriction would still allow the visual enjoyment of the
resource.
2. Motel bungalow units. Decks or patios facing the creek area should be screened with
walls or removed from the proposed building design.
Attachment 6
PC1 - 68
USE 1035 -2015; 2223 and 2229 Monterey Street (Motel Inn – October 19, 2015)
Page 8
Conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in
the future architectural review and Planning Commission report. These comments will include
public improvement requirements, utility connections, and other site features.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity (Land Use) map
2. Reduced-scale project plans
3. Ordinance 1130
Attachment 6
PC1 - 69
DR
A
F
T
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
October 19, 2015
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Amy Nemcik, Angela Soll, Vice-Chair
Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioners. Ken Curtis and Allen Root
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Interim-Community
Development Liaison Marcus Carloni, Natural Resources Manager Bob
Hill, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Consulting Planner Dave Watson, and
Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was modified to move item 2 (224 Tank Farm Road) into the item 1
position.
MINUTES
There were no minutes presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 224 Tank Farm Road. ARCH-1407-2015; Review of the construction of a new
Verizon Wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a water tower, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review; Verizon Wireless, applicant.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to a date uncertain to allow time to consider and take
action on the Use Permit application associated with this project.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to continue to a future
Architectural Review Commission Meeting.
AYES: Commrs. Andreen, Nemcik, Soll, Vice-Chair Ehdaie, and Chair Wynn
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Curtis and Root.
Attachment 7
PC1 - 70
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 2
The motion carried on a 5:0 vote.
2. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-1992-2015; Conceptual design review of a proposed
hotel adjacent to the historic Motel Inn. Project proposes 52 one and two story units, up
to 25 Recreational Vehicles, two pools, a restaurant, and associated parking and site
improvements; C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones; Motel Inn, LP, applicant.
Chair Wynn and Commr. Soll recused from this item due to conflict of interests and left
the conference room at 5:05 p.m.
Community Development Director Codron summarized the purpose of a Conceptual
Review, noting that in these cases applicants seek feedback before the project is
presented for approval and for public notification; explained that due to the complexity of
the project, the format is altered, thus allowing applicants the opportunity to present
before providing staff with a framework for the conversation.
The Applicant provided an overview and brief history of the project; stated the project
met ordinance requirements, noting the improvements to the current design.
The applicant answered Commission’s questions regarding the patio and picnic areas
for the RV parking, indicating that each RV space would have its own picnic area, and
would have access to all of the Motel amenities.
In response to Commr. Nemcik, the Applicant noted the surface on the street would be
made of pavers and asphalt.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a quick overview of the
project site, recommending that the commission formulate discussions regarding the RV
Park creek buffering; stated that the City’s Natural Resource Manager recommended a
wooden rail fence with signs to address potential trespassing into the riparian area;
suggested a discussion on the Motel bungalow units, stating that the decks or patios
facing the creek area should be screened with walls or removed from the proposed
building design.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie acknowledged correspondence received by Bob Lucas; reviewed the
contents of an email from Commr. Root, expressing his support for the project; and
noting that the project meets Ordinance 1130 and setback requirements.
In response to Commr. Nemcik, Community Development Director Codron, stated the
fence would be a split-rail fence, which is the City standard design for creek corridors.
Commr. Andreen, asked staff for interpretation on the meaning of the word “should” as
opposed to “shall” in City Ordinance 1130.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the language in question
is generally designed to provide flexibility.
Attachment 7
PC1 - 71
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 3
Community Development Director Codron expounded on the previous comment, noting
the use of the word “should” is subject to intent; explained the intent in this case is to
preserve the residential feel of the surrounding area.
In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, regarding the reason for the rail fence as opposed to
a wall fence that could potentially help mitigate noise and light issues, the Applicant
stated that the Planning commission was pleased with the rail fence noting that a solid
wall was not needed due to distance, thick riparian area and the fact that RV guests will
not be using the space as a recreational area.
In response to Vice-Chair Ehdaie, the Applicant stated the studies submitted between
2003 and 2005, including a noise study, remain current; declared that a masonry wall
would be a mistake in this area and would not be needed due to the kind of activities
that would take place in the RV area, noting that noise from the highway would be
greater than the noise generated in the RV area.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, affirmed his support for this project from a neighbor’s
perspective; opined the project represents a low intensity type of recreation appropriate
for this particular property, noting that he does not anticipate an excessive amount of
noise; expressed his belief that the project would be an enhancement to the city.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commr. Andreen expressed appreciation for Mr. Garth’s perspective; voiced concerns
over the use of the word “should” in section 7 of Ordinance 1130; acknowledged the
general consensus that RV users are typically a respectful group; opined that she does
not believe this would be a major noise generator; asserted interest in seeing noise
studies; opined that this project would be appropriate and attractive, posing no major
concern with regard to the open spacing of the creek or fencing choices; voiced support
for seeing the project move forward.
