HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)Meeting Date: June 1, 2020
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing one-story commercial building, construction
of a new six-story mixed use building to include approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, and the application of a Planned
Development (PD) Overlay zone on a 0.38-acre parcel located in the Downtown Historic District, see
Figure 1. The basement of the existing one-story structure on-site would remain in-tact and the rest
of the structure would be demolished and removed. The proposed 80,249-square-foot building would
be 75 feet in height. The proposed plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories of office
space, and three stories of residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
The subject property is directly adjacent to the Master List Historic Resource Hotel Wineman, and in
vicinity of the Master List Masonic Temple and the Master List Commercial Bank Building (Attachment
2, Historic Preservation Report). The subject property is not listed as historic resource (Attachment 3,
Architectural Evaluation).
General Location: The property is located on the corner of Marsh
and Chorro Streets within the Commercial Downtown zone on the
border of the Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant Commercial Structure
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic
District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary architectural design
Design details: Patio dining areas, flat metal awnings, brick and concrete window headers, upper level
balconies, detailed cornices/central band, and decorative metalwork.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads, and black metal
awnings.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1687-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 2
Packet Page 3
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC) role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and applicable City Standards and 2)
provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission (PC).
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Downtown Concept Plan: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14790
Previous Conceptual ARC Agenda Packet and Conceptual Project Plans:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=87136&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
BACKGROUND
On November 26, 2018, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The
CHC, with a vote of 7:0:0, provided eight directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns
related to building and site design (Attachment 4, CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
On December 3, 2018, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The ARC, with a vote of 6:0:1, provided six
directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns related to building and site design
(Attachment 5, ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
On September 17, 2019, the City Council reviewed the project for initiation of the PD Overlay and
associated mandatory project features d as well as the community benefit policies for consideration
of a building height of 5 feet. The City Council, with a vote of 5:0, supported the initiation and provided
two directional items for the applicant to address (Attachment 6, Council Report and Action Update).
PREVIOUS ARC DIRECTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The ARC recommended six directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action
on the project. The applicant has updated the project plans and made the following changes in
response to the directional items:
ARC Directional Item #1: The project should respond to the Cultural Heritage Committee directional
items with emphasis on providing a higher degree of articulation to relieve building mass and provide
a greater variety of fenestration, the project should consider a variety in relief of roof lines.
Figure 2: Project rendering (left) from intersection and rendering from Marsh Street crosswalk (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 4
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 3
Response: The applicant has modified the project design and provided additional application materials
in response to the CHC’s eight directional items. The applicant has provided a Height Analysis (Project
Plans Sheet T3.0), revised the Shading Study (Sheet T3.2-T3.4), and provided an updated Architectural
Evaluation. The applicant has also modified the project design to reduce the perceived mass and scale
of the project by providing a variety of storefronts, fenestration, architectural details, and articulation,
throughout the project design.
ARC Directional Item #2: The project should consider and respond to the planning principles and goals
identified in the Downtown Concept Plan.
Response: The Downtown Concept Plan is not a regulatory document; however, it is intended to be a
tool to guide development downtown in line with the community vision. The project responds to the
eight Project Planning Principles by: providing diversity of design while retaining traditional character;
incorporating opportunities for positive social intersection along the street frontage; contributes to
the economic health and vitality of downtown; priorities alternative modes of transportation by
reducing vehicle parking and providing sufficient bicycle parking; improves the sidewalk and
pedestrian experience along the intersection of Marsh and Chorro Streets; provides for a higher
density project with smaller dwelling units contributing to a vibrant residential mix in the downtown;
incorporates an innovative and compatible design with connectivity to the surrounding built
environment; and is designed to preserve views of the hillsides from public areas. The applicant has
provided a response to each of the policies of the CDG Chapter 4 Downtown Design Guidelines (Sheet
T3.8 & T3.9).
ARC Directional Item #3: The architectural style should be distinctive as a gateway feature to
downtown through design excellence justifying the requested height above 50 feet, given the project
prominence along the intersection, the design should be of its own time while compatible with adjacent
historic structures.
Response: The project has been revised to include a greater setback at the corner of Marsh and Chorro
Street and includes a 45-degree angled facade to enhance interest to the corner and provide larger
pedestrian space for circulation. The corner element and enhanced storefront setback were carefully
designed to complement the clock tower on the Parking Structure across the street to enhance the
intersection as a gateway to Downtown.
Figure 3: Original rendering (left) at the intersection of Chorro and Marsh Streets, revised rendering (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 5
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 4
ARC Directional Item #4: The project should provide greater step backs on the upper levels and/or
consider a height reduction with sensitivity to adjacent historic resources, the design and mass should
reinforce the horizontal lines of adjacent facades.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design and increased the upper floor setback along
the street frontages, where the setback for the conceptual review only provided a 5-foot setback along
each side of the structure. The Chorro Street elevation now includes a 21-foot step back above the
third floor, and the Marsh Street elevation provides a varying upper story step back between 12 and
22feet from the street frontage, refer back to Figure 3. The courtyard that was originally provided in
the center of the building has been eliminated to provide large deck areas along the exterior of the
building surrounding the fourth floor to provide areas for trees and other planting along the residential
level, which further reduces the perceived scale and height of the structure as viewed from the street.
The applicant has provided a site context elevation that demonstrates how the project reinforces the
horizontal lines of the prevailing rhythm and character of the street frontages (see Sheet A1.0 of the
project plans).
ARC Directional Item #5: The design should focus on pedestrian scale, consider opportunity to revitalize
the corner of Marsh and Chorro as a design feature combined with greater sidewalk w idths and
additional relief of storefronts to provide for patio dining. Consider tying into the pedestrian experience
of the Downtown Center.
Response: The project design has been modified to provide a greater setback at the street level to
allow for more patio area and useable outdoor seating areas, where the previous conceptual review
provided a zero foot setback along the street frontages which did not provide any patio areas, see
Figure 4.
ARC Directional Item #6: Materials should be high quality and selected carefully to be compatible with
the historic buildings, without replicating design features, the second story windows should be reduced
in height to reflect traditional transom window designs.
Response: The project proposal includes the use of smooth-troweled plaster, and brick siding which
are identified under the CDG as appropriate materials for buildings within the Downtown. Additional
materials proposed include concrete bulkheads, metal awnings, aluminum storefronts, which are all
materials that are consistent and compatible with the existing character of the Downtown. The
applicant has modified the transom windows to reduce their overall height and reflect a more
traditional style consistent and compatible with adjacent historic structures.
Figure 4: Original site plan (left), revised site plan (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 6
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 5
PROJECT STATISTICS (UPDATED)
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) with PD Overlay 26.5 DU 77.76 DU
Residential Uses Provided Required
Height of Structures
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum with PC Exception
6-stories
75 feet
75 feet
2 stories along street
50 feet
75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 71% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.94 FAR 4.0 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 7 spaces and In Lieu Fee 102 spaces and/or In-Lieu Fee
Limitations on New Driveways Requested Restricted
Environmental Status An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for
adoption (Attachment 7).
*2019 Zoning Regulations
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
based on consistency with the CDG will be forwarded to the PC, final action will be proceed
to the City Council. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address
consistency with the CDG.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
2. Historic Preservation Report
3. Architectural Evaluation
4. Conceptual CHC Report and Minutes 11.26.18
5. Conceptual ARC Report and Minutes 12.3.18
6. Council Initiation and Action Update 9.17.19
7. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Item 2
Packet Page 7
MARSH & CHORRO
DEVELOPMENT
at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGE, 06/12/19
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
Providing a true timeless character, the corner of Marsh & Chorro will bring contemporary
living and working to the downtown through an architecture of quiet sophistication. Rhythm,
texture, and light emits through classic massing and material selection while vibrancy, action,
and enthusiasm pours from our truly mixed-use program of merchants, tech visionaries, and an
abundance of small, hip, loft studios.
Item 2
Packet Page 8
CLIENT
JAMESTOWN PREMIER SLO RETAIL, LP
COPELAND PROPERTIES
PO BOX 12260, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CONTACT: MARK RAWSON
mark@copelandproperties.com
ARCHITECT
MARK RAWSON, AIA
PO BOX 12260, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
mark@copelandproperties.com
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: JESSIE SKIDMORE
jessies@tenoverstudio.com
INDEX
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
SITE INFO & DATA T1.1
VIEW FROM CHORRO STREET T2.0
VIEW OF MARSH & CHORRO CORNER T2.1
VIEW FROM DOWNTOWN CENTRE PASEO T2.2
VIEW LOOKING DOWN MARSH STREET T2.3
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS T2.4
CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN T3.0
SURVEY T3.1
SOLAR SHADING - SUMMER SOLSTICE T3.2
SOLAR SHADING - VERNAL EQUINOX T3.3
SOLAR SHADING - WINTER SOLSTICE T3.4
VISUAL STUDY T3.5
VISUAL STUDY T3.6
VISUAL STUDY T3.7
TREE REMOVAL PLAN L1.0
PLANTING PLAN L1.1
ROOFTOP PLANTING PLAN L1.2
PLANTING PALETTE L1.3
WATER CALCULATIONS L1.4
SITE ELEVATIONS A1.0
SITE SECTIONS A1.1
SITE AND FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.0
SECOND FLOOR PLAN, THIRD , SIM. A2.1
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A2.2
FIFTH FLOOR PLAN A2.3
SIXTH FLOOR PLAN A2.4
ROOF PLAN A2.5
TYPICAL UNIT FLOOR PLANS A2.6
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - SOUTH A3.0
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EAST A3.1
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - NORTH A3.2
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - WEST A3.3
MATERIAL BOARD A3.4
CONTACTS
Item 2
Packet Page 9
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
DATE SUBMITTAL
YYMMDD PERMIT RESUBMITTAL IISUBMITTAL SET DESCRIPTIONPROJECT NAMEPROJECT ADDRESSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTHESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
THE DESIGN AND INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON
THESE DRAWINGS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PROJECT
INDICATED AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
PERMISSION FROM TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2017
T1.0
TITLE SHEET
DRAWING SYMBOLS PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ARCHITECT:
TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.CONTACT: JIM DUFFY
539 MARSH STREET PH:805.541.1010
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 EMAIL:jimd@tenoverstudio.com
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT ADDRESS
APN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
LOT SIZE
LIVING SPACE
GARAGE (TO BE REPLACED)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
AGENCIES & UTILITIES
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7180
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - BUILDING DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7180
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7170
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7220
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - FIRE DEPARTMENT
2160 SANTA BARBARA AVENUE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7380
PG & E
406 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:800.743.5000
SHEET INDEX
TITLE / CODE
T1.0 TITLE SHEET
T1.1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
T2.0 GENERAL NOTES
T2.1 CALGREEN COMPLIANCE
T2.2 GREEN POINTS
T3.0 TITLE 24
T3.1 TITLE 24
T4.0 CODE COMPLIANCE
CIVIL
C1.0 SHEET NAME
C2.0 SHEET NAME
C3.0 SHEET NAME
ARCHITECTURAL
A1.0 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
A1.1 SITE PLAN
A2.0 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 DIMENSION FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
A2.4 POWER / COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
A2.5 ROOF PLAN
A3.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A4.0 BUILDING SECTIONS
A4.1 WALL SECTIONS
A5.0 ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN
A6.0 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A7.0 SCHEDULES
A8.0 DETAILS
A9.0 SPECIFICATIONS
STRUCTURAL
S1.0 SHEET NAME
S2.0 SHEET NAME
S3.0 SHEET NAME
MECHANICAL
M1.0 SHEET NAME
M2.0 SHEET NAME
M3.0 SHEET NAME
PLUMBING
P1.0 SHEET NAME
P2.0 SHEET NAME
P3.0 SHEET NAME
ELECTRICAL
E1.0 SHEET NAME
E2.0 SHEET NAME
E3.0 SHEET NAMECALIFORNIA CODE REFERENCES
THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE: TITLE 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TITLE 17 ZONING REGULATIONS
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CODE: TITLE 19 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCE
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CODE: TITLE 22 LAND USE ORDINANCE
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CODE: TITLE 23 COASTAL ZONE LAND USE ORDINANCE
ABBREVIATIONS
ABANCHOR BOLT
ACAIR CONDITIONER
ADJ ADJACENT
AFFABOVE FINISH FLOOR
ALALUMINUM
APPROX. APPROXIMATELY
ASPH ASPHALT
AVG AVERAGE
BDBOARD
BLDG BUILDING
BLK/BLKG BLOCK/BLOCKING
BMBEAM
BNBULLNOSE
BOT BOTTOM
C.F. CUBIC FOOT
C.I.CUBIC INCH
CICAST IRON
CJCEILING JOIST/CONTROL JOINT
CLCENTER LINE
CLRCLEAR/CLEARANCE
CLG CEILING
CLKG CAULKING
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
COCLEANOUT
COL COLUMN
CONC CONCRETE
CONN CONNECTION
CONST CONSTRUCTION
CONT CONTINUOUS
CTR CENTER
CW COLD WATER
C.Y. CUBIC YARD
DBLDOUBLE
DEG DEGREE
DEPT DEPARTMENT
DET DETAIL
DFDOUGLAS FIR
DIA DIAMETER
DIMDIMENSION
DNDOWN
DSDOWNSPOUT
DWDISHWASHER
EAEACH
EJEXPANSION JOINT
ELEC ELECTRICAL
ELEVELEVATION/ELEVATOR
ENCL ENCLOSURE
EOS EDGE OF SLAB
EQEQUAL
EQUIP EQUIPMENT
EST ESTIMATE
EXIST/(E)EXISTING
EXTEXTERIOR
FAU FORCED AIR UNIT
FHFIRE HYDRANT
F.O.C. FACE OF CURB
F.O.F. FACE OF FINISH
F.O.S. FACE OF STUD
FDFLOOR DRAIN
FDNFOUNDATION
FEFIRE EXTINGUISHER
FFFINISH FLOOR
F.G./FGFINISH GRADE
FINFINISH
FIXFIXTURE
FLRFLOOR
FOS FACE OF STUD
FPFIREPLACE / FLOOR PLAN
F.S./FSFINISH SURFACE
FTFOOT
FTG FOOTING
GGAS
GAGAUGE
GALV GALVANIZED
GDGARBAGE DISPOSAL
GLGLASS
GYP GYPSUM
HBHOSE BIBB
HCHOLLOW CORE
HDR HEADER
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
HRDW HARDWARE
HTHEIGHT
HWHOT WATER
ININCH
INCL INCLUDE
INFO INFORMATION
INSUL INSULATION
INTINTERIOR
INVINVERT
JAN JANITOR
KITKITCHEN
LAM LAMINATED
LAVLAVATORY
LB/#POUND
L.F./LFLINEAR FLOOT
LSLAG SCREW
MAXMAXIMUM
MBMACHINE BOLT
MECH MECHANICAL
MFRMANUFACTURER
MINMINIMUM
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
MTL METAL
(N)NEW
N.G./NGNATURAL GRADE
NO. / #NUMBER
NTS NOT TO SCALE
O/OVER
OBS OBSCURE
O.C./OCON CENTER
OPCIOWNER PROVIDED,
CONTRACTOR INSTALLED
OPOIOWNER PROVIDED,
OWNER INSTALLED
OSOCCUPANCY SENSOR
OZOUNCE
PERFPERFORATED
PERPPERPENDICULAR
PHPHONE
PLPLATE/ PROPERTY LINE
PLYWDPLYWOOD
PRPAIR
PREFABPRE-FABRICATED
P.S.F.POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
P.S.I.POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
PTDFPRESSURE TREATED DOUG FIR
PVMT PAVEMENT
RRISER
RDROOF DRAIN
REFREFRIGERATOR
REQ REQUIRED
RMROOM
ROROUGH OPENING
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
RTS REFER TO STRUCTURAL
RWDREDWOOD
S4SSURFACED 4 SIDES
SCSOLID CORE
SDSMOKE DETECTOR
S.F./SFSQUARE FOOT
SHT SHEET
SHTG SHEATHING
SIM SIMILAR
SPEC SPECIFICATION
SST STAINLESS STEEL
STD STANDARD
SYM SYMBOL
STL STEEL
T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE
TREA
THKTHICK(NESS)
TELTELEPHONE
TEMPTEMPERATURE
T.O.C. TOP OF CURB
T.O.F. TOP OF FOOTING
T.O.W. TOP OF WALL
T.O.S. TOP OF SLAB
TVTELEVISION
TYP.TYPICAL
UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE
VERTVERTICAL
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD
W/WITH
W/OWITHOUT
WC WATER CLOSET
WDWOOD
WH WATER HEATER
W.I.C. WALK IN CLOSET
WTWEIGHT
YDYARD
BUILDING CODE DATA
SPRINKLERS:REQUIRED:YES / NO
PROPOSED:YES / NO
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
PROJECT NAME 2
ADDRESS
PROJECT NAME 1
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
INTERIOR
ELEVATION MARKER
KEYNOTE
DETAIL
TARGET
DETAIL REFERENCE:DETAIL NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
DOOR NUMBER
WINDOW NUMBER
ELEV NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
ELEVATION MARKER ELEV NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SECTION MARKER SECTION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
ROOF / GROUND SLOPE: INDICATES SLOPE AND DIRECTION
OF SLOPE
& DIRECTION
OF VIEW
HEIGHT / ELEVATION MARKER
NORTH ARROW
& DIRECTION
OF VIEW
& DIRECTION
OF VIEW
REVISION MARKER
ROOM TAG
XXX
SLOPE
X:XX
XXX
XXX
MASTER
BEDROOM
100
9'-0"
X
AX.XX
X
AX.XX
X
AX.X
1
2
3
4
X
AX.XX
X
AX.XX
X
X
N
1
EQUIPMENT NUMBERX
MECHANICAL / PLUMBING ENGINEER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
CIVIL ENGINEERING:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
SURVEY:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
1314 BROAD STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:1.800.427.2200
N
MARSH STHIGUERA STB
R
O
A
D
S
T
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
C
H
O
R
R
O
S
T
US-101
PACIFIC STPISMO STBUCHON STMO
R
R
O
S
T
PROJECT LOCATION
CHORRO ST
VICINITY MAP
T1.0
DOWNTOWN CENTRE
1144 CHORRO ST.,AT DOWNTOWN CENTRE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
APN 002-427-012
CURRENT USE RETAIL
80249 SF 1.84 ACRE
MAX SITE COVERAGE ALLOWABLE 100%
FAR ALLOWABLE 4
DENSITY ALLOWABLE 36/ACRE= 66.24 DU PROPOSED 26.5 DU
HEIGHT LIMIT ALLOWABLE 75'PROPOSED 75'
HEIGHT BONUS POLICY OBJECTIVES HEIGHT BONUS PER C-D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 17.42.020
SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED OBJECTIVES
ADJACENT ZONES NORTH C-D
EAST C-D
SOUTH C-D
WEST C-D
SETBACKS FRONT 0'
SIDE 0'
REAR 0'
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
ZONING
OVERLAY ZONES
SPECIFIC AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES
LOT SIZE
C-D DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL
N/A
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
ADDRESS
PROPOSED USE MIXED-USE : RETAIL, OFFICE & R-2 RESIDENTIAL
ALLOWED USE IN ZONE Y
ENTITLEMENTS/USE PERMIT REQUIRED ARC, PLANNING COMMISSION USE-PERMIT for height bonus
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Marsh & Chorro (1144 Chorro) Mixed-Use proposes a new 6-story retail, office, and residential building on the
northeast corner of Marsh St. & Chorro St. The first level is comprised of three retail suites with accomodations
for restaurant use, a residential lobby, commercial office lobby, and a small parking facility with ADA parking, and
delivery/drop off spaces. The second and third floor are designated commercial. The fourth, fifth and sixth floors
house residential apartments. In addition to providing 25% moderate affordable units, the remaining units have
been sized to be affordable by design, in that all but three of the units are less than 600 SF.
The site and building design has been carefully considered to meet all the Downtown Design Guidelines to create
a harmonious addition to downtown San Luis Obispo. The traditional brick architecture extends from the street to
third level, to align with the massing of neighboring buildings. The top floors are in a traditional stucco, and step
back significantly to reduce the massing from the pedestrian perspective, and further screened by substantial roof
gardens on the fourth floor. Located on the northeast corner, this project is perfectly situated for the street
frontages to bask in southern light, casting a shadow inward, towards the alley and services areas of adjacent
neighbors. The project will never cast a shadow on either sidewalk of Marsh St or Chorro St, on any given day of
the year between 11 am and 2 pm.
This project is being proposed under a Planned Development Overlay to join 1144 Chorro with the existing
Downtown Centre, allowing the underutilized density of the centre to transfer to the new building proposed and
bring needed residential to the downtown. Through the PD Overlay project will meet the following Mandatory
Project Features:
a) Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income.
b) LEED Silver rating for Energy Efficiency (or city approved equivalent)
c) Preserve Open Space of at least a quarter of an acre on the Downtown Centre site.
d) Guarantee long term Maintenance of a significant Public Plaza on the Downtown Centre Site.
The project seeks a use-permit allowing 75' in height by providing the following Community Benefits Policy
Objectives: (per San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 17.32.030)
a) Affordable and Workforce Housing: 1) Project will provide 25% moderate-income households
b) Pedestrian Amenities: 2) Project provides a significant public plaza
c) View Access and Preservation: 2d) Project will provide a permanent preservation of a listed building off site
within the downtown or Chinatown historic district.
OVERALL BUILDING
OCCUPANCY TYPE R-2, A-2/M, B
CONSTRUCTION TYPE I-A, SPRINKLERED
SPRINKLER SYSTEM NFPA 13
PROJECT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF CFC, APPENDIX D
STORIES PROPOSED ALLOWABLE UNLIMITED PROPOSED 6
HEIGHT PROPOSED ALLOWABLE UNLIMITED PROPOSED 75'
AREA (MAX/FLOOR)ALLOWABLE UNLIMITED PROPOSED 12708 SF
BUILDING CODE INFO
SIDEWALK ALONG CHORRO STREET
PARKING REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL USE UNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED
STUDIOS & 1 BD 47 1 47
2 BD 3 2 6
27
COMMERCIAL OFFICE 25,251 SF 1 PER 500 51
RESTAURANT 4,806 1 PER 100 48
24
COMBINED TOTAL 102
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 7
MOTORCYCLE REQ'D REQUIRED 5 (1:20)PROVIDED 2
PARKING CALCULATIONS
TOTAL W/C-D ZONE 50% REDUCTION
TOTAL W/C-D ZONE 50% REDUCTION
RESIDENTIAL 50 2/UNIT + GST 100 1: 5 UNITS 10 2/UNIT 100
RESTAURANT 4806 1/500 SF 10 75%8 25% 3
OFFICE 25251 1/1500 SF 17 75%13 25% 4
REQ'D TOTAL 127 31 107
PROVIDED TOTAL 128*
* LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE PROVIDED IN EACH RES. UNIT OR BASEMENT
28 BIKE STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED IN BIKE 106 AT FIRST LEVEL
BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS
BIKE PARKING REQUIRED
UNIT COUNT OR SF TOTAL BICYCLE SHORT TERM LONG TERM
Item 2
Packet Page 10
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T1.1
TOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED LOT SIZE:1.84 ACRE
DENSITY FACTOR: 36 / ACRE
ALLOW. DENSITY: 66.24 DU
UNITS PROVIDED UNIT TYPE UNIT COUNT DU FACTOR DENSITY PROVIDED
FOURTH FLOOR STU/1BD <600 SF 15 0.5 7.5
STU/1-BD >600 SF 0 0.66 0
2-BD 1 1 1
FIFTH FLOOR STU/1BD <600 SF 16 0.5 8
STU/1-BD >600 SF 0 0.66 0
2-BD 1 1 1
SIXTH FLOOR STU/1BD <600 SF 16 0.5 8
STU/1-BD >600 SF 0 0.66 0
2-BD 1 1 1
TOTAL 50 26.5
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
COV'D DECK SF MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF FLOOR TOTAL
BASEMENT 2415 2415
FIRST FLOOR 11049 744 11793
SECOND FLOOR 12543 12543
THIRD FLOOR 12708 12708
FOURTH FLOOR 8737 865 9602
FIFTH FLOOR 9216 311 9527
SIXTH FLOOR 9216 363 9579
BLDG TOTAL 65884 2283 68167
BASEMENT ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
STORAGE 001 STORAGE 2415
FIRST FLOOR ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
RETAIL 100 RESTAURANT 1738
RETAIL 101 RESTAURANT 1424
RETAIL 102 RESTAURANT 1425
RES. LOBBY 103 RESIDENTIAL 597
OFF. LOBBY 104 BUSINESS 594
SHOW /LCK 110 ACC. STORAGE 198
GARAGE 105 STORAGE 3782
BIKE 106 ACC. STORAGE 308
TRASH 107 ACC. STORAGE 612
UTILITY 108 ACC. STORAGE 480
FIRE RISER 109 ACC. STORAGE 89
COV'D AREA 111 STORAGE 546
TOTAL:11049 744
AREA % 6.73%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
SECOND FLOOR OFFICE 200 BUSINESS 12543
TOTAL:12543
AREA %0.0%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
THIRD FLOOR OFFICE 300 BUSINESS 12708
TOTAL:12708
AREA %0.0%
USE & OCCUPANCY FLOOR AREAS
RESIDENTIAL ENTRY ON CHORRO STREET
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
FOURTH FLOOR UNIT 401 RESIDENTIAL 357
UNIT 402 RESIDENTIAL 350
UNIT 403 RESIDENTIAL 318
UNIT 404 RESIDENTIAL 318
UNIT 405 RESIDENTIAL 616
UNIT 406 RESIDENTIAL 329
UNIT 407 RESIDENTIAL 329
UNIT 408 RESIDENTIAL 337
UNIT 409 RESIDENTIAL 362
LOUNGE 410 ASSEMBLY 479
UNIT 411 RESIDENTIAL 451
UNIT 412 RESIDENTIAL 451
UNIT 413 RESIDENTIAL 408
UNIT 414 RESIDENTIAL 450
UNIT 415 RESIDENTIAL 501
UNIT 416 RESIDENTIAL 484
UNIT 417 RESIDENTIAL 576
MEDIA 418 ASSEMBLY 386
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 8737 865
AREA%9.9%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
FIFTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
LDRY/JAN. 518 ASSEMBLY 221
ELEC. 519 STORAGE 90
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 311
AREA%3.4%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
SIXTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
COMM. KIT. 618 ASSEMBLY 363
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 363
AREA%3.9%
USE & OCCUPANCY FLOOR AREAS, CONT.
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SFFOURTH FLOOR UNIT 401 RESIDENTIAL 357UNIT 402 RESIDENTIAL 350UNIT 403 RESIDENTIAL 318UNIT 404 RESIDENTIAL 318UNIT 405 RESIDENTIAL 616UNIT 406 RESIDENTIAL 329UNIT 407 RESIDENTIAL 329UNIT 408 RESIDENTIAL 337UNIT 409 RESIDENTIAL 362LOUNGE 410 ASSEMBLY 479UNIT 411 RESIDENTIAL 451UNIT 412 RESIDENTIAL 451UNIT 413 RESIDENTIAL 408UNIT 414 RESIDENTIAL 450UNIT 415 RESIDENTIAL 501UNIT 416 RESIDENTIAL 484UNIT 417 RESIDENTIAL 576MEDIA 418 ASSEMBLY 386CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100TOTAL: 8737 865AREA%9.9%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
FIFTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
LDRY/JAN. 518 ASSEMBLY 221
ELEC. 519 STORAGE 90
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 311
AREA%3.4%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
SIXTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
COMM. KIT. 618 ASSEMBLY 363
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 363
AREA%3.9%
USE & OCCUPANCY FLOOR AREAS, CONT.
Item 2
Packet Page 11
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.0
VIEW FROM CHORRO STREET
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 12
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.1
VIEW OF MARSH & CHORRO CORNER
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 13
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.2
VIEW FROM DOWNTOWN CENTER PASEO
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 14
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.3
VIEW LOOKING DOWN MARSH STREET
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 15
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.0
CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
EXISTING BUILDING ON SITE TO BE DEMOLISHED
4-STORY MARSH ST. PARKING STRUCTURE
4-STORY RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDING CHASE BANK PARKING LOT
2-STORY EUREKA RESTAURANT
3-STORY OLD WINEMAN HOTEL
1
4
2
5
3 6
Our site is primarily surrounded by retail establishments.Some, like
ours, with office space above. The buildings range from 2 to 4 stories.
The Masonic Temple (3) and Marsh St. parking structure (4) both have
heavy cornices that appear as 5-story buildings. The surrounding material
pallette is brick and light-colored stucco.
SUMMARY OF CONTEXT
higuera stmonterey st
marsh stpacific stc
h
o
r
r
o
s
t mo
r
r
o
s
t
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
t
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H C-D
O
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D-H
1
4
2
5
3
6
O
C-D-H
C-D-H-PD
O
52/62
47
40
31
46
43/75
30
35
41
32
37
34
36
46
40/47
35
37
39
64/77
HEIGHT AT:
STREET / UPPER SETBACK OR
TOWER ELEMENT
Item 2
Packet Page 16
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.1
Item 2
Packet Page 17
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.2
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SCALE: N.T.S.
N
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 10AM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 1PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 11AM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 2PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 12PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 2
Packet Page 18
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.3
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SCALE: N.T.S.
N
VERNAL EQUINOX - 10AM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 1PM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 11AM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 2PM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 12PM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 3PM
Item 2
Packet Page 19
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.4
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SCALE: N.T.S.
N
WINTER SOLSTICE - 10AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 1PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 11AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 2PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 12PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 2
Packet Page 20
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
KEY PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
VIEW FROM MARSH ST. TOWARDS HILL1
SIMULATED VIEW FROM MARSH ST. TOWARDS HILLS1 VISUAL STUDY
T3.5MARSH STCHORRO ST
1
2
3
4
56
VISUAL STUDY
Pursuant to Zoning regulations Section 17.32.030 F, a visual study shall determine whether
the project will materially obstruct views of distant hills and/or create an adverse visual impact
on existing or planned publicly owned gathering sites by materially obstructing views of
nearby public open spaces, historic resources, City landmarks, or protected natural resources;
and/or create adverse shade and shadow effects during the times of day when a gathering site
is anticipated to be most used.
For the proposed project at 1144 Chorro St., the publicly owned gathering spaces that exist
within the viewshed of the hillside are the publicly owned sidewalks immediately adjacent on
Marsh Street and Chorro Street. These are represented by Views 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. View 2 is
located at Downtown Centre Paseo.
The most prominent, existing view of the hillside is shown in view 1. View S1 shows the
simulated view where the project has a visual impact on the viewshed by partially catching the
hillside. NItem 2
Packet Page 21
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
SCALE: N.T.S.
VIEW FROM PASEO COURTYARD TOWARDS HILL2 SIMULATED VIEW FROM PASEO COURTYARD TOWARDS HILLS2
VISUAL STUDY
T3.6MARSH STCHORRO ST
1
2
3
4
56
The second most prominent, existing view of the hillside is shown in view 2 from the
Downtown Centre. View S2 shows the simulated view where the project has no visual impact
on the hillside viewshed.