Commr. Nemcik noted that the design is elegant and beautiful; stated the applicants are
heading in the right direction and have been cautious in addressing all of the points in
Ordinance 1130; opined that the split rail fence would be appropriate; indicated support
for the project.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie stated this project would add value to the community; expressed
satisfaction with the way ordinance 1130 was addressed; asserted interest in reviewing
the noise study; noted no concerns with the patio spacing; voiced support for seeing the
project move forward.
Attachment 7
PC1 - 72
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 4
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review. No specific directional items were provided from the
ARC.
Chair Wynn and Comm. Soll rejoined the meeting room at 5:50 p.m.
3. 1299 Orcutt Road. ARCH-0224-2014; Continued review of the “West Creek” project
design for a new residential development in the northeastern area of the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan. Project includes 172 residential units on approximately 18 acres of land;
Robbins/Reed, applicant.
Scott Martin, Architect with RRM Design Group, provided an update on the changes
made to the project since the previous conceptual hearing and addressed previous
directional items; noted adding a round-a-about which created changes in circulation
and connectivity. The applicant pointed out changes in geometry, including additional
retaining walls, based on recommendations from the Natural Resources Manager Bob
Hill; stated the project meets pedestrian connectivity based on the Orcutt Area Specific
Plan; provided a new grading plan to help balance the site and proposed implementing
innovative parking solutions such as decupling the garages from the properties and
selling the garages separately; suggested having a shared “fun car” that could be made
available for rent as well as providing plenty of long and short-term bike storage; noted
ample parking in the single-family residential area as well as on the streets near Orcutt
Road; stated the neighborhood would not be impacted by parking issues.
In response to Commr. Andreen, the applicant stated the pool would not be accessible
to the single-family dwellings due to costly ADA requirements and would only be used
by the multi-family residents.
In response to Chair Wynn’s inquiries regarding parking, the applicants noted they
would have no problem allocating some of the parking spaces in the PG&E easement
area to multi-family parking, and would have no issues for making the shared fun car or
truck available to all residents.
In response to Commr. Wynn’s inquiry, the applicants confirmed storage requirements
would be met notwithstanding the decupling concept and indicated there would be long-
term bicycle parking all throughout the site.
Applicants stated that they would like to receive feedback regarding parking, grading
and architecture.
City Consultant, Dave Watson, presented the staff report, reviewed improvements and
changes to the site-plans, evaluated directional items from the previous conceptual
review, and went over additional topographic information. Pointed out competing
policies relative to grading in the setback areas; advised the commission to establish a
Attachment 7
PC1 - 73
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 5
minimum number of parking spaces and to discuss pedestrian linkage; noted that staff
agrees with mixing land usage but suggested common areas should stand-alone;
expressed support for the design styles and for positioning the garages in the rear
areas; suggested focusing the conversation to the directional items from the previous
conceptual review; noted that the information gathered from this review would be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council.
In response to inquiry by Commr. Andreen, Natural Resource Manager, Bob Hill, stated
that he visited the site on two occasions, in two different seasons; noted that the riparian
area was highly denuded; attested to the lack of strong concerns for the removal of
what is on site; explained that a 2 to 1 slope is steeper, indicating that it could be made
stable and has the potential for ample restoration; believes a more robust riparian
canopy could be achieved; confirmed the project is fully compliant with the creek
setback regulations as well as the setbacks specified for both creeks and wetlands in
the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; explained that the community design guidelines have
language about grading in setbacks which would be used as the policy in this case;
expressed not having concerns with erosion, asserting that the site would have a water
erosion control plan which would be monitored by the water board.
In response to inquiry by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, Natural Resource Manager Hill indicated
there are no proposed bridges on the creek.
Community Development Director Codron, noted that the specific site policy does not
require additional discussions for bridges; asserted the applicant is working with staff to
develop a two-part parking reduction strategy with a proposal that could be effective;
noted confidence in the process.
In response to Commr. Andreen’s inquiry, Community Development Director Codron,
stated the City is responsible for maintaining the streets.
Civil Enginner Hal Hannula provided an overview of the PG&E easement area; opined
that fewer pavement and parallel parking spaces might be a better use of the area.
Staff clarified that all perpendicular parking on A2 Street is additional and not a part of
the parking requirement.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni clarified that the plans indicate 26-feet
back up space available for vehicles in the alleys between units.