KEY PLANN Item 2
Packet Page 22
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.7
VIEW FROM MARSH STREET
SCALE: N.T.S.
VIEW FROM MARSH TOWARDS HILL3
VIEW FROM SOUTH CORNER OF MARSH & CHORRO TOWARDS SITE5
VIEW FROM EAST CORNER OF MARSH & CHORRO TOWARDS HILL4
VIEW FROM CHORRO TOWARDS SITE6 VISUAL STUDYMARSH STCHORRO ST
1
2
3
4
56
Views 5 & 6 show that there are no hillside views looking toward the proposed project's
property from sidewalks on Chorro St.
View 3 & 4, taken from the sidewalk at Marsh St. reveals how the hillside view is already
currently largely blocked by the existing building and trees.
KEY PLANN Item 2
Packet Page 23
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
SCALE: N.T.S.
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDEINE - COMPLIANCE
T3.8
STREET ORIENTATION GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-A
HEIGHT, SCALE GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-B,1
4.2-B,1a
4.2-B,1b
4.2-B,1c
4.2-B,1d
4.2-B,2
4.2-B,3
The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings
shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and
provide human scale and proportion. Some tools to achieve this include:
See A1.1, Site
Sections
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
Per San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 4- Downtown Design Guidelines.
The primary goal of the following downtown design guidelines is to preserve and enhance its attractiveness to residents and
visitors as a place where: people prefer to walk rather than drive; and where the pleasant sidewalks, shading trees, and variety
of shops, restaurants, and other activities encourage people to spend time, slow their pace, and engage one another. The
design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and public spaces in the downtown have, and will continue to play a crucial
role in maintaining this character and vitality.
Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of the sidewalk
unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for
pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyards, or outdoor eating areas.
See A1.1 and A2.0
In no case may the height of a building at the back of sidewalk exceed the
width of the adjoining right-of-way (see Figure 4-2).
See A1.1, Building
Height Compliance
New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings
shall provide appropriate visual transitions.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
For new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and
scale of the significant buildings.
See Historical report
The project provides upper story setbacks from the front building façade
along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Portions of the building
above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building
walls are not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk
along the building’s frontage.
New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned
gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack
House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings
shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them
See T3.2-3.4, Solar
Shading Studies
New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera
or Monterey Streets at noon on December 21st. Information
demonstrating this objective shall accompany all applications for
architectural review as detailed on application checklists.
See T3.2-3.4, Solar
Shading Studies
4.2-B,4
4.2-B,4a
4.2-B,4b
4.2-B,4c
4.2-B,4d
4.2-B,4e
4.2-B,4f
4.2-B,4g
4.2-B,4h See A3 - Elevations
4.2-B,4i
4.2-B,4j See A3.4 Materials
Board
4.2-B,5
4.2-B,5a
4.2-B,5b See A2.0
4.2-B,5c
4.2-B,5d
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0
See T2.1
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other
decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls;
Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve
multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail
land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the
context of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to
adjacent structures include, but are not limited to:
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights and
architectural features that penetrate the roof plane are encouraged to
diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure;
Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings;
Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more
transparent ground floor.
Larger buildings (where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly
expressed at the street frontage by changing material or setback to respect
the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development;
Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be
diminished by offsets of building form and mass;
Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into
smaller scale elements;
Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground
floor such as windows, wall detailing, and public art.
Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within
and around the project site and choose materials and colors to enhance
lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure.
Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems
and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the
building, or in a sub-grade vault.
See A2.0, Site Plan
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See A2.0, Site Plan
and A1.1 Site Sections
See A2.0, A3.0-A3.3,
Building Elevations
Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be
identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be
located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department
requirements.
Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for
pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the
project frontage. Minor deviations may occur where necessary to preserve
street trees, or where right-of-way limitations reduce available sidewalk
width.
Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions
should not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street.
4.2-B,4 4.2-B,4a4.2-B,4b4.2-B,4c4.2-B,4d4.2-B,4e
4.2-B,4f
4.2-B,4g
4.2-B,4h See A3 - Elevations
4.2-B,4i
4.2-B,4j See A3.4 Materials
Board
4.2-B,5
4.2-B,5a
4.2-B,5b See A2.0
4.2-B,5c
4.2-B,5d
See T2.0-T2.3, Perspective ViewsSee T2.0See T2.1See T2.0-T2.3, Perspective Views
Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other
decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls;
Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the context of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures include, but are not limited to: See T2.0-T2.3, Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights andarchitectural features that penetrate the roof plane are encouraged to diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure; Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings; Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor. Larger buildings (where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly expressed at the street frontage by changing material or setback to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development; Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be diminished by offsets of building form and mass;
Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into
smaller scale elements;
Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground
floor such as windows, wall detailing, and public art.
Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within
and around the project site and choose materials and colors to enhance
lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure.
Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems
and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the
building, or in a sub-grade vault.
See A2.0, Site Plan
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See A2.0, Site Plan
and A1.1 Site Sections
See A2.0, A3.0-A3.3,
Building Elevations
Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be
identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be
located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department
requirements.
Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for
pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the
project frontage. Minor deviations may occur where necessary to preserve
street trees, or where right-of-way limitations reduce available sidewalk
width.
Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions
should not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street.
FAÇADE DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-C
4.2-C,1
4.2-C,2
4.2-C,3
4.2-C,4
4.2-C,5
4.2-C,6 See A2.0
4.2-C,7
New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors,
entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural
features that complement existing structures, without copying their
architectural style.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.3
Elevations
Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped
rooflines with parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or
curvilinear lines, or large pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be
avoided.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.3
Elevations
Proportions in relation to context . Buildings should be designed with
consideration of the characteristic proportions (relationship of height to
width) of existing adjacent facades, as well as the rhythm, proportion, and
spacing of their existing door and window openings.
Storefront rhythm . A new building facade that is proposed to be much
"wider" than the existing characteristic facades on the street should be
divided into a series of bays or components, defined by columns or
masonry piers that frame windows, doors and bulkheads. Creating and
reinforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and
provides pedestrians with features to mark their progress down the street.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Elevations
Individual storefront proportions. Storefronts should not overpower the
building façade, and should be confined to the area framed by the support
piers and the lintel above, consistent with classic “Main Street”
architecture.
Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be
varied and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank
walls discourage pedestrian traffic
Doorways. Doorways should be recessed, as described in Section D.3,
Bulkheads. Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the
sidewalk, but should sit above a base, commonly called a “bulkhead,” of
18 to 36 inches in height. Desirable materials for bulkhead facing include
those already common in the downtown: ornamental glazed tile in deep
rich hues, either plain or with Mediterranean or Mexican patterns; dark or
light marble panels; and pre-cast concrete.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Elevations
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Item 2
Packet Page 24
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.9
SCALE: N.T.S.
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDEINE - COMPLIANCE
4.2-D,1 GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-D,3
4.2-D,3a
4.2-D,3b
4.2-D,3c
4.2-D,4
4.2-D,4a
4.2-D,4b
4.2-D,4c
4.2-D,4d
MATERIALS & ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve
several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with
integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are
encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many
design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However,
if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured
material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's
overall character.
See A3.4, Material
Board
Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings. The
following materials are considered appropriate for buildings within the
downtown.
- Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred)
- Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete
- New or used face-brick
- Ceramic tiles (bulkhead or cornice)
- Clapboard (where appropriate)
- Glass block (transom)
- Clear glass windows
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
Use of clear glass (at least 88 percent light transmission) on the first floor
is recommended. Introducing or changing the location or size of windows
or other openings that alter the architectural rhythm or character of the
original building is discouraged.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
Doorways. Doors and storefront systems should be of materials and have
details and ornament appropriate to the building wall materials.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
Storefront entrance doors should be recessed within the building façade to
provide an area for pedestrians to transition from the interior space to the
public sidewalk.
See A2.0 First Floor
Plan
Doors themselves should be primarily of glass, to avoid conflicts
between entering and exiting patrons.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Elevations
Door and entry designs and materials should be compatible with the other
storefront materials. Terrazzo and tile pavers are attractive and appropriate
paving materials common in the downtown, while indoor/outdoor carpeting
and wood planking are inappropriate materials.
Windows. Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the
ground floors of downtown buildings are important in maintaining the
pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor windows adjacent to
sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive
blank walls do not.
When windows are added or changed, it is important that the design be
compatible with the themes common on the same block.
N/A
Permanent, fixed security grates or grilles in front of windows are not
permitted. Any necessary security grilles should be placed inside, behind
the window display area.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
Traditional storefront transom windows should be retained whenever
feasible. If the ceiling inside the structure has been lowered, the ceiling
should be stepped up to meet the transom so that light will penetrate the
interior of the building.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
4.2-D,4e
4.2-D,5
4.2-D,5a
4.2-D,5b
4.2-D,5c
4.2-D,5d
4.2-D,5e
4.2-D,5f See A2.0
4.2-D,5g
4.2-D,6
GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-E See A2.0
4.2-E,a See L1.1,A2.0
4.2-E,b See L1.1,A2.0
4.2-E,c See L1.0
4.2-E,d See L1.1,A2.0
4.2-E,e See A2.0
4.2-E,f See A2.0, Room 106
Existing windows should be maintained, and not "walled-in" or darkened to
provide more interior wall or storage space.
N/A
Awnings. Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible
and compatible with the storefront.
Where the facade of a commercial building is divided into distinct bays,
awnings should be placed within the vertical elements rather than
overlapping them.
See T2.0-T2.1
Perspective Views
Primary access to public plazas and courtyards should be from the street;
secondary access may be from retail shops, restaurants, offices, and other
uses.
Shade trees or architectural elements that provide shelter and relief from
direct sunlight should be provided.
Courtyards should be buffered from parking areas or drive aisles by low
walls, landscaping, or other features to clearly define the edges of the
pedestrian space.
Ample seating should be provided.
Bicycle parking should be provided.
Awning shape should relate to the window or door opening. See T2.0-T2.1
Perspective ViewsAwnings may not be internally illuminated.
Plazas and courtyards are encouraged within the downtown. .
Awnings can be either fixed or retractable.
The use of second floor awnings shall be coordinated with lower storefront
awnings. Canvas is the most appropriate material for awnings. Metal,
plastic (vinyl), or glossy materials are not appropriate.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Awnings should be functional and at least four feet wide.
A single building face with multiple tenants should use consistent awning
design and color on each building floor, unless the building architecture
differentiates the separate tenancies.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Other details. A number of other details should be incorporated into
exterior building design to add a degree of visual richness and interest
while meeting functional needs. These details include such items as:
Light fixtures, wall mounted or hung with decorative metal brackets
Metal grillwork, at vent openings or as decorative features at windows,
doorways or gates, decorative scuppers, catches and down-spouts,
preferably of copper, balconies, rails, finials, corbels, plaques, etc.
Flag or banner pole brackets. Crafted artworks.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
PUBLIC SPACES, PLAZAS AND COURTYARDS
Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as extensions of the
public sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches
fountains, and by continuing the pavement treatment of the sidewalk.
Item 2
Packet Page 25
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 L1.0
planting & TREE
REMOVAL PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NUPUPP.L 119.30'204.5 FF
204.38 FF
204.4 FF
204.37 FF 204.15 FF
204.06 FF
204.28 FF
204.77 FF
204.61 FF
CALIFORNIA
PIZZA KITCHEN
CHORRO STREET MARSH STREET(E) 10'-0" ALLEY
(N) MIXED USE BUILDING
BRANZINO
1 122
2333
3
4
54 6
5
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
4 Jacaranda mimosifolia / Single Trunk 24" box Size: 40-50` tall and 20-30` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
12 Sansevieria trifasciata / Mother-in-law`s Tongue 5 gal Size: 2`-4` tall and 1-2` wide
WUCOLS PF = .1-.3
13 Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks` / Senecio 1 gal Size: 1`-3` tall x 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF = .1 - .3
PLANT SCHEDULE
1 SITE PLAN
SCALE:1" = 30'MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE1144 CHORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAJACARANDA MOTHER IN LAWS TONQUE SENECIO
KEYNOTES
1. (E) STREET TREE TO REMAIN
2. (N) DECORATIVE PATIO FENCE
3. (N) RAISED PLANTERS
4. (E) PALM TO BE REMOVED
5. (E) CARROTWOOD TREE TO BE
REMOVED
6. (E) BRACHYCHITON TO BE REMOVED
Item 2
Packet Page 26
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 L1.1
ROOFTOP planting
plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NSTUDIO
601
357 SF
STUDIO
603
318 SF
STUDIO
604
318 SF
STUDIO
607
329 SF
STUDIO
608
337 SF
1-BD
611
451 SF
STUDIO
613
408 SF
STUDIO
614
450 SF
STUDIO
615
501 SF
STUDIO
616
484 SF
1-BD
617
576 SF
2-BD
605
660 SF
STUDIO
602
350 SF
STUDIO
606
329 SF
1-BD
609
362 SF
1-BD
610
479 SF
1-BD
612
451 SFCOMMON
KITCHEN
618
363 SF
(N) MIXED USE BUILDING
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
2
22
22
2
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
8 Magnolia grandiflora `Little Gem` / Dwarf Southern Magnolia 15 gal Size: 20`-25` tall and 10`-15` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
4 Cotinus coggygria `Royal Purple` / Royal Purple Smoke Tree 5 gal Size: 16` tall and 15` wide
. WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
43 Nepeta x faassenii `Walkers Low` / Walkers Low Catmint 1 gal Size: 2`- 2 1/2` tall and 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
9 Olea europaea `Little Ollie` TM / Little Ollie Olive 5 gal Size: 4`-6` tall and wide
WUCOLS PF = >.1
PLANT SCHEDULE
20 Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks` / Senecio 1 gal Size: 1`-3` tall x 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF = .1 - .3
1 SITE PLAN
SCALE:1" = 30'MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE1144 CHORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADWARF SOUTHERN
MAGNOLIA
PURPLE ROYAL
SMOKE TREE
WALKERS LOW CATMINT LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE
MOTHER IN LAWS TONQUE SENECIO
KEYNOTES
1. (N) RAISED PLANTERS
2. (N) ROOFTOP PATIO
Item 2
Packet Page 27
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 L1.2
WATER CALCS
Estimated Total Water Use
Equation:
ETWU = (ETo) x (0.62) x [(PF x HA/IE) + SLA]
Enter values in Pale Blue Cells
Tan Cells Show Results
Messages and Warnings
Enter Irrigation Efficiency (equal to or greater than 0.71)0.91
Irrigation Efficiency Default Value 0.71
Plant Water Use Type Plant Factor
Low 0 - 0.3
Medium 0.4 - 0.6
High 0.7 - 1.0
SLA 1.00
Hydrozone
Plant Water
Use Type (s)
(low, medium,
high)
Plant Factor
(PF)
Hydrozone
Area (HA)
(ft2) PF x HA (ft
2)
1 Low 0.20 72 14
2 Medium 0.40 80 32
3 Low 0.20 276 55
4 Low 0.40 192 77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178
SLA 1 0 0
Sum 620
Results
MAWA = 9,262 ETWU= 5,324 Gallons ETWU complies with MAWA
712 Cubic Feet
7 HCF
0.02 Acre-feet
0.01 Millions of Gallons
Enter value in Pale Blue Cells
Tan Cells Show Results
Messages and Warnings
Click on the blue cell on right to Pick City Name San Luis Obispo Name of City
ETo of City from Appendix A 43.80 ETo (inches/year)
Enter total landscape including SLA 620.00 LA (ft2)
Enter Special Landscape Area 0.00 SLA (ft2)
Results:
MAWA = (ET o) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)]9,261.56 Gallons
1,238.09 Cubic Feet
12.38 HCF
0.03 Acre-feet
0.01 Millions of Gallons
MAWA calculation incorporating Effective Precipitation (Optional)
ETo of City from Appendix A 43.80 ETo (inches/year)
Landscape Area 620.00 LA (ft2)
Special Landscape Area 0.00 SLA (ft2)
0.00 Total annual precipitation
Enter Effective Precipitation 0.00 Eppt (in/yr)(25% of total annual precipitation)
Results:
MAWA=(ET o - Eppt) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)]- Gallons
- Cubic Feet
- HCF
- Acre-feet
- Millions of Gallons
Item 2
Packet Page 28
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A1.0
2. MARSH STREET ELEVATION
1. CHORRO STREET ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
MARSH ST
TOP OF STRUCTURE 62'-0"
TOP OF BUILDING 55'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 47'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 30'-0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE 35'-0"
PLPL
PL PL
54'-0"15'-0"
5'-0" 10'-0"
70'-00"134'-6"5'-0"
110'-0"
CHORRO ST
MARSH ST
4'-6"
1"=30'-0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE 62'-0"
TOP OF BUILDING 55'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 47'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 30'-0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE 35'-0"
PLPL
PL PL
54'-0"15'-0"
5'-0"10'-0"
70'-00"134'-6"5'-0"
110'-0"
CHORRO ST
MARSH ST
4'-6"
1"=30'-0"
Item 2
Packet Page 29
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A1.1
SITE SECTION 2
SITE SECTION 1
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
Item 2
Packet Page 30
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.0
site plan and
first floor plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NKEYNOTES
1. (N) TREES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR
SPECIES/SIZE. MAINTAIN 8’ CLEARANCE
2. (N) CURB CUT
3. (E) TREE TO REMAIN. MAINTAIN 8’
CLEARANCE AT SIDEWALK AROUND TREE.
4. (N) PAVING AT SIDEWALK
5. (E) GAS METER IN SIDEWALK
6. (E) PGE VAULT
7. (E) MANHOLE
8. (E) WATER METER IN SIDEWALK
9. (E) WATER METER IN SIDEWALK TO BE
RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF TREE GRATE
AREA
10. (E) FIRE HYDRANT
11. (E) TRUNCATED DOME - ADA MARKING
STRIP
12. (E) STREET LIGHT &TRAFFIC SIGNAL
13. (E) PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
14. (E) CURB CUT AT ALLEY
15. (N) STORMWATER BIOFILTER PLANTER
TYP.
16. APPROXIMATE SIZE AND LOCATION OF (E)
BASEMENT TO REMAIN (STORAGE 001)
17. NEW FINISH FLOOR GRADES AT DOOR
THRESHOLDS PER 1.5% MAX CROSS
SLOPE FROM ADJACENT TOP OF CURB.
B
1
24'-0"15'-0"24'-0"
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
C D E F G
B C D E F G
20'-0"23'-0"20'-0"20'-0"
20'-0"23'-0"20'-0"20'-0"5'-0"25'-0"20'-0"25'-0"15'-0"5'-0"25'-0"20'-0"25'-0"720'-0"7 20'-0"A
A
10'-0"
10'-0"
H
H
22'-6"
22'-6"UPUPRETAIL
102
1,425 SF
TRASH
107
612 SF
UTILITY
108
480 SF
2
3
RETAIL
101
1,424 SF
RETAIL
100
1,738 SF
OFFICE LOBBY
104
594 SF
RES. LOBBY
103
597 SF
GARAGE
105
3,782 SF
P.L 119.30'(E) 10'-0" ALLEY (E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
CHORRO STREET MARSH STREET
4
5
MC - 2
MC - 1
1-ADA
BIKE
106
292 SF
SHOW /
LOCKERS
110
198 SF
FIRE
RISER
109
89 SF
COVERED
AREA
111
546 SF
MAIL BOXES
1
1
3
2
311 45
5
6 6
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
10
14
5'-0"15
2
A1.1
1
A1.1
6
7
12'-4"4'-4"9'-4"12'-6"10'-0"10'-0"8'-0"16
204.5 FF
204.38 FF
204.4 FF
204.37 FF 204.15 FF
204.06 FF
204.28 FF
204.77 FF
204.61 FF
17
Item 2
Packet Page 31
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.1
SECOND floor plan
third floor, sim.
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 32
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.2
fourth FLOOR plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 33
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.3
fifth FLOOR plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 34
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.4
sixth FLOOR plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 35
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.5
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 36
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.6
2-BEDROOM 505 616 SF
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
UNIT FLOOR PLAN EXAMPLES
STUDIO 507 329 SFSTUDIO 504 318 SFSTUDIO 501 357 SF
1-BEDROOM 511 451 SF STUDIO 516 484 SF1-BEDROOM 510 479 SF1-BEDROOM 509 362 SF
Item 2
Packet Page 37
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.0
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPL PL
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"1/16"=1'-0" - SOUTH
Item 2
Packet Page 38
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.1
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPLPL
5'-0"STAIRTOWERSECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"EAST - 1/16"=1'-0"
Item 2
Packet Page 39
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.2
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLPL
75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT5'-0"STAIRTOWERSECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"1/16"=1'-0" - NORTH
Item 2
Packet Page 40
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.3
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPL PL
5'-0"STAIRTOWERPL
SECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
1/16"=1'-0" - WEST
Item 2
Packet Page 41
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.4
MATERIAL BOARD
BLACK NO.29 BLACK
NEWPORT SW 7069 IRON OREP-525 NAVAJO WHITE
BULKHEADS AND WINDOW HEADERS
CONCRETE FINISH OR POLISHED PLASTER
STOREFRONT
KAWNEER, ANODIZED ALUM.
WALL SCONCE
LUMENS URBAN INDOOR/OUTDOOR
BRICK SIDING
COMMERCIAL BRICK CORP
SIDING AND TRIM PANELS
BLACK METAL
STUCCO SIDING
MERLEX SBF BASE A
Item 2
Packet Page 42
Item 2
Packet Page 43
Historic Preservation Report for
1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo County, California
OCTOBER 2018
PREPARED FOR
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP
Copeland Properties
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 2
Packet Page 44
Item 2
Packet Page 45
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT FOR
1144 CHORRO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP
Copeland Properties
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Mark Rawson
Prepared by
Paula Juelke Carr, M.A.
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 52154
October 2018
Item 2
Packet Page 46
Item 2
Packet Page 47
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
i
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Review of City Files: 1144 Chorro ............................................................................................................. 2
Summary of Development of Downtown Historic District ...................................................................... 2
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with Historic Preservation Ordinance ......................................... 4
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation)................................................................................... 6
Additional Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................. 7
Professional Commentary on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ................................................. 7
Analysis and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 7
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Item 2
Packet Page 48
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 2
Packet Page 49
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Historic Preservation Report to satisfy
Condition 3 of City of San Luis Obispo (City) ARCH-1687-2018 & USE-1688-2018 – Completeness
Review #1 for the Marsh & Chorro Development Project (project) located at 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. This report includes a review of the proposed project plans
and assesses the project’s conformance with City policies and guidelines.
BACKGROUND
The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 provided for the
establishment of a Certified Local Government Program to encourage the direct participation of local
governments (in partnership with the State Office of Historic Preservation [SHPO] and National Park
Service [NPS]) in the identification, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within
local government jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns
into local planning and decision-making processes.
The City became a Certified Local Government in 2012, thereby assuming responsibility for the
following historic preservation roles:
• Enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulations for the designation and protection of
historic properties;
• Establish a historic preservation review commission by local ordinance;
• Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties;
• Provide for public participation in the local preservation program; and
• Satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.
The City has a number of interrelated resources available to assist it in carrying out its mandates as a
Certified Local Government. Among these are:
• The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Section 1500 et seq.);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 10229 [2010 Series]);
• City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council Resolution No.
9391 [2002 Series], amended May 2003, October 2004, March 2007, November 2007, and June
2010);
• The Cultural Heritage Committee (historic preservation advisory body to the City Council);
• City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources Group 2012);
and
• City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element
(adopted by City Council Resolution No. 10586 [2014 Series], last revised December 2014);
Section 3: Cultural Heritage.
Item 2
Packet Page 50
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
2
REVIEW OF CITY FILES: 1144 CHORRO
SWCA began with a review of City Community Development Department files relating to the Marsh &
Chorro Development Project site at 1144 Chorro Street, along with further review of the archived Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC) agenda packets available online. The agenda packet prepared for the regularly
noticed June 22, 2015, CHC hearing included a staff report for the Discovery San Luis Obispo project,
which proposed to remodel the exterior and interior of the commercial building at 1144 Chorro Street (the
Marsh & Chorro Development Project location) (City of San Luis Obispo 2015). The Project Information
section of the staff report described the subject property as “a non-historic structure located with the
Commercial Downtown (C-D-H) zone at the border of the Downtown Historic District” (City of San Luis
Obispo 2015:CHC1-2). The assumption that the project site is not a historical resource for the purposes of
CEQA is based on the above information stated in the City’s CHC agenda packet. No further evaluation
of the building is therefore required.
Although the earlier Discovery San Luis Obispo project did not propose demolition of the existing
structure, the June 22, 2015, staff evaluation and analysis of the proposed Discovery San Luis Obispo
project (excerpted here) nevertheless provides useful comparative material for the evaluation and analysis
of the currently proposed March & Chorro Development project. This earlier documentation also provides
valuable suggestions for enhancing conformity.
City planning staff found that the Discovery project’s proposed exterior and interior modifications to the
1144 Chorro commercial building were consistent with Policy 3.2.1 of the City’s Historic Preservation
Guidelines, which requires that “New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the
scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting, and street yard
setbacks of the district’s historic structures . . . ” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:7).
The staff analysis went on to state:
The proposed remodel maintains the scale, mass, and overall rhythm of the existing
structure and would remain compatible with the form, scale, and massing of nearby
development and the overall Downtown Historic District. The subject location (which is
one floor plus mezzanine in height) abuts single and two-story structures and there are a
range of two to three story structures in the area. No exterior additions to the height or
mass are proposed . . .
The Downtown Historic District has a variety of architectural styles but most structures
appear to be constructed with high quality materials and attention to detail. The
contemporary design of the proposed project does not detract from defining features of
adjacent historic buildings or from other historic resource within the Downtown Historic
District because the modifications have a limited scope, which do not change the massing
and overall architectural form of the structure . . . (City of San Luis Obispo 2015:CHC1-
4).
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN HISTORIC
DISTRICT
The proposed building site at 1144 Chorro Street is located on the southeast margin of the City’s
designated Historic Downtown District. As described in the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines, the
district “encompasses the oldest part of the city of San Luis Obispo and contains one of the City’s highest
Item 2
Packet Page 51
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
3
concentrations of historic sites and structures” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38–40). The Downtown
Historic District also includes some of the City’s most disparate resources in terms of construction dates,
historic context, and building materials. Examples include Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, Mexican-
era adobes, and examples of American-period frame and brick buildings. The majority of the district’s
surviving buildings date to the 1870s–1920s.
The district, which encompasses more than 60 acres and approximately 100 designated historic buildings,
is characterized chiefly by the commercial buildings that grew up in the latter part of the nineteenth
century along the city’s commercial corridors (Higuera, Monterey, and Marsh) and the main cross streets
that connected them (Chorro and Garden). Other streetscape characteristics include buildings that face the
street, sidewalks, grade-level recessed entrances, and street trees. As discussed in the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, “the district’s commercial architectural styles reflect the increasing
wealth of the times. Architectural styles . . . include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and
Romanesque structures, and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were
designed by outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles) the majority of
Downtown buildings were designed and built by local builders. Predominant architectural features
include:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low-pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as
dentils, brackets and molding
D. First-floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing
the street. In multi-story structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double-hung
wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or ‘boxy’ building forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies; and
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38–39).
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of the Marsh & Chorro Development Project area document the
transition of the built-environment in the project vicinity through 1970. Although Higuera Street had
become an established commercial street by the 1880s, the project vicinity of Marsh Street retained its
early residential streetscape of one-story frame dwellings, along with a smattering of churches, until the
1910s. The project site itself still had the same one-story frame residences until at least 1926.
The first decade of the twentieth century saw the construction of several large-scale building projects
within a one-block radius of the project area. These included three commercial buildings (the 1901–02
Bank of America Building, the 1903–04 Johnson Block, and the 1904 H. M. Warden Block), the First
Presbyterian Church built in 1905 (from stone quarried from Bishop Peak), and the four-story Masonic
Temple built in 1906 across Marsh Street from the project site. By 1926, the project area was undergoing
further commercial development: Although the subject parcel and neighboring parcels on Marsh Street
remained entirely residential, Chorro Street had a commercial building shared by the Santa Maria Gas
Company and a “pipe shop and office,” and a former residence on the southwest corner of Chorro and
Marsh Streets housed an office of the US Weather Bureau. Farther south on the corner of Marsh and
Garden Streets were two-story stucco buildings—the Struver Building (1913) and the Snyder Building
(1925). North on Marsh Street, at the corner of Morro Street, was the newly built U.S. Post Office (also a
Item 2
Packet Page 52
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
4
prominent stucco building). The post office was flanked by the Presbyterian Church on one side and the
Christian Science Church on the other. The Masonic Temple—a bulky building with stucco coating,
distinctive engaged pilasters, and a prominent cornice and entablature, which remained the tallest and
most substantial building within view—had been joined by the Elks Lodge, on the northwest corner of
Marsh and Morro Streets.
New construction between 1926 and 1970 on Chorro Street, between Marsh and Higuera Streets, included
the three-story Wineman Hotel stucco remodel in 1931 and the two-story brick-faced Riley’s Department
Store building, constructed at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955 and in operation at that location from 1956
through 1992.1 Other commercial buildings constructed on Marsh Street between Garden and Morro
Streets include additional two-story stucco structures.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified as Chapter 14.01 of the Municipal Code.2 The
subheadings of the chapter relevant to the Marsh & Chorro Development Project are the following, which
incorporate, by reference, CEQA regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element:
14.01.010 Findings and Purpose
14.01.010.A.3. The California Environmental Quality Act requires special treatment of
historic resources and the establishment of clear local guidance for the identification and
preservation of such resources lends [sic] clarity and certainty to the review of
development applications involving historic resources.
14.01.010.B.1. Identify, protect, preserve, and promote the continuing use and upkeep of
San Luis Obispo’s historic structures, sites and districts.
14.01.010.B.4. Implement the historic preservation goals and policies of the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
14.01.010.B.7. Establish the procedures and significance criteria to be applied when
evaluating development project effects on historic resources.
14.01.010.B.8. Fulfill the City’s responsibilities as a Certified Local Government under
State and Federal regulations and for Federal Section 106 reviews.
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance also defines the Historic Preservation Report and other
relevant terminology used in architectural evaluations:
1 Building Permit No. A-475 for new construction, issued to C.C. Humphreys and H. A. Landeck; Maino Construction; June 23,
1955; project completed October 23, 1955.
2 The City of San Luis Obispo CHC is delegated to review applications and development review projects, including new
construction, additions, or alterations located in historic districts, and make recommendations to the Community Development
Department Director, the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the City Council (14.01.030.C.4).
Item 2
Packet Page 53
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
5
14.01.020 Definitions
14.01.020.2 Adjacent: located on property which abuts the subject property on at least
one point of the property line, on the same property, or located on property directly
across right-of-way from subject property and able to be viewed concurrently.