Attachment 7
PC1 - 74
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 6
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Wynn acknowledged receiving correspondence from the applicant and Mr. Flores.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Community Development Director Codron responded to questions regarding decupling,
stating it is not a new concept but a widely recognized way for dealing with the need for
single-occupancy parking; noted that the Tolosa Ranch Apartments offer parking
separately; stated that analysis will be done to see how this would impact parking.
Chair Wynn stated that the idea of decupling is good, but noted concerns about its
sustainability; suggested a need to review Principal Transportation Planner Peggy
Mandeville’s input on the matter. Also voiced concerns with R-2 guest parking.
Commr. Nemcik stated the rationale items for reducing parking are a good idea but
does believe they would warrant a parking reduction; noted that even if people bike,
they would most likely also own vehicles; voiced concerns regarding sufficient parking.
In response to Chair Wynn, Consultant Watson clarified that in the R-4 zone the
applicants fall seventeen percent below the parking requirements.
Commr. Andreen expressed apprehension over the lack of parking; opined that people
in California rely on their cars and do not change quickly; stated the gap is too far from
the normal requirements.
In response to Commr. Soll, Consultant Watson, clarified that the proposal has 160
spaces of the 194 space requirement; suggested a viable solution would be to set a
threshold and let the applicants work with Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville
and staff to develop a plan.
Vice-Chair Edhaie concurred with Commrs. Nemcik and Andreen, voicing concerns
over the reduced parking; noted being in favor of setting a threshold and allowing the
applicant time to work through the issues.
Commr. Andreen stated that a 17 percent is not an acceptable reduction.
Consultant Watson suggested reducing to a ten percent threshold, noting that staff can
include contingency plans that would allow for more parking to be created to satisfy
demand.
Community Development Director Codron clarified that the additional parking reduction
is allowed within the zoning regulations.
Attachment 7
PC1 - 75
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 7
The Applicant clarified that they are asking for a seven percent reduction on a project
that requires 200 spaces.
Chair Wynn expressed support for developing a contingency plan built into the parking
plan.
The Commission, having established concerns over parking, agreed to have the
applicant work with staff and Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville to come up
with a solution that could incorporate a contingency plan.
Chair Wynn shared concerns over the creek channel looking manufactured; suggested
adding bumps and pockets to add more naturalness; noted concerns with bicyclists’
ability to ride up the steep areas.
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni, acknowledged concerns and
constraints due to grading; noted that staff is not against grading; stated that the goal
was to make the commission aware of those constraints.
Chair Wynn, expressed satisfaction with the grading; acknowledged the positive
direction of the project; requested to see the overall stepping of the site.
During the course of discussion, the Commission concluded there is connectivity;
suggested adding more pathways to Orcutt Road.
The applicant provided an overview of the new architectural styles, noting the addition
of a craftsman style house for which Chair Wynn and Commr. Andreen voiced support.
In response to Commr. Andreen, the applicant stated that the homeowners would have
an option to choose from a set of colors to ensure an eclectic color palate in keeping
with the San Luis Obispo style; noted that there will be trees in between the single
family homes.
The Applicant noted remaining concerns over parking; stated a commitment to working
toward the City’s requirements; voiced misperception over lack of consistency in the
requests made by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission
with regard to number of parking spaces; expressed appreciation for Commission
feedback.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
The project was continued to a date uncertain with direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review with the following directional items:
1. Note: The ARC’s broad conceptual review of the subject project is based on
conceptual information and plans provided by the applicant. Upon full
application submittal for project entitlements and detailed review of final plans,
Attachment 7
PC1 - 76
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 8
the ARC may require additional changes and or modifications to the project that
were not previously known, specifically addressed, or provided as directional
items.
2. Provide all of the required information for final architectural review per City
checklists.
3. With final ARC review, provide enlarged street views with locations of any on-
street parking and frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk).
4. Provide details on the pedestrian connection to the adjoining Mobile Home Park
with final design plans.
5. Explore pedestrian connectivity from the connection of Street A-4 and Street A-
3 to Orcutt Road (between the residential lots).
6. Explore alternatives to proposed grading along the creek (especially within the
creek setback) to provide a more varied/naturally appearing slope bank.
7. Explore additional parking reduction options to be considered by the ARC with
final design review plans, based on a 10% reduction, with a minimum of 174
parking spaces (21 guest parking spaces and at least 153 resident spaces)
required unless an acceptable alternate or contingency plan can be
implemented with the final design.
8. In conjunction with Public Works review of the project, introduce extensions of
the two Park Lots 69 and 70 southerly towards A-2 Street to break up the
extent of common street parking, as a part of final design review by ARC.