14.01.020.9 Character Defining Features: as outlined in the US Department of the
Interior’s National Register 15 and Preservation Brief 17: “How to Identify Character
Defining Features.” The architectural character and general composition of a resource,
including, but not limited to, type and texture of building material; type, design, and
character of all windows, doors, stairs, porches, railings. Molding and other appurtenant
elements; and fenestration, ornamental detailing, elements of craftsmanship, finishes, etc.
14.01.020.20 Historic Context: Historic context are those patterns, themes or trends in
history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning
and significance is made clear.
14.01.020.21 Historic District/Historical Preservation District: areas or neighborhoods
with a collection or concentration of listed or potentially contributing historic
properties…where historic properties help define the area or neighborhood’s unique
architectural, cultural, and historical character or sense of place. Historic districts are
delineated on the official zoning map as Historic (H) overlay zone under San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Chapter 17.54.
14.01.020.23 Historic Preservation Report: A document which describes preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction measures for a historic resource, based on
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of historic Properties, and
which includes standards and guidelines for recommended treatments for preserving the
resource.
14.01.020.32 Massing: The spatial relationships, arrangement and organization of a
building’s physical bulk or volume.
14.01.020.39 Preservation: The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain
a historic site, building or other structure’s historically significant existing form,
integrity, and materials through stabilization, repair and maintenance.
14.01.020.42 Qualified Professional: an individual meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61 Appendix A) in history,
architectural history, historic architecture and other designated categories….
14.01.020.48 Scale: The proportions of architectural design that relate to human size or
other relative size measure.
14.01.020.49 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as published by the US Department of
the Interior and as amended from time to time.
14.01.020.50 Setting: The physical area, environment or neighborhood in which a
resource is located.
14.01.020.53. Siting: The placement of structures and improvement on a property or site.
Item 2
Packet Page 54
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
6
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES (REHABILITATION)
Four approaches to the treatment of historic properties are recommended by the Secretary of the Interior:
Rehabilitation, Preservation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Of these, Rehabilitation offers the most
latitude in adaptive re-use of existing historic properties. In evaluating the current proposed project’s
compliance with the 10 Rehabilitation Standards, SWCA has considered the Downtown Historic District
as a whole as well as the individual historic properties within the viewshed of the Marsh & Chorro
Development Project. Standard No. 9 is the most relevant standard for the proposed project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.
The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Item 2
Packet Page 55
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
7
Additional Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Interior
“As with new additions, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new
construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the
historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new
construction must be subordinate to these buildings. New construction should also be
distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site
and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development” (National Park Service
[n.d.]).
Professional Commentary on the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards
At the 2007 National Preservation Conference, the distinguished architect and professor Steven W. Semes
emphasized that new buildings in an historic setting should focus more on the “sense of place” than the
“sense of time.” Semes’s point of view is that historic districts usually contain buildings in many different
styles, but most follow an approach to design that reflects the sense of the specific place and create
continuity over time rather than contrast and disruption. It is this continuity over time that is important to
creating and maintaining the character of historic districts. Thus, from Semes’s point of view, any style
would be acceptable in an historic district provided it draws on the influences of the place and harmonizes
with, rather than ruptures, the continuity of architectural character (Preservation Alliance for Greater
Philadelphia 2007).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The issue of compatibility—with individual historical resources and with the Downtown Historic District
as a whole—is the primary issue in determining compliance with the City’s Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines (in particular Section 3.2.1) and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation (in particular, Standard No. 9) for development within historic districts and development
adjacent to historical resources.
Some individual City-listed historic buildings located within the Downtown Historic District (e.g.,
Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian Church, Masonic Temple) are sited in such a way that both the historic
building and the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development project would be visible concurrently. The
project is also proposed as a new addition to the Downtown Historic District, which is currently
experiencing a resurgence of development and redevelopment projects. Several of these infill projects,
either already in construction or still in the development pipeline, are undeniably large-scale in terms of
their height and massing; their visual prominence is altering familiar downtown streetscapes and skylines.
As part of the evaluation for compatibility, a pertinent historic preservation question is whether a given
project, or the aggregate of these new projects, is consistent with the City’s historic preservation goals.
City planning staff and the City Council are, of course, obliged to consider multiple (and often
competing) points of view in their decision making. The cultural heritage section of the City’s General
Plan specifically acknowledges the inherent difficulties in balancing historic preservation goals with other
community goals:
Throughout California, older established neighborhoods are feeling the effects of growth
and intensification due to contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks the
grace of older homes it replaces. Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a
changing economy with new uses, development patterns and economic realities.
Item 2
Packet Page 56
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
8
Underutilized sites with historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment
projects, with the resulting loss of those resources. Moreover, some cultural resources
have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public policies, incomplete information and
the lack of funding. The loss of significant historic, cultural and archaeological resources
can reduce the community’s uniqueness and make it a less desirable place in which to
live, work or visit.
As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it is prudent to look into the future to
anticipate problems which may lie ahead. We have already experienced some of these
same pressures, and it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to face similar
challenges in the near future. Through its General Plan policies and related
implementation measures, the City intends to help balance cultural resource preservation
with other community goals (City of San Luis Obispo 2014:6-14–6-15).
Architectural historians and other technical specialists, on the other hand, are expected to focus on the
particular issues of their area of expertise. That is not to say that they should be unaware of or indifferent
to other issues of concern. It is a standard analytical approach to look at overall historical context when
considering historical resources. This approach has merit, though, only when it is understood in an
organic way and not as a snapshot moment in time. Economic realities have always shaped the form, size,
construction materials, aesthetic qualities, and use of San Luis Obispo’s myriad architectural resources—
no matter when they were built or where they were located. Over the past 150 years, the City has
experienced episodes of economic downturn and economic recovery, accompanied respectively by
building slumps and building booms. New construction has historically embraced contemporary
architectural trends (which sometimes included architectural revivals of earlier styles). As part of this
long-term general economic and construction trend, new construction has also often been larger and more
substantially built than the majority of buildings already in place around it. The Masonic Temple, for
instance, which has dominated Marsh Street for more than a century, was roughly three times the height
and size of surrounding structures when it was built in 1913—at a time when the streetscape was
predominantly one-story frame dwellings and vacant lots. During the past century, there have also been
long intervals of limited growth during which a generation of residents might witness relatively few
conspicuous changes. It should be pointed out, of course, that earlier episodes of large-scale construction
generally happened long before the evolution of the modern regulatory environment and its concerns with
historic preservation, but new construction has nevertheless always been indicative of prevailing
historical trends.
The project clearly evidences the intent to incorporate numerous design elements to be compatible with
adjacent and nearby architectural styles and materials. The massing of the building—though clearly tall
and substantial—is nevertheless softened by subdued colors and fenestration of the lower stories, as well
as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories. Cornice trim is suitably
incorporated at a respectful scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary style that
neither suggests a fictitious past nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more flamboyant
architecture of the historic Masonic Temple across Marsh Street. Marsh Street is noticeably wider than
Higuera and Monterey Streets, but the numerous mature street trees provide considerable screening of
building mass on both sides of the street. Marsh Street at Chorro Street is also noticeably at a lower
elevation than the uphill topography that characterizes the intersections of Higuera and Osos Streets or
Chorro and Palm Streets, where buildings that are tall to begin with look even taller against the horizon.
The City parking structure on the opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets provides a tall visual
counterpoint to the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development Project. Other nearby designated historic
buildings within a one-block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street, generally
because of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
Item 2
Packet Page 57
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
9
With careful consideration of: (1) the historical development of the Downtown Historic District; (2) the
character-defining features of adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings; (3) site topography,
street width, and sightlines; (4) the district-wide distribution of multi-storied designated historic
buildings, other multi-storied historic-period buildings, and recently constructed multi-storied buildings;
and (5) the proposed materials, colors, massing, setbacks, ornamental detailing, wall recesses, bulkheads,
canopies, balconies, railings, fenestration, lintels, ledges, window reveals, and other design elements of
the proposed project, SWCA has concluded that the project, as currently designed, complies with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation).
Item 2
Packet Page 58
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
10
REFERENCES CITED
City of San Luis Obispo
2006 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element.
Adopted April 4, 2006, last revised December 9, 2014 (Council Resolution No. 10586, 2014
Series). Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651. Accessed
October 2018.
2010 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144. Accessed October
2018.
2015 San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes, Agenda Packet for ARCH-1376-
2015, Hearing Item No. 1. June 22, 2015. Available at:
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1,1,1,1/doc/42256/Page1.aspx. Accessed October 2018.
National Park Service
[n.d.] New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service Technical Preservation Services. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-
construction.htm. Accessed October 2018.
Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia
2007 Sense of Place: Design Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts. Available at:
http://www.preservationalliance.com/publications/SenseofPlace_final.pdf. Accessed October
2018.
Item 2
Packet Page 59
Architectural Evaluation for
1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo County, California
APRIL 2020
PREPARED FOR
City of San Luis Obispo
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 2
Packet Page 60
Item 2
Packet Page 61
ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION FOR
1144 CHORRO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Prepared by
Paula Juelke Carr, M.A., Senior Architectural Historian
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 27640.15
April 2020
Item 2
Packet Page 62
Item 2
Packet Page 63
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWCA has prepared this architectural evaluation of the commercial building at 1144 Chorro Street, San
Luis Obispo, in connection with environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the proposed Jamestown Premier SLO Retail development at 1144 Chorro Street/840 Marsh
Street (project). The building occupies County of San Luis Obispo Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 002-
427-012. The project area limits are coterminous with the outer boundary of the parcel. As proposed, the
project entails the demolition of the commercial building, built in 1955, that operated at that location as
Rileys Department Store from 1955 to 1993.
Specifically, this report has been prepared, in conformance with 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, to determine whether the former
Rileys Department Store building possesses sufficient historical significance and physical integrity to
meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or
otherwise constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, or whether it is eligible for local
designation on the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing
resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
This report concludes that the former Rileys Department Store commercial building located at 1144
Chorro Street does not retain sufficient physical integrity to the period of its significance (1955–1967) to
be able to convey its historic-period identity and role in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo. For a
business that relies on branding and visibility, the loss of distinctive and prominent signage (the letter “R”
above the canopy on the Chorro Street frontage, and a tall neon “Rileys” sign that rose above the roofline
at the corner of Chorro and Marsh) is a substantial loss to the building’s integrity of design, materials,
feeling, and association. The interpolation of the marble wall cladding and brick-and-cement bench on
Chorro Street; the expansive, angled canvas awning along both street frontages; and the black anodized
aluminum door frame, which replaced a display window and door on Marsh Street, have caused further
inroads on the integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association that would need to be
present to meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or for local designation, or otherwise
constitute historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Item 2
Packet Page 64
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 2
Packet Page 65
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
iii
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i
Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Historical Context ....................................................................................................................................... 9
San Luis Obispo Mid-Century Commercial Development .................................................................... 9
Mid-Century Architectural Trends in Storefront Design ..................................................................... 11
Rileys Department Store History .......................................................................................................... 17
Crocker & Bros 1887–c1900; J. Crocker & Co. c1900–1920 ....................................................... 17
D. J. Riley ...................................................................................................................................... 19
H.A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey .................................................................................... 24
The New Store: Chorro and Marsh ................................................................................................ 27
Rileys in the Recent Past................................................................................................................ 37
Description of Historic-Period Built-Environment Resources in the Project Area Limits ................ 38
Evaluation of Architectural Resources in Project Area of Potential Effects ........................................ 59
California Register of Historical Resources................................................................................... 60
City of San Luis Obispo Local Historic Preservation Criteria ....................................................... 64
Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 69
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 69
Preparer’s Qualifications ......................................................................................................................... 70
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Appendices
Appendix A. Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials, by Carol J. Dyson
Item 2
Packet Page 66
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
iv
Figures
Figure 1. Project location and vicinity map. ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by famed Mid-Century architect Morris
Lapidus in 1950 (Class Haus 2019). ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by Morris Lapidus in 1950 (Class Haus
2019). ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 4. Architectural rendering for Bullock’s Westwood (PatricksMercy 2010). ................................... 15
Figure 5. Becket’s Bullock's Westwood opened in 1951 (Los Angeles Public Library Photo
Collection c1953). ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Libbey-Owens Ford Glass Company brochure, 1942. ................................................................ 16
Figure 7. This 1946 hardware store design “combines dramatic signage with linear display boxes
that run from the exterior plywood and aluminum frame through the open front and on
into the store” (Dyson 2017:6). ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8. Floating display windows “deconstructed the front plane of retail windows,” Irene Burke
dress shop, Long Beach, 1948 (Dyson 2015:164). ................................................................... 17
Figure 9. February 1888 Sanborn map (sheet 5) showing of Crocker Brothers two-story brick
building under construction at Higuera and Garden Streets. .................................................... 18
Figure 10. December 1891 Sanborn map (sheet 9) showing Crocker Brothers store in operation. ............ 18
Figure 11. The first store building opened in 1888 as A. Crocker & Bros. (Franks 2004:49). ................... 18
Figure 12. After Jacob Crocker bought out his brothers’ interest in the store at the turn of the
century it operated as J. Crocker & Co., at the same Higuera Street and Garden Street
location (Middlecamp 2019). .................................................................................................... 19
Figure 13. Riley-Crocker Company advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1916:4). ..................................... 20
Figure 14. Store advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1917a:5). .................................................................. 21
Figure 15. Store advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1917b:8). .................................................................. 21
Figure 16. Christmas advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1917c:5). .......................................................... 22
Figure 17. Expert corset-fitting advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1918:2). ............................................ 22
Figure 18. Consultation advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1926:5). ........................................................ 23
Figure 19. School opening advertisement (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1942:12)......................... 23
Figure 20. Lamson Pneumatic Tube catalogue, c1910s (Meanwhile, at the Manse 2012). ........................ 24
Figure 21. Landeck and Humphrey’s pledge to carry on the business according to Riley’s wishes
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1945b:6). ........................................................................ 25
Figure 22. Interior modernization efforts at the Higuera and Garden Street location (San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1954:11). ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 23. Riley Department Store building nearing completion on the day before official opening
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1955c:1). ........................................................................ 27
Figure 24. Artist’s rendering of new Rileys Department Store (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1956b:24). ................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 25. The first unit of Rileys Department Store, with the Union Hardware store that occupied
the building next door between 1955 and 1960 (History Center of San Luis Obispo
County). .................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 26. In September 1955, Rileys acquired the former Albrecht’s furniture store at 2211 Broad
Street “to complete Rileys growth as a full-fledged department store,” (advertising cuts
from San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1956b:24. ................................................................ 30
Figure 27. Rileys December 1956 “My Baby Magazine,” which probably appeared as an insert in
the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune and other local Central Coast newspapers
(PicClick 2018). ........................................................................................................................ 30
Item 2
Packet Page 67