9. Provide a digital model of the project to better understand the massing of
structures and relationship to topography.
10. Provide 3D renderings to illustrate the proposed use of taller retaining walls (in
particular: the tiered walls along Orcutt Road and the taller retaining walls
associated with the condo structures). Include landscaping/screening proposals
with these renderings.
Attachment 7
PC1 - 77
DR
A
F
T
Draft ARC Minutes
October 19, 2015
Page 9
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast
Interim-Community Development Liaison Carloni provided a forecast of
upcoming agenda items; noting an upcoming hearing on November 2, 2015 for
222 Tank Farm, and stated there will be a conceptual review on November 16,
2015 of the San Luis Ranch Project and an appeal of a guest house at 128
Chorro Street.
2. Commission:
The Commission discussed the new format for conceptual review hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary
Attachment 7
PC1 - 78
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)
SUBJECT: Review of a hotel project with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23
RV/Airstream trailer spaces with associated parking and site improvements on the Master List
Historic Motel Inn property. Project includes a 10% parking reduction request and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2223 Monterey Street BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
2229 Monterey Street Phone Number: 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2363-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Motel Inn, L.P.
Representative Studio Design Group Architects
Submittal Date November 9, 2015
Complete Date January 11, 2016
Zoning C-T-S (Tourist-Commercial with
Special Considerations “S”
overlay)
General Plan
Tourist Commercial
Site Area Approximately 4 acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a redevelopment of the subject location to construct a 55-unit motel/hotel
and 23 space RV/Airstream park at the Master List Historic Motel Inn property (Attachment 2,
Project Plans). The project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission (conceptual),
Architectural Review Commission (conceptual), and Cultural Heritage Committee (final
determination) as discussed in Section 1.1 below. The subject location includes a Special
Considerations Overlay which is governed by Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series); which includes
special standards that apply to the property (Attachment 3, Ordinance No. 1130). Staff finds the
design of the project to be consistent with Ordinance No. 1130, the Community Design Guidelines,
historic preservation standards, and applicable City standards and recommends support by the ARC
as discussed in section 3.0 below. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the Use Permit and
Mitigated Negative Declaration at a subsequent hearing.
Meeting Date: March 21, 2016
Item Number: 1
Attachment 8
PC1 - 79
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 2
PC Conceptual
Review
8-26-2015
ARC Conceptual
Review
10-19-2015
CHC Review
01-25-2016
PC Review
03-23-2016
ARC Review
03-21-2016
1.0 BACKGROUND & COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
1.1 Background
On October 19, 2015, the ARC performed a conceptual review of the subject application. The
ARC was supportive of the conceptual plans and provided direction to the applicant to return to
the ARC for final design review; no specific directional items for changes to the design were
provided (see Attachment 7: ARC Minutes 10-19-2015).
On January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the subject application
and found the project consistent with historic preservation standards (see Attachment 8: CHC
Staff Report 01-25-2016, Attachment 9: CHC Minutes 01-25-2016, and Attachment 10: CHC
Resolution).
1.2 Purview
The Commission is tasked with the following:
1. Review the project’s consistency with previous ARC direction (no specific directional
items in this instance, other than to return for final design review).
2. Review the project’s consistency with Ordinance No. 1130 (Attachment 3), the
Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards.
3. Comment on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 11). The
Planning Commission will take final action on the MND at a subsequent hearing.
4. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 10) and take
final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
A detailed description of site information and setting can be found in the October 19, 2015 ARC
Staff Report which is Attachment 6 to this report.
2.2 Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
Background and discussion regarding Ordinance No. 1130 is provided in the August 26, 2015
Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4) and the October 19, 2015 ARC Conceptual
Review Staff Report (Attachment 6). Ordinance No. 1130 is provided herein as Attachment 3.
2.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans):
Attachment 8
PC1 - 80
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 3
1. Construction of a motel/hotel with 55 rooms and a recreational vehicle park with 23
RV/Airstream Trailer hookups.
a. 12 rooms within the main lobby building
b. 40 rooms among twelve detached bungalow units.
c. Lobby building and bungalow units are located behind the previously approved
restaurant building which contains the remaining Motel Inn Historic features on
the north facing elevation of the approved restaurant building (shown for
reference in Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet A-3.6).
2. Mission Revival style architecture with features including:
a. Bell tower, arched windows and doors, curved parapets, red-tiled roof, and
overhanging eaves with exposed rafters.
3. 121 parking spaces provided
a. 10% parking reduction request (13 spaces). The request will be evaluated by the
Planning Commission.