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
v
Figure 28. Beauty consultant advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1958:6). ................................................ 31
Figure 29. Wedding consultation advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1962a:4). ........................................ 31
Figure 30. Laura Righetti Garzola (1905–2014), who headed the store’s cosmetics department
(Trujillo 2018). .......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 31. Interior view of store, including mezzanine and staircase, c1958 (KSBY 2018). ..................... 32
Figure 32. Another interior view of merchandise and stairway to mezzanine, taken on same day as
Figure 31, c1958 (Pinterest 2019b). .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 33. Window display advertising Historical Museum’s Cabrillo Scholarship, featuring
historical costume on left, artifacts in case, and Portuguese flag (History Center of San
Luis Obispo County). ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 34. View of Rileys vertical sign and flagpole at the corner of Chorro and Marsh, c1959
(History Center of San Luis Obispo County). ........................................................................... 34
Figure 35. Artist’s rendering, probably c1955, of what may have been a proposed Rileys
Department Store exterior design; note the hardware store at the left (Pinterest 2019a). ......... 35
Figure 36. An advertisement published in 1962 featured the entire artist’s rendering of the Chorro
Street elevation (cf. Figure 17, above) (Santa Maria Times 1962b:6). ..................................... 35
Figure 37. Rileys opened another satellite store—a home furnishings and music center—on August
13, 1964, in the College Square Shopping Center on Foothill Boulevard (Santa Maria
Times 1964:7). ........................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 38. The former Rileys Home Furnishings and Music Center, at 872 Foothill Boulevard, now
houses CrossFit and Club 24 (Google, November 2018). ........................................................ 36
Figure 39. Former general manager George Christensen (left) and co-owner and general manager
Bob Humphrey in 1987, the centennial of the store’s founding (Middlecamp 2019). .............. 37
Figure 40. Co-owner Ross J. Humphrey (San Luis Obispo Tribune 2014). ............................................... 37
Figure 41. Rileys Department Store staff share a farewell meal on the last day of operation, January
31, 1993 (Middlecamp 2019). ................................................................................................... 38
Figure 42. Former Union Hardware store building incorporated into Rileys in 1960, camera facing
north (Google, November 2018). .............................................................................................. 39
Figure 43. Overview down Chorro Street, camera facing east (Google, November 2018). ....................... 39
Figure 44. View down Chorro Street elevation, camera facing southeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............ 40
Figure 45. Articulation of marble-clad wall with display window supported on brick bulkhead at
left corner of former Union Hardware building, camera facing north (SWCA, May 5,
2019). ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 46. Articulation of rectangular storefront window, brick bulkhead, and door assembly on
former Union Hardware building, camera facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ..................... 41
Figure 47. Door assembly, including transom and wall surface below awning, former Union
Hardware building, camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ...................................... 41
Figure 48. Articulation of door assembly with brick wall and projecting display window, camera
facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 49. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 50. Recessed area on Chorro Street with Roman brick wall, memorial plaques, palm tree,
and bench, camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .................................................... 43
Figure 51. Memorial plaques to Herbert A. Landeck, Sr. (1897–1972), and Coy C. Humphrey
(1906–1968), who owned and developed the property at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955,
camera facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................ 43
Figure 52. Articulation of brick masonry wall and concrete wall at recessed area, with palm tree and
horizontal flagpole, camera facing northwest (SWCA May 5, 2019). ...................................... 44
Item 2
Packet Page 68
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
vi
Figure 53. Inner corners of Roman brick masonry between bench and angled display window,
camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ...................................................................... 44
Figure 54. Underside of stuccoed canopy over Chorro Street sidewalk (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............... 45
Figure 55. Chorro Street main entrance, camera facing northeast (Google, November 2018). .................. 45
Figure 56. View of interior and recessed area beyond, through display windows, camera facing
northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 57. Angled display window at left side of main Chorro Street entrance, camera facing north
(SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................. 47
Figure 58. Right-angled corner of display window at right side of main Chorro Street entrance,
camera facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .............................................................................. 47
Figure 59. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 60. View through display window to Marsh Street corner, camera facing southeast (SWCA,
May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 61. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 62. Articulation of Roman brick masonry walls at the corner of Chorro Street and Marsh
Street, with brackets that formerly held the vertical Rileys sign and flagpole, camera
facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 63. Detail of brick texture and inclusions in clay body; note well-executed concave mortar
tooling (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ................................................................................................. 50
Figure 64. Overview of Chorro and Marsh street elevations, camera facing north (Google,
November 2018). ...................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 65. Marsh Street elevation, near Chorro Street, camera facing northwest (Google, November
2018). ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 66. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 67. At west end of display window, aluminum frame is flush-mounted in brick wall, Marsh
Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA photograph, May 8, 2019). ....................... 52
Figure 68. Roman brick masonry bulkhead on Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest
(SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................. 53
Figure 69. Upper wall surface, underside of canopy, and left concrete pillar of doorway portal,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................... 53
Figure 70. At east end of display window, aluminum frame flares out on top of brick masonry,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ....................................... 54
Figure 71. Articulation of brick masonry bulkhead, display window assembly, and door assembly,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ....................................... 54
Figure 72. Doorway assembly set inside tall, stuccoed concrete entry portal, Marsh Street elevation,
camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ..................................................................... 55
Figure 73. Articulation of stucco with metal mesh screen on underside of canopy and awning,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................... 55
Figure 74. Metal mesh screening on underside of canvas awning, Marsh Street elevation, camera
facing southwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ................................................................................. 56
Figure 75. Overview of Marsh Street elevation near alleyway, camera facing northwest (SWCA,
May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 76. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 77. Replacement door assembly near alleyway on Marsh Street elevation, camera facing
west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ..................................................................................................... 57
Item 2
Packet Page 69
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
vii
Figure 78. Plan view of new canopy above original doorway and display case, constructed in
September 1962 by Maino Construction (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche, 1144
Chorro Street). ........................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 79. Elevation of new canopy shows original configuration of Marsh Street doorway and
adjacent display window (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street). ............. 58
Figure 80. Upper corner of Marsh Street entrance near alleyway, showing where display window
was formerly located, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .......................................... 58
Figure 81. Steel angle bar protecting brick masonry at corner of Marsh Street alleyway behind
Rileys building (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .................................................................................... 59
Figure 82. Modest example of early Mid-Century style, 1335–1337 Monterey Street (Google,
November 2018). ...................................................................................................................... 62
Item 2
Packet Page 70
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 2
Packet Page 71
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP redevelopment project proposed for 1144 Chorro Street/840
Marsh Street (project), currently under environmental review by the City of San Luis Obispo (City),
entails the demolition of the one-story commercial building currently present on the parcel. The building,
constructed in 1955, operated as Rileys Department Store from 1955 to 1993, when it was purchased by
the current owners.
METHODOLOGY
Historic-period built-environment resources (i.e., resources 50 years old or older) are present in the
project area. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such resources are considered part
of the environment and are subject to review. This architectural evaluation will determine whether any of
the historic-period resources onsite have sufficient significance and integrity to constitute “historical
resources” for the purposes of CEQA. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.1
The project area limits are coterminous with the outer boundary of County of San Luis Obispo (County)
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 002-427-012 (Figure 1). The architectural evaluation of the subject
property is based on a combination of observations made during site visits to the property on May 2, 5,
and 8, 2019; preliminary research in standard secondary sources; archival research at the County
Assessor’s Office, San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office, and San Luis Obispo City/County Library;
City Community Development Department address and permit files and microfiche for 1144 Chorro; and
desktop research conducted through online databases, including Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com,
GenealogyBank.com, and the California Digital Newspaper Collection. The corporate offices of the L.A.
Darling Company in Bentonville, Arkansas, were also contacted on May 6, 2019, for information about
the original merchandise display systems installed in 1955; no reply has been received to date. SWCA
Environmental Consultants (SWCA) Senior Architectural Historian Paula Juelke Carr, M.A., conducted
the fieldwork, evaluation, and report preparation.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The historical context for the proposed project includes brief reviews of three topics: San Luis Obispo’s
Mid-Century commercial development; national Mid-Century trends in commercial architecture; and the
corporate history of Rileys Department Store and its antecedents.
San Luis Obispo Mid-Century Commercial Development
For the project area, the most relevant period and theme from San Luis Obispo’s history relate to the
City’s mid-twentieth-century growth, and especially to its mid-twentieth-century commercial
development. The City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources
Group 2013:125–129) provides useful background information on these topics. Although San Luis
Obispo experienced a tremendous amount of building activity associated with troop training facilities in
anticipation of United States involvement in both Europe and the Pacific during World War II, there was
very little new commercial development in the 1940s.
1 CEQA is encoded in Sections 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), with guidelines for implementation
codified in 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq. The definition of “historical resources”
is contained in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Item 2
Packet Page 72
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
10
Figure 1. Project location and vicinity map.
Item 2
Packet Page 73
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
11
The end of wartime rationing and restrictions on building materials, together with the general post-war
economic boom and population increase, brought both new development and architectural remodeling to
downtown San Luis Obispo. As part of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s emphasis on creating a
national highway system, highway funding became more readily available with the passage of the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Locally, a new alignment of U.S. Route 101 was completed in 1958,
bypassing the former city-street route along Higuera and Monterey Streets, but greatly facilitating
automobile tourism along the Central Coast. In addition to being at the midpoint between Los Angeles
and San Francisco, and at a strategic location along the Central Coast, San Luis Obispo also benefitted
from its role as county seat and the most important shopping hub for miles around. In 1940, San Luis
Obispo’s population had not yet reached 9,000, by 1950 it had surpassed 14,000, by 1960 it was nearly
20,500, and by 1970 it had reached just over 28,000 (Wikipedia 2019). Over the course of these three
decades, San Luis Obispo both grew and modernized as a city.
Many existing commercial buildings in the original downtown core were modified with
contemporary storefronts during this period. New commercial development during this
period included a small number of low-density commercial retail and office buildings
located outside of the historic core. Many of these low-density office buildings were
developed for use as medical offices and health services. The most prominent of these is
the Kundert Medical Building, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and
completed in 1956. During the 1950s, San Luis Obispo saw its share of suburban sprawl
within geographically defined borders, and the first mall was built just a few miles from
downtown. In the 1970s, another mall was added. But unlike in other communities in
California, the two shopping centers proved to be little competition for downtown San
Luis Obispo as the major commercial center.
Architectural styles associated with this period include Mid-century Modern. Architects
who are represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include Frank Lloyd Wright
and Craig Ellwood, along with local architects Mackey Deasy, Homer Delawie, George
Hasslein, Warren Leopold, Paul Neel, and Piercy K. Notable local builders include Stan
Bell, Leonard Blazer, Roger Brown, Alex Madonna, Patrick Smith, Arnold Volney, and
Jack Westerman. (Historic Resources Group 2013:126)
Mid-Century Architectural Trends in Storefront Design
In his contribution to the 2000 Preserving the Recent Past 2 conference proceedings (Jackson 2000:2-57–
2-64), architect Mike Jackson, affiliated with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, presented a
synopsis of American storefront design from 1949 to 1970, excerpted here:
The architectural history of the storefront is one of continuous evolution, with the mid-
twentieth century as one of the most dynamic periods of innovation. Changes in
architectural fashions and construction technologies allowed commercial property owners
to use storefront design and alteration as a method of improving their niche in the
American marketplace. This transformation was never more rapid than in the mid-
twentieth century. The forces prompting these changes were physical, psychological, and
economic, and intensely promoted in the architectural and retail publications. Merchants,
by their very nature, are prompting buyers to stay current by purchasing new things.
Architects and architectural product makers promoted a similar need for merchants and
commercial property owners to keep their buildings up-to-date and appealed to the same
marketing impulses that merchants used to woo their customers . . .
Item 2
Packet Page 74
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
12
In a major competition sponsored by [architectural trade journal] Pencil Points magazine
in 1942, architects around the country were invited to submit designs for the “Storefront
of Tomorrow.” . . . The winning entries to this competition all explored the display
window as both a window and an architectural form, released from the normal bounds of
the wall. The storefront became far more three-dimensional than the Art Deco and Art
Moderne designs promoted in the Modernize Main Street competition just seven years
earlier. The jutting, floating, jewel-box quality of the display window was emphasized.
The same effort was placed in the manipulation of the signs and canopies. The overall
effect seemed to be to defy gravity, since the structural elements that held it together were
minimized in expression. The limits of glass as a self-supporting material were explored.
Manufacturing advances in glass technology, including tempering (higher strength) and
improved attachment details, allowed more glass and less framing.
The “open front” or visual front” was the name attached to this new generation of
storefronts. While the earliest versions date to 1940, the limits of the wartime economy
meant that this form did not gain center stage until the 1950s and 1960s, when the last of
the Art Moderne and streamline designs were fading from popularity. In its ideal
variation, the “open front” was integrated with an interior renovation so that the entire
interior of the store became the “display window,” not just a front window zone. The
principal design characteristics of the “open front” included large display windows that
were often cantilevered . . . , nonsymmetrical and angular plans, angled or jutting support
structures, projecting flat canopies, floating elements such as signs (often used with free-
form cutouts or silhouettes), and a picture-frame motif instead of a display window as the
most prominent design element, a marked contrast to the storefront designs of the
previous decade, which placed much more emphasis on the wall and graphics framing the
display window.
In addition to form changes, the palette of construction materials changed. Clear polished
plate glass was the largest single surface, but the front bulkhead and enframement could
be brick, stone, or tile. The smooth monolithic surfaces of the streamline era gave way to
textured surfaces or those made of very small tile. Brick, in a blond color as well as the
traditional red, with a stacked bond pattern was particularly popular. Regional stone was
used for the bulkhead panels and sidewalls, including simulated stone of cement and
asphalt in the most utilitarian versions. The storefront framing was almost always tubular
aluminum, with varying finishes. Beginning in the mid-1950s, a light tan-colored
(“champagne”) aluminum gained popularity . . .
The front canopy as both a shading device and integral part of the architectural
composition was a major difference from previous generations of commercial structures,
It replaced the fabric awning, which had served for centuries. The canopy separated the
display window from the structure or from the surface above and could be extended into
the interior in a similar design capacity . . . In its most utilitarian form, the canopy was a
thin, cantilevered horizontal line in the overall composition.
In the same article, Jackson goes on to quote Morris Lapidus, a trend-setting Mid-Century architect who
specialized in storefront and hotel design:
The store front is the silent salesman working on the street 24 hours a day . . . Mr. and
Mrs. America and their children have been educated to shopping habits in which the store
front plays a stellar role. Window shopping is probably the greatest single pastime of
men, women and children throughout the country. Millions of dollars are spent on
Item 2
Packet Page 75
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
13
window display, and retailers today are much too canny to spend their money on
anything that does not produce an ample return on investment. To my mind, store fronts
are the catalysts which turn window shoppers into customers and as such are a vital part
of the retailer’s selling equipment. As an architect who has spent many years in the store
field, I feel that nothing contributes more to the quick and continued recognition of a
retailing establishment by the public than a store front.”
In another contribution to the 2000 Preserving the Recent Past 2 conference proceedings (Longstreth
2000:2-1–2-11), architectural and cultural landscape historian Richard Longstreth used Mid-Century
architectural changes in Savannah, Georgia, as an example of the national trend of sweeping postwar
alterations in downtown commercial districts and the rising competition with suburban shopping centers:
Broughton Street served as the primary retail corridor for the city from the late nineteenth
century until the 1960s, when it was eclipsed by shopping centers and other development
on the urban periphery. Most of Broughton Street’s fabric dates from the period of its rise
in the 1920s . . . But another major component dates from the fifteen-year period
following World War II. Between 1942 and 1960, leading national chain stores and
prominent local companies alike constructed substantial new quarters . . .
The new work stood in unabashed contrast to that of previous, decades, but . . . there was
no interest in harmonizing with the past. Indeed the objective in Savannah and elsewhere
coast to coast was to transform main street, to make it seem entirely new. Only then,
retailers believed, could they remain competitive in their merchandising agenda. Locally
the precedent was set in the 1946 outlet of Lerner Shops, a New York-based chain
specializing in women’s and children’s apparel. The ambient newness that it exuded was
made possible through technological advances. Air conditioning and fluorescent lights
reversed the traditional objective of selling floors arranged for maximum natural
ventilation and light. The resulting windowless upper section was, in turn, used as a
backdrop for the boldly-scaled store letters – the whole treated as a great sign that would
quickly attract the eye of the motorist no less than the pedestrian and stand out amid its
neighbors.