4. Tree removals (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet L3.0). No removal of heritage trees.
The City Arborist supports tree removals that are within the footprint of the proposed
structures.
2.2.1 Notable Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review
1. Additional entrances facing the creek (compare Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet
A1.2 & Sheet A4.1, “Site Elevation B to Attachment 12: Previous View from the
Creek)
2. Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces (see Attachment 2: Project
Plans, Sheet A1.3)
3. Added three housekeeping buildings (Attachment 2: Project Plans, Sheet A1.2 and
A3.5 “Elevations - Housekeeping Bldgs”)
Table 2.2 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed Ordinance Standard
Street Yard ~45 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 45 feet + 10 feet for bell
tower/spire
45 feet1 + 10 feet for
architectural projections
Building Coverage (footprint) ~10% 75%
Parking Spaces 1212 131
Bicycle Parking 7 7 (1 short term, 6 long)
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, and
Ordinance No. 1130 was provided in the October 19, 2015 ARC Staff Report (see Attachment 6,
1 Ordinance 1130 restricts building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of the C/OS-5 boundary. The C/OS 5 boundary is
contiguous with the southerly property line adjacent to the creek. Several of the proposed new motel units are
within the 50 setback area and are therefore restricted to a 25 foot maximum height limit.
2 The applicants are requesting a 10% shared parking reduction to reduce parking requirement by 13 spaces.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 81
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 4
Section 3.0). Except as provided below, no significant changes to the project have been proposed
since the ARC’s review of the project on October 19, 2015. As such, staff has provided findings of
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Ordinance No. 1130 in the recommended
resolution (Attachment 1).
Note: the 10-19-2015 ARC Staff Report (Attachment 6) included two items for ARC discussion;
“RV Parking creek buffering” related to the use of a split rail fence adjacent to the creek, and
“Motel bungalow units” related to openings facing the creek per Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #2
(see Attachment 6, ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015). At the 10-19-2015 hearing, the ARC indicated
that the use of split rail fencing and the proposed opening facings the creek were consistent with
Ordinance No. 1130. Per this direction, the designs remain unchanged, with the exception of
additional doors facing the creek per section 2.2.1 above.
3.1 Analysis of Design Changes after 10-19-2015 ARC Review
1. Additional entrances facing the creek.
Staff Response: The applicant modified the bungalow floor plans to create separate
entries to each unit, where entrances were previously shared (see figure below). The
revision has created several additional “openings facing the creek” which may present an
issue of inconsistency with Ordinance No. 1130 criterion #3 which states “building
openings (doors, windows, balconies, etc.) facing the creek shall be minimized.”
Additional entrances facing the creek may result in an increase in potential noise
producing activity along the creek area that is associated with patrons entering/exiting
hotel rooms (e.g. doors opening/closing, loud conversations, additional pedestrian
activity along the Creekside walkway). It is recognized that openings facing the creek
may be considered more of an issue of functionality rather than design and, as such,
staff is requesting the ARC provide feedback on this issue in order to inform the
Planning Commission’s upcoming review of the Use Permit.
2. Shortening of RV spaces/shifting of Airstream spaces.
Staff Response: The RV spaces were shortened and the Airstream spaces were shifted
per requirements from the Utilities Department due to an existing utility easement with
underground water main. The site plan maintains the same level of maneuverability
shown on previous plans. Staff recommends the ARC support the revised layout.
3. Added three housekeeping buildings.
Staff Response: The three housekeeping buildings were added to provide additional
maintenance service for the hotel. The single story structures are designed to be
consistent with the project’s architecture and are low in scale. Staff recommends the
ARC support the propose structures.
3.2 Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation
As noted above, the proposed structures are located adjacent to the Master List Historic Motel
Inn. The CHC reviewed the project on January 25, 2016 (see Attachment 8: CHC Staff Report
Attachment 8
PC1 - 82
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 and 2229 Monterey Street)
Page 5
01-25-2016 & Attachment 9: CHC Minutes 01-25-2016) and found the proposed new structures
to be compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the
historic motel inn and project site, consist with historic preservation standards. The CHC also
reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 11) and found it to properly
characterize the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources,
and found the incorporated mitigations to appropriately ensure that potentially significant
impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. The CHC recommends approval of the
project to the ARC per CHC Resolution No. 1000-16 (Attachment 10: CHC Resolution No.
1000-16).
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 11).