Longstreth noted that Savannah’s Woolworth and J. C. Penney stores also erected large new stores, and
“a major local retailer, the R. H. Levy Company, greatly expanded and completely remodeled its building
in 1954, several years after its purchase by Allied Stores, one of the nation’s foremost department store
ownership groups” (Longstreth 2000:2-2).
Figures 2 through 6, below, document high-style commercial architectural designs that clearly
demonstrate the major architectural elements diagnostic of the Mid-Century commercial style, as
discussed by Jackson and Longstreth. Figures 2 and 3 are views of Morris Lapidus’s 1950 design for an
automobile showroom, and Figures 4 and 5 are the work of Welton Becket and Associates, “responsible
for a stunning array of iconic modern structures that literally defined post-war Los Angeles” (Emerton
2003:3). Through an array of architectural and popular magazines, trade journals and catalogues,
newspapers, and advertisements, the Mid-Century style was made known to the American public. Figures
6 through 8 present more modest examples of the Mid-Century commercial style, which nonetheless
incorporate important diagnostic elements. Other examples are depicted in Appendix A (Dyson 2008).
Item 2
Packet Page 76
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
14
Figure 2. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by famed Mid-
Century architect Morris Lapidus in 1950 (Class Haus 2019).
Figure 3. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by Morris Lapidus
in 1950 (Class Haus 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 77
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
15
Figure 4. Architectural rendering for Bullock’s Westwood (PatricksMercy 2010).
Figure 5. Becket’s Bullock's Westwood opened in 1951 (Los Angeles Public
Library Photo Collection c1953).
Item 2
Packet Page 78
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
16
Figure 6. Libbey-Owens Ford Glass Company brochure, 1942. “Steel lintels
now easily spanned across an entire façade, transparent ‘open fronts’
replaced earlier opaquely backed display windows . . . ” (Dyson 2017:4).
Figure 7. This 1946 hardware store design “combines dramatic signage
with linear display boxes that run from the exterior plywood and aluminum
frame through the open front and on into the store” (Dyson 2017:6).
Item 2
Packet Page 79
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
17
Figure 8. Floating display windows “deconstructed the front plane of retail
windows,” Irene Burke dress shop, Long Beach, 1948 (Dyson 2015:164).
Rileys Department Store History
Crocker & Bros 1887–c1900; J. Crocker & Co. c1900–1920
Rileys Department Store had its origins in the dry goods store founded in 1887 as A. Crocker & Brothers
(Aaron, Jacob, and Adolph Crocker) at the southeast corner of Higuera and Garden Streets. Their two-
story brick building, which fronted on Higuera Street, was depicted on the February 1888 Sanborn Fire
Insurance map (sheet 5 of 9) as “being built” (Figure 9). In December 1891, the Sanborn map (sheet 9 of
17) documented the store as offering drygoods, clothing, and gentlemen’s furnishings (hats, gloves,
cravats, etc.); offices were located on the second floor (Figure 10). The Crocker Brothers specialized in
“piece goods”—cloth, thread, lace, and ribbon—as well as ready-to-wear clothing, trunks, suitcases, and
household items (Franks 2004:49). The finished building opened for business in 1888 (Figure 11). By
1900 Jacob Crocker had bought out his two brothers and was operating the store as J. Crocker & Co., still
at the corner of Higuera and Garden Streets (Figure 12).
Item 2
Packet Page 80
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
18
Figure 9. February 1888 Sanborn map (sheet 5)
showing of Crocker Brothers two-story brick building
under construction at Higuera and Garden Streets.
Figure 10. December 1891 Sanborn
map (sheet 9) showing Crocker
Brothers store in operation.
Figure 11. The first store building opened in 1888 as A. Crocker & Bros. (Franks 2004:49).
Item 2
Packet Page 81
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
19
Figure 12. After Jacob Crocker bought out his brothers’ interest in the store at the turn of the
century it operated as J. Crocker & Co., at the same Higuera Street and Garden Street location
(Middlecamp 2019).
D. J. Riley
One of Jacob Crocker’s young employees was Daniel John (D. J.) Riley, who was learning the
department store business. Articles of incorporation for the new firm—the Riley-Crocker Corporation—
were filed with the County Clerk on February 9, 1914 (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1914a:1). As
reported succinctly in the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram on the following day (1914b:1), “Daniel J.
Riley of Gilroy to assume entire management of the Riley-Crocker Corporation store (formerly
Crocker’s) tomorrow; from cash-boy2 to store head in fourteen years.” Under the new business
arrangement, Crocker, operating from corporate offices in San Francisco, was in charge of buying; Riley
ran the San Luis Obispo store. Jacob Crocker praised his new partner, saying,
In bringing Mr. Riley to this city and placing him in charge of the entire store we are
bringing a man who is by no means a stranger to this business or to us. Mr. Riley began
life as a cash boy with us in Eureka at the age of fourteen. He rapidly worked his way up
the ladder and after being in our employ six years in Eureka he launched the biggest dry
goods store in Gilroy where he has prospered the past eight years . . .
Mr. Riley will make such changes as in his judgment will make for the betterment of the
business and that may better serve its patrons. If he deems alterations necessary they will
be made. He will be in absolute charge of the entire store and of every department.
2 In the era before cash registers were widely available, “cash boys” were employed in department stores to carry the customer’s
money and the sales clerk’s transaction note from the sales counter to the cashier at a centralized cash desk, and then return to
the sales counter with the customer’s change and the transaction note stamped “paid.”
Item 2
Packet Page 82
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
20
Riley immediately made good on his partners’ predictions. On February 16, the day the store formerly
transferred into his hands, Riley announced that the “first and most important improvement contemplated
was the utilization of the entire building for the store and added departments. A broad stairway will be
constructed from the main floor of the building to the second floor where a department of blankets,
comforters, lace curtains, portiers [interior doorway draperies] of all descriptions, draperies and kindred
departments will be established” (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1914c:1). The motto of the new
management was to be: “The Best Made for the Price Paid.”
In November 1916, the company ran a large advertisement in the Santa Maria Times (1916:4). At the top
of the ad was what purported to be a copy of a Western Union telegram from Crocker to Riley (Figure
13):
Have bought entire sample line of Fall coast from one of New York’s largest
Manufacturers whose output for this season has been entirely sold up. Also line of silk,
and wool one-piece dresses from another manufacturer at greatly reduced prices, very
clever styles and a good range of sizes. And about 50 or 60 of this season’s suits. Will
ship to-morrow. Advertise heavily, fill show windows and price them low as you will
have big stock to move. Had several good offers on these here but thought it best to give
our San Luis Patrons an opportunity to economize. Believe they will appreciate it.
Figure 13. Riley-Crocker Company advertisement (Santa Maria Times
1916:4).
Item 2
Packet Page 83
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
21
At a time when ready-made goods were replacing home-made clothing and making it less necessary to
employ seamstresses and milliners, the Riley-Crocker Company made good use of extensive and detailed
advertisements (Figures 14–17).
Figure 14. Store advertisement (Santa
Maria Times 1917a:5).
Figure 15. Store advertisement (Santa Maria Times
1917b:8).
Item 2
Packet Page 84
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
22
Figure 16. Christmas advertisement (Santa
Maria Times 1917c:5).
Figure 17. Expert corset-fitting advertisement
(Santa Maria Times 1918:2).
In 1920 D. J. Riley acquired sole ownership of the Riley-Crocker Company, which retained that name. In
1923 Riley undertook a thorough remodeling of the store’s interior, driven by his intention to introduce an
“efficiency program that is not a mere thing of words arranged in a business slogan, but that is to
permeate the entire store built into its physical properties and an essential part of each department.” As
reported in the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram (1923:8), the store was closed for about 2 weeks,
during which time it has been practically rebuilt in the interior, the departments having
been completely rearranged in conformity with the store’s new plan of an efficiency that
will make for a lower overhead, a greater labor and stock turnover, an increased volume,
a smaller margin for profit, resulting in a wonderful price benefit to the customer. The
foundation step in this program, Mr. Riley stated, is that of inter-related departments and
fixtures that will utilize space in the displaying as well as the storing of goods . . . We
believe this arrangement serves the important purpose of making it possible for a clerk to
Item 2
Packet Page 85
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
23
serve more customers with a minimum of effort and labor, thus we hope to increase the
volume of business 100 per cent without adding to our expenses, because of the basic
efficiency of the new store plan.
In 1925, Riley stepped away from the daily operations of the store, turning it over to the partnership of
William Lannon and a Mr. Martin; the store was renamed the Riley-Lannon Company (Figures 18 and
19). As reported in his 1945 obituary (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1945a:1), Riley traveled
extensively in the late 1920s and early 1930s, “but eventually returned to San Luis Obispo and once more
took over his old store.” Riley was in charge of the business decision making, but the store was managed
by William Lannon for about 20 years, from the mid-1920s into the 1940s.
Figure 18. Consultation advertisement
(Santa Maria Times 1926:5).
Figure 19. School opening advertisement (San
Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1942:12).
In August 1929, the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram noted (1929:2), “in keeping with its policy of
making any improvements that tend to increase the efficiency of sales service,” Riley installed a Lamson
Pneumatic Tube system to carry cash and sales tags from the various departments to the cashier’s office
on the top floor, and to return change to the customer—the job formerly carried out by the “cash boys”
(Figure 20).
Item 2
Packet Page 86
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
24
Figure 20. Lamson Pneumatic Tube
catalogue, c1910s (Meanwhile, at the Manse
2012).
H.A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey
In August 1945, Riley’s health was failing, and he sold his business to partners Coy C. Humphrey and
H.A. Landeck. In his obituary, published on the front page of the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
(1945a:1) (Figure 21), Riley was commemorated as a business and civic leader who had been:
proprietor of the Riley-Lannon dry good store here for the past 31 years. Originally in the
haberdashery business in Gilroy, he had sold out there in 1914 and came to San Luis
Obispo where he purchased the dry goods company owned by A. J. Crocker. ….
Always alert to improve his operating methods, Mr. Riley installed the first pneumatic
tube carrier system in San Luis Obispo. He made it a point to keep up with the latest
methods of display and lightning. He was constantly concerned with keeping the quality
of the store’s merchandise, establishing a quality reputation for Riley-Lannon which has
endured through the many years.
The length of service of Riley-Lannon employees is a testimonial of the fair and generous
attitude Mr. Riley maintained toward his personnel…. In transferring ownership, Mr.
Riley stipulated that the former policies of his concern be maintained, He especially
Item 2
Packet Page 87
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
25
requested that his personnel be retained in their current capacities. The new owners
agreed to this provision and have announced that the store will continue to operate as
before under the complete managership of George L. Christiansen and with no change
whatever in personnel or policies.
Figure 21. Landeck and Humphrey’s pledge
to carry on the business according to Riley’s
wishes (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1945b:6).
Rileys Department Store is well documented both for its customer service and its dedicated, knowledgeable
employees. In 1948, for example, when the store celebrated its 61st anniversary since its July 1887 founding,
the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (1948:6) ran an article about its longest-serving staff members:
Pride in the record length of service of many of its employes, in the reputation established
by the pioneer firm and in the merchandise which it now offers its customer,
characterizes the anniversary observance. Ten of Rileys employes have been employed
by the company for a grand total of 253 years, or an average of more than a quarter
century each.
Leading the list of veteran employes is Miss Louise Floyd, head of the lingerie, gloves
and hosiery department, who has been with the store continuously since 1902, when it
was known as Crocker Brothers, under which name it was established in 1887.
Second longest record of service is held by Mrs. D. W. Brophy, who has been with the
firm continuously since 1908, and who is now in active charge of the business office,
George L. Allen, former manager of the store, still oversees its business transactions. He
has been associated with Rileys for the past 25 years.
Item 2
Packet Page 88
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
26
Present manager of Rileys is George L. Christensen, who first started work there 24 years
ago while in the eighth grade at the old Court school. Promoted through successive
positions, he became manager three years ago.
Both Mrs. Daria Ramonetti, graduate corsetier and buyer for the corset department, and
Miss Dora Bergh, who is in charge of alterations, have been with the firm 23 years; Mrs.
Sophia Leitcher, buyer in charge of the ready-to-wear floor, is a veteran of 21 years
service; and Mrs. Milvia Hanrahan, head of the bags, gifts, and jewelry department, has
20 years continuous service.
Other long-time employes include Mrs. Louise Ros, sales lady in the piece goods
department, 17 years; Mrs. Margie B. Tomasini, buyer in charge of the piece goods and
bedding department, 14 years; Miss Lora Scaroni, sales lady of the ready-to-wear floor,
nine years; and Mrs. Stella Chiesa, buyer in charge of the infants wear section, eight
years.
Additional Rileys personnel include Miss Dorothy Gracia, Miss Mary E. Bowden, Miss
Sally Babcock and Miss Lena Oliveira, all of whom work in the business office; Miss
Marilyn Fitzgerald, piece goods; Miss Pearl Anderson and Miss Nora Smith, ready to
wear; Miss Grace Silacci, corset department; Mrs. Donna Amos, baby department; Mrs
Shirley Sondono, gifts; Miss Mary Oliveira and Miss Arline Baker, lingerie section; and
Mrs. Laura Garzoli, who is newly in charge of the cosmetics department.
By 1954 the store building at the corner of Higuera and Garden Streets was bursting at the seams, and the
owners undertook the “first major remodeling job in years.” Store manager George Christensen stated,
“Continued business growth in San Luis Obispo has made it necessary for the store to make the best use
of all available space.” As reported by the Telegram-Tribune (1954:11), “To provide more room for
merchandise and easier access all new fixtures were installed on the mezzanine floor. A large floor-to-
ceiling partition in the balcony’s center was removed,” and the “former solid wall surrounding the
mezzanine floor, restricting view and space, was replaced with a modernistic wire fence with a wooden
railing (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Interior modernization efforts at the Higuera and Garden Street
location (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1954:11).
Item 2
Packet Page 89
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
27
The New Store: Chorro and Marsh
The stopgap alterations made in May 1954 proved fruitless, however: by early 1955, Landeck and
Humphrey had made the decision to relocate. They acquired the subject property at the corner of Chorro
and Marsh Streets, and in May 1955 announced plans for a new store. The City issued building permit
No. A475 on June 23, 1955, listing C. F. Hamlin as the engineer and [Theo.] Maino Construction as the
builders. There is no indication of any architect being associated with the project. The building permit
was finaled on June 23, 1955 (City of San Luis Obispo 2019), and the new Rileys Department Store
officially opened 4 months later, on October 20, 1955 (Figure 23). The old store at Higuera and Garden
Streets was condemned and demolished in November 1955 (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1956a:21).
Figure 23. Riley Department Store building nearing completion on the day before official opening
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1955c:1).
As reported by the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (1955c:1–2), the opening of the new store was a
milestone for the company. Co-owner Coy C. Humphrey referred to it as:
a completely new frontier in retail merchandising . . . We designed this store with the
customer in mind . . . We wanted to avoid cramping, we wanted wider aisle width for the
convenience of our customers.” The store definitely provides “a forward look,”
Humphrey observed, particularly stressing the “interesting architectural aspects” of the
store . . . Humphrey pointed out that by increasing the floor space over its old location by
two and one-half times, Rileys has now provided several new departments and is enabled
to expand all previously existing departments considerably by the addition of new lines
of merchandise and a much wider selection.
One additional department getting particular emphasis is the men’s furnishings
department. Among the others are the gift shop – the “Pink Pony,” and the “Mirror
room,” providing a separate section for the selections of bridal wear and formal attire.
“We are adding lines where we knew we were short,” Humphrey disclosed.