The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, hazards & hazardous materials, and transportation/traffic
will be less than significant. The Planning Commission will perform the final review/decision
regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as
conditions of approval and/or code requirements.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines,
Ordinance No. 1130, historic preservation standards, and/or other pertinent City standards.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project plans
3. Ordinance No. 1130 (1989 Series)
4. PC Staff Report 08-26-2015
5. PC Minutes 08-26-2015
6. ARC Staff Report 10-19-2015
7. ARC Minutes 10-19-2015
8. CHC Staff Report 01-25-2016
9. CHC Minutes 01-25-2016
10. CHC Resolution 01-25-2016
11. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12. Previous View from the Creek (shown on previous plans)
Attachment 8
PC1 - 83
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE DESIGN OF A 55-ROOM
MOTEL/HOTEL AND 23 SPACE RV/AIRSTREAM PARK WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED ON
THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC MOTEL INN PROPERTY, AS
REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS
DATED MARCH 21, 2016 (2223 MONTEREY STREET – ARCH-2363-
2015)
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of conceptual architectural review of
the subject project (ARCH-2363-2015); Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of historic preservation review of the subject
project and recommended approval to the Architectural Review Commission; Motel Inn L.P.
applicant; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of design review of the subject
application; Motel Inn L.P. applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
design approval to the project (ARCH-2363-2015), based on the following findings:
1. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project is compatible in
scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with buildings in the Monterey Street
neighborhood.
2. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates
articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the
neighborhood.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 84
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 2
3. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates
sufficient articulation/wall plane movement throughout all elevations that avoids the
appearance of “boxy” structures.
4. That the project is consistent with the height/setback and design requirements of Ordinance
No. 1130 (1989 Series).
5. That, consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and as recommended by the
Cultural Heritage Committee (Resolution No. 1000-16), the proposed new structures are
compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the
Master List Historic Motel Inn and project site.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission finds that
the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly
characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts, and that the incorporated mitigation
measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are mitigated to a less than
significant level. Final review and decision on the MND will be performed by the Planning
Commission.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Conditions
Planning Division - Community Development Department
1. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working
drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of
project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to
where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials,
landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that
all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand
finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide final design details for the trash
enclosure(s). Final designs shall be consistent with the overall theme of the project and shall
incorporate screening plantings, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly demonstrate compliance with height
requirements of the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.040). The height of the proposed bell
tower/spire shall be adjusted for compliance.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
Attachment 8
PC1 - 85
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 3
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related
window features.
6. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be
included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be
clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-
mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-
sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that
light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky
Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations.
a. A photometric plan shall be provided per Zoning Regulations Section 17.23.030.3
b. Exterior wall sconce lighting (facing the creek) should be designed so that the light
can be switched on and off to avoid constant illumination of the exterior lights.
c. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, the
RV/Airstream area shall include bollard style lighting along the creek (rather than
pole mounted lighting).
7. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If
any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted
for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately
screen them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening
will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements.
8. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees
with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
a. Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building
permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no
brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the
object of interest.
b. Subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director, additional
landscape plantings shall be provided and maintained along the Highway 101
frontage for additional screening of the parking and RV/Airstream area. Caltrans
approval may be required dependent on location of landscape plantings relative to
property lines.
9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
Attachment 8
PC1 - 86
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 4
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers,
and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
Condition(s)
11. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance.
12. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building
permit issuance if required by the Building Division and/or Planning Division. Contact the
Planning Division to initiate the Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or subdivision process.
13. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with State HCD requirements for all
proposed RV and Airstream spaces.
14. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage
improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC
12.16.050
15. The required off-site public improvements from the traffic study shall be completed with a
separate public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department
and Cal Trans. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate
encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. A separate improvement plan review
base fee payable to the Public Works Department shall be required for the Public Works
Department review of the improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said
review fee shall be in accordance with the improvement plan review fee resolution in effect
at the time of the building permit application submittal.
16. The miscellaneous public improvement plan submittal shall show modifications to the
driveway approach in accordance with the traffic study and the revised geometry of the 101
off ramp. All driveway work shall be in accordance with city engineering standards and shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
17. A separate encroachment permit and/or plan approvals may be required from Cal Trans for
any work or construction staging within or affecting the Cal Trans right-of-way.
18. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of
frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage
improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 87
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 5
19. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
20. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc.
shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in
not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed
covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle.
21. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking
per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010 Community Design Guidelines, and any project specific
conditions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Include details
and detail references on the plans for the proposed bicycle parking facilities and/or racks.
The building plans shall provide a detailed site plan of any racks. Show all dimensions and
clearances to obstructions per city standard. The project summary shall include the required
and proposed bicycle parking accordingly.
a. Short-term bicycle racks of the inverted “U” design or “Peak Racks” shall be
installed in close proximity to, and visible from the main entry into the building.
Dimension the minimum clearances between racks shall be per city
standards/adopted guidelines.
b. Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers installed either within or
outside the building. As an alternative, a lockable room within the building(s)
labeled and reserved for bicycle storage may substitute for bicycle lockers.
Provide details and specs for bicycle lockers to the satisfaction of the Planning
Division.
22. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the
final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the Property Owner’s
Association or other property maintenance agreement accordingly.
23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades.
Services to the new structures shall be underground. Undergrounding to the new structures
and facilities shall be completed without a net increase of utility poles within the public right-
of-way unless specifically approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. All work in the public
right-of-way shall be shown or noted.
24. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled
Attachment 8
PC1 - 88
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 6
structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code
Chapter 17.84.
25. This property is located in an AE flood zone. Any structure located within the flood zone
must be constructed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation
(BFE). Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional savings on flood
insurance and is strongly encouraged.
26. The developer shall process a Letter of Map Change (LOMC) to show that the new structures
and building/site service equipment are located outside the Special Flood Hazard Area. The
LOMC shall be processed and finalized prior to building permit issuance. If the structures
will be removed based on fill, then a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
processed prior to building/grading permit issuance with a LOMR to be processed within 6
months of the completion of grading and prior to final inspection approvals/occupancy.
27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the
property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic
offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the
improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water
runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not
across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or
existing waterways.
28. The building plan submittal shall include complete topographic information along the creek
bank. Any proposed creek bank stabilization measures shall be to the satisfaction of the
Natural Resources Manager. The building plan submittal shall include the review and
recommendations from a soils engineer/engineering geologist on the stability of the existing
creek banks and any recommendations regarding building setbacks, site grading and drainage
recommendations, etc.
29. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan, Volume III, Drainage
Design Manual. The building plan submittal shall include a complete hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis report to show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan and the
Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. The analysis shall be expanded or amended as
necessary to include any proposal for fill within the special flood hazard area.
30. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped
sites. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available
on the City’s Website.
31. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater
improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and
shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 89
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 7
32. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or
excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by
a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State
Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking
System (SMARTS).
33. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building
plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10
of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include
reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference.
34. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer’s, and/or the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit
waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading,
and/or building permit issuance if applicable.
35. Erosion control measures are required in accordance with the grading ordinance and
Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual. Provide an erosion control plan
and/or erosion control notes on the plans to the satisfaction of the Building Official and
Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained
during all construction and ground disturbing activities. Add notes to the grading plan as
necessary. A detailed erosion control plan is required in accordance with Waterway
Management Plan Section 3.7 and Section 10.0.
36. A soils report will be required for development of all new structures, site improvements,
retaining walls, new parking lot areas, and for public improvements. The soils report shall be
included with the building permit submittal package and with the submittal of public
improvement plans if applicable.
37. The building plan submittal shall include a complete landscape plan including the planting
along the Highway 101 corridor adjacent to the site to accommodate screening of trees and
shrubs.
38. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed trees. The plan shall show
the trees to be removed, transplanted, and/or saved. A tree protection plan and/or strategy
shall be provided for all trees to be retained or transplanted to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance.
39. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
Attachment 8
PC1 - 90
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 8
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. A separate report from a
Certified Arborist may be required at the discretion of the City Arborist. The City Arborist
shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the
dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree
protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist
at 781-7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included
with the building permit submittal.
40. A tree protection/transplanting surety shall be provided as part of the tree protection
plan/strategy. The surety shall be provided prior to building permit issuance and shall remain
on file with a sunset date as established by the project arborist to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist.
Building Division – Community Development Department
Code Requirement(s)
41. Verify plans provide a “Code Analysis” to show compliance with CBC requirements
Chapters 5, 6, 7, & 10.
Utilities Department
Condition(s)
42. Any private water or sewer services that cross one proposed parcel for the benefit of another
shall provide evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been
recorded prior to final Building Permit.
43. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided
with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
44. The project’s Utility Plan shall clearly show the extent of the City’s existing sewer easement
through the property. Private storm drainage structures and trees will not be permitted in the
City’s easement.
45. The Utility Plan shall clearly show landscape water meters for each parcel. One landscape meter
may be used for all three parcels if the parcels are under the same ownership and a Lot-Tie
Agreement is provided.
Code Requirement(s)
46. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) shall not exceed 50 percent of maximum
applied water allowance (MAWA) which is required during the declared drought emergency.
47. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and
dust control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program. Information on the program is available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909
Attachment 8
PC1 - 91
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2363-2015 (2223 Monterey Street)
Page 9
Fire Department
Condition(s)
48. Access and water supply shall comply with the Fire Code as required by the California Health
& Safety Code for Recreational Vehicle/Special Occupancy Parks. Access road shall be at least
20 feet in width with no parking. Fire hydrants, on minimum 6” mains, shall be spaced so as
not to exceed 150 feet from any RV space. Show location of all on-site fire hydrants. Show
minimum 6 inch underground fire line (or lines) to feed all buildings and hydrants. Show how
underground fire line will serve all buildings that are within the scope of this project .
49. All permanent buildings in this project shall have fire sprinklers designed and install to NFPA
13 standards, fire sprinkler risers shall be in a sprinkler riser room with exterior door access.
Show locations of all riser rooms. Show location of backflow device and Fire Department
Connection.
50. All buildings shall be constructed to CBC Chapter 7A standards for exposure to wildfire, with
the exception of glazing. Add note to plans submitted for a building permit.
51. Clarify that the fire sprinkler system backflow device and Fire Department Connection will be a
maximum of 20 feet from the public water main tie-in.
52. Add note: The proposed fire apparatus access turnaround hammerhead will be achieved using
the “acceptable alternative to hammerhead” in the 2013 California Fire Code, Appendix D, page
544.
Natural Resources Division
Condition(s)
53. The riparian open space area shall be encumbered by a permanent open space easement, per
Ordinance 1130, to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and City’s Attorney’s
Office.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of March, 2016.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 8
PC1 - 92
City of San Luis Obispo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
USE-1035-2015 (PR-0113-2015)
February 24, 2016
1. Project Title: Motel Inn & RV Park
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7176
mcarloni@slocity.org
4. Project Location:
2223 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Motel Inn L.P.
P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designation:
Tourist Commercial
7. Zoning:
C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with “Special Consideration” Overlay due to the San Luis Creek and
residential neighborhood bordering the property.)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 93
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 94
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)).
Attachment 9
PC1 - 95
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 96
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 97
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.
Attachment 9
PC1 - 98
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 99
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 100
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 101
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 102
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 103
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 104
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 105
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 106
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.
Attachment 9
PC1 - 107
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 108
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.
Attachment 9
PC1 - 109
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.
Attachment 9
PC1 - 110
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 111
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 112
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
Attachment 9
PC1 - 113
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.
Attachment 9
PC1 - 114
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.
Attachment 9
PC1 - 115
ギど
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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 117
スPCD Commer6 Regα rdlingめ c Mole′′n4-Mο ηlerey Street ProJiect
No1/ember 7乙 2θ 75
Page 3げ
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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 119
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。
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
ハPCD ⑭
“
ments Regardingめ e MOた ′ ′ η η―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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 122
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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 123
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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 124
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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 125
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 CAttachment 9
PC1 - 126
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 127
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 128
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 129
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 130
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 131
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 132
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 133
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 134
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 135
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 136
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 137
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 138
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 139
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 140
Appendix DAttachment 9
PC1 - 141
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 142
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 143
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 144
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 145
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 146
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 147
Appendix EAttachment 9
PC1 - 148
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 149
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 150
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 151
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 152
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 153
Appendix F
(Archaeological Report)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 154
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 155
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 156
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 157
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 158
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 159
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 160
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 161
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 162
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 163
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 164
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 165
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 166
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 167
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 168
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 169
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 170
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 171
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 172
Appendix GAttachment 9
PC1 - 173
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 174
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 175
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 176
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 177
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 178
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 179
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 180
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 181
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 182
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 183
Appendix HAttachment 9
PC1 - 184
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:
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 185
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.
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 186
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
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 187
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)
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 188
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.
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 189
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
9
P
C
1
-
1
9
0
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.
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 191
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;
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 192
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.
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 193
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
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 194
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
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 195
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
L
a
y
o
u
t
S
h
a
r
e
d
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
B
e
g
i
n
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
R
a
i
s
e
d
M
e
d
i
a
n
E
x
.
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
t
o
R
e
m
a
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
9
P
C
1
-
1
9
6
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
9
P
C
1
-
1
9
7
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
9
P
C
1
-
1
9
8
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.
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 199
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
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 200
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 201
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 202
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 203
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 204
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 205
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 206
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 207
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 208
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 209
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 210
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 211
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 212
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 213
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 214
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 215
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 216
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 217
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 218
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 219
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 220
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 221
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 222
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 223
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 224
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
I
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
9
P
C
1
-
2
2
5
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 226
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 227
Appendix I
Attachment 9
PC1 - 228
PC1 - 229