The design of the fixtures provides “semi-self selection” for the customer, the specialist
said, affording “complete flexibility,” under the “Visusel” trade name.3 The furnishing
3 The term “semi-self selection” would seem to refer to the customers’ ability to browse items at free-standing “Visusel” fixtures
out on the store floor, rather than needing to be waited on at the department counter. This trade name also appears in a
contemporary advertisement for the Children’s Shop, published in the Millville Daily (1964:6): “It’s easy to select from the
‘visusel’ displays.”
Item 2
Packet Page 90
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
28
set a “completely new trend in store merchandising,” providing exercise of imagination
in patterns of display arrangement . . .
Much of the professional assistance in developing today’s modern merchandising plant
was provided by Lee B. Kuhn, Los Angeles, who has been engaged in the project since
last February. Kuhn is a merchandising and store design expert with the firm of L.A.
Darling Co., which engineered the fixtures installed by Rileys. “It is the unique system of
the future,” it was explained. “Everything is adaptable, moveable and non-rigid,” with all
fixtures lending themselves to rapid changes in floor and merchandising arrangement.
As suggested by the photograph taken of the new store building the day before its official opening (see
Figure 23), there was still construction work to be finished. On November 5, 1955, the City issued a
permit (No. E306) to install a porcelain sign (reading “Rileys” from top to bottom) with neon
illumination, 12 feet above the sidewalk at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets; the sign was 15 feet
high, 30 inches wide, and 9 inches thick. A second permit issued the same day (No. E307) was to install a
porcelain enamel metal sign (the letter “R”), 8 feet × 8 feet and 9 inches thick, above the horizontal
cantilevered canopy on the Chorro Street elevation (City Building Department, address file for 1144
Chorro Street).
An artist’s rendering of the completed store building (Figure 24), which extended down Chorro Street
only as far as the palm tree, shows good correspondence with the 1955 photograph (Figure 25). Canopies
are shown extending outward above the projecting display windows on Chorro Street and cantilevered out
over the flush-mounted display windows on the Marsh Street elevation. The prominent central entryway
on Marsh Street is easy to spot just beyond the display windows.
Figure 24. Artist’s rendering of new Rileys Department Store (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1956b:24).
Item 2
Packet Page 91
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
29
Figure 25. The first unit of Rileys Department Store, with the Union
Hardware store that occupied the building next door between 1955 and
1960 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County).
Overlapping with construction of the Rileys store, the new Union Hardware building had been under
construction next door at 1126 Chorro Street (see Figure 25). The San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
(1955b:2) reported that the hardware store occupied the “former site of frame store buildings razed for the
new project:”
The construction firm of Schmid and Wiswell was engaged for the excavation and for the
foundation work. Plans have not been completed for the store building, and are now
being drawn by William D. Holdredge, local architect. The store front design was be
“coordinated” to complement Rileys proposed new building, which will occupy the
corner of Chorro and Marsh…. The one-story structure will provide a main floor with
38x114 feet of floor space, a mezzanine which is 26x39 feet in size, and a 38x65 foot
basement…. The general contract bid information will not be out until the architect has
completed his plans. It is expected that the store will be ready for occupancy in October.
Newspaper ads and advertising supplements showcased the Rileys satellite furniture store, newly opened
on Broad Street at South Street (Figure 26), as well as the main store’s various specialty departments,
such as infant wear, cosmetics, and the bridal salon (Figures 27–30). The ads often featured the services
of visiting expert consultants, as well as Rileys’ own in-house experts. Window displays often promoted
local events and community celebrations (Figures 31).
Item 2
Packet Page 92
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
30
Figure 26. In September 1955, Rileys acquired the former Albrecht’s
furniture store at 2211 Broad Street “to complete Rileys growth as a full-
fledged department store,” (advertising cuts from San Luis Obispo
Telegram-Tribune 1956b:24.
Figure 27. Rileys December 1956 “My Baby Magazine,” which probably
appeared as an insert in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune and other
local Central Coast newspapers (PicClick 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 93
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
31
Figure 28. Beauty consultant advertisement
(Santa Maria Times 1958:6).
Figure 29. Wedding consultation
advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1962a:4).
Item 2
Packet Page 94
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
32
Photographs of the department store interior, probably taken not long after the opening, reveal some of
interior designer Lee B. Kuhn’s design aesthetic, as well as his incorporation of store fixtures
manufactured by the L.A. Darling Company (Figures 30–32). The company’s manufacturing plant was
(and still is) located in Arkansas, and Kuhn was their West Coast representative at the time of his contract
with Landeck and Humphrey.
Figure 30. Laura Righetti Garzola (1905–2014), who headed the store’s
cosmetics department (Trujillo 2018).
Figure 31. Interior view of store, including mezzanine and staircase, c1958
(KSBY 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 95
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
33
Figure 32. Another interior view of merchandise and stairway to mezzanine,
taken on same day as Figure 31, c1958 (Pinterest 2019b).
Figure 33. Window display advertising Historical Museum’s Cabrillo
Scholarship, featuring historical costume on left, artifacts in case, and
Portuguese flag (History Center of San Luis Obispo County). The exact
location of this display window has not been determined.
Item 2
Packet Page 96
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
34
Figure 34. View of Rileys vertical sign and flagpole at the corner of Chorro
and Marsh, c1959 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County).
By 1959 Rileys Department Store was already embarking on plans to expand its footprint on Chorro
Street. On December 24, 1959, Rileys acquired the adjacent Union Hardware business. The San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune (1959:1) announced that “Major alterations are planned to combine the
hardware store, 1126 Chorro Street, with Rileys building next door, 1144 Chorro Street . . . Integration of
the two structures, which will include the addition of a sprinkler fire control system and air conditioning,
is expected by the fall of 1960. This will add approximately 9,000 square feet to Rileys existing floor
space of 24,000.” The number of new store departments was planned to double from 20 to 40, and
another nine employees were expected to be hired, bringing the total to 75.
Two artists’ renderings (both undated and with no documented provenience) of “Rileys Department
Store” suggest that Rileys may have been planning the incorporation of the Union Hardware store
location for several years. In the first, the architectural firm of Frank E. Martin and Associates, together
with J. H. Leman, engineer, produced a color drawing (Figure 35) that seems to correspond with the
general configuration of the Chorro Street elevation (Figure 36). 4 The second, originally published in
1956 (see Figure 24) and included in a subsequent ad, was actually only the eastern portion of the full
artist’s rendering published in 1962 (Figure 36). Presumably the western portion had already been drawn,
but a decision had been made not to show the entire sketch in 1956.
4 To date, no further information has been located about this architectural firm or structural engineer.
Item 2
Packet Page 97
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
35
Figure 35. Artist’s rendering, probably c1955, of what may have been a
proposed Rileys Department Store exterior design; note the hardware store
at the left (Pinterest 2019a).
Figure 36. An advertisement published in 1962 featured the entire artist’s rendering of the Chorro
Street elevation (cf. Figure 17, above) (Santa Maria Times 1962b:6).
In 1960, Union Hardware’s going-out-of-business advertisement announced the acquisition of the
property by Rileys and noted that the new owner was “closing out all of the hardware stock, moving the
houseware, giftware, glassware, dinnerware stock into the department store. Rileys will continue these
lines but will not continue the hardware business . . . When all the stock is gone, the name of Union
Hardware will be discontinued. Shoppers were advised that they could use their “Rileys credit plate” for
purchases (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1960:6). The building permit (No. 3240) for the
remodeling project that would connect the Union Hardware building to the Rileys store was issued by the
City on May 9, 1960. A 9 × 12-foot opening was cut through the shared wall. Rileys continued to expand
its operations in the 1960s. The largest addition was the construction of another satellite store in the
College Square Shopping Center at Foothill and Highway 1 (Figures 37–38).
Item 2
Packet Page 98
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
36
Figure 37. Rileys opened another satellite store—a home furnishings and music center—on
August 13, 1964, in the College Square Shopping Center on Foothill Boulevard (Santa Maria Times
1964:7).
Figure 38. The former Rileys Home Furnishings and Music Center, at 872 Foothill Boulevard, now
houses CrossFit and Club 24 (Google, November 2018).
In early 1966, H. A. (Bud) Landeck, Jr. (1929–2014), the son of founder H. A. Landeck, Sr. (1897–1972),
resigned from his position as president of the Rileys Corporation, accepting the post of general
merchandise manager for Levy Bros stores in the Bay Area (San Mateo Times 1966:17). The younger
Landeck had begun his career with Rileys working as an assistant to manager George Christiansen.
Landeck’s successor as president was Ross J. Humphrey (1935–2014), son of founder Coy C. Humphrey,
who, along with his brother Robert A. Humphrey (1929–2018), owned and operated the store for nearly
25 years, from 1966 until its closure in 1993. Robert’s obituary, published in the San Luis Obispo Tribune
(2018) stated that, together, “Bob and Ross worked side by side to expand Rileys throughout the county.”
Although Coy C. Humphrey (1906–1968) had been co-owner of the store since 1945, the Humphrey
family did not move to San Luis Obispo until 1955. Both sons received business degrees from San Jose
State College and returned to San Luis Obispo to work at the family business. Ross began working for the
Rileys advertising department. In 1966, when Bud Landeck resigned, Ross took over as president and
Bob Humphrey became vice president and general manager (San Luis Obispo Tribune 2014).
Item 2
Packet Page 99
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
37
Figure 39. Former general manager George Christensen (left) and co-owner
and general manager Bob Humphrey in 1987, the centennial of the store’s
founding (Middlecamp 2019).
Figure 40. Co-owner Ross J. Humphrey (San
Luis Obispo Tribune 2014).
Rileys in the Recent Past
In the 1970s Rileys opened additional stores in Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, and Morro Bay. In August
1987, however, the entire chain was sold to the Charles Ford Company, owners of Ford’s Department
Store, founded in Watsonville in 1852, with store locations in Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Pacific Grove,
Salinas, Hollister, Gilroy, and Half Moon Bay (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1987:D-2). The acquisition, which
seemingly had the potential to be a good fit, given the very similar market niches, ended up being
doomed, in part by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which caused extensive damage to three of the
Ford’s department stores, and in part by the general economic downturn of the early 1990s (Santa Cruz
Sentinel 1992:D-6). In October 1992, the Ford Company filed for bankruptcy, taking Rileys down with it.
Item 2
Packet Page 100
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
38
The Rileys locations in Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, and Morro Bay had already been shuttered, with only
the San Luis Obispo store still in operation (Santa Maria Times 1992:3). The San Luis Obispo store’s last
day of business was January 31, 1993 (Figure 41).
Figure 41. Rileys Department Store staff share a farewell meal on the last
day of operation, January 31, 1993 (Middlecamp 2019).
DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC-PERIOD BUILT-ENVIRONMENT
RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA LIMITS
The parcel is occupied by a rectangular commercial building made up of two adjoining buildings with a
slight recessed area between them on the Chorro Street frontage. The building is one story high, with an
interior mezzanine. City records (City Building Department, address file for 1144 Chorro Street) state
that the building is Type III construction. The main structural support depends on a grid of columns and
beams, with infilled exterior wall areas of Roman brick interspersed with anodized aluminum-framed
plate-glass door and display-window assemblies. The west end of the Chorro Street elevation was built as
the Union Hardware building in 1955 and incorporated into the main Rileys Department Store building in
1960. The façade of this portion is characterized by a tall, boxy, plain stuccoed wall that rises above a
canvas awning running the width of the façade; the awning turns the corner to intersect with the brick
wall in the recessed area (Figures 42 and 43).
Below the awning, the storefront configuration is different from the rest, reflecting its different origin as
the hardware store, as well as later modifications. On the left side of the display windows, the wall is clad
with marble slabs (Figures 44 and 45). The display windows on either side of the doorway are
rectangular, rather than angled in toward the entrance. On the left side of the door, the display case is
supported by a low bulkhead of Roman brick laid in a common bond pattern. On the right side of the door
a smaller display window projects from the brick wall, with no supporting bulkhead; bricks below the
window are laid in common bond, and to the right (at the edge of the recessed area) are laid in stacked
bond. Both display windows and door assembly have plate glass framed in anodized aluminum (Figures
46 through 48).
Item 2
Packet Page 101
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
39
Figure 42. Former Union Hardware store building incorporated into Rileys
in 1960, camera facing north (Google, November 2018).
Figure 43. Overview down Chorro Street, camera facing east (Google,
November 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 102
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
40
Figure 44. View down Chorro Street elevation, camera facing southeast
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 45. Articulation of marble-clad wall with display window supported
on brick bulkhead at left corner of former Union Hardware building, camera
facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 103
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
41
Figure 46. Articulation of rectangular storefront window, brick bulkhead,
and door assembly on former Union Hardware building, camera facing
north (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 47. Door assembly, including transom and wall surface below
awning, former Union Hardware building, camera facing northeast (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 104
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
42
Figure 48. Articulation of door assembly with brick wall and projecting
display window, camera facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
The recessed area that marks the transition between the former Union Hardware building and the original
portion of the Rileys building is trapezoidal in plan (see Figure 49). This area is characterized by four
prominent features: a tall Roman brick wall, laid in a common bond pattern; a pair of inset bronze
memorial plaques to Herbert A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey (co-owners and developers of the
property in 1955); a tall palm tree in a low brick planter; and a brick and concrete bench (Figures 50–53).
The bench is a more recent addition to this area; made of a mixture of brick types it is adjacent to the back
wall but not tied into it (see Figure 50). The blocky upper wall and awning-covered canopy of the
adjacent Rileys building project into the recessed area, intersecting the tall brick wall at different heights
and angles. Additional exterior and interior photos are included as Figures 54 through
Figure 49. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow shows the limits of the former Union Hardware building; the
yellow arrow shows the location of the recessed area.
Item 2
Packet Page 105
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
43
Figure 50. Recessed area on Chorro Street with Roman brick wall,
memorial plaques, palm tree, and bench, camera facing northeast (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Figure 51. Memorial plaques to Herbert A. Landeck, Sr. (1897–1972), and Coy C. Humphrey (1906–
1968), who owned and developed the property at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955, camera facing north
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 106
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
44
Figure 52. Articulation of brick masonry wall and concrete wall at recessed
area, with palm tree and horizontal flagpole, camera facing northwest
(SWCA May 5, 2019).
Figure 53. Inner corners of Roman brick masonry between bench and
angled display window, camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 107
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
45
Figure 54. Underside of stuccoed canopy over Chorro Street sidewalk
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 55. Chorro Street main entrance, camera facing northeast (Google,
November 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 108
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
46
Figure 56. View of interior and recessed area beyond, through display
windows, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). The exterior brick
wall extends into the enclosed space; the structural support for the canopy
is also visible.
Item 2
Packet Page 109
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
47
Figure 57. Angled display window at left side of main Chorro Street
entrance, camera facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Note gap in brick
masonry at exterior corner of bulkhead.
Figure 58. Right-angled corner of display window at right side of main
Chorro Street entrance, camera facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Inner
corner of bulkhead brick masonry is not integrated into wall plane.
Item 2
Packet Page 110
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
48
Figure 59. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the trapezoidal shape of the main Chorro Street
entrance.
Figure 60. View through display window to Marsh Street corner, camera
facing southeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Display window cases have been
removed.
Item 2
Packet Page 111
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
49
Figure 61. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the brick wall extending into the interior of the store.
Dashed lines on blueprint show where display cases were removed.
Figure 62. Articulation of Roman brick masonry walls at the corner of Chorro Street and Marsh
Street, with brackets that formerly held the vertical Rileys sign and flagpole, camera facing north
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 112
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
50
Figure 63. Detail of brick texture and inclusions in clay body; note well-
executed concave mortar tooling (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 113
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
51
Figure 64. Overview of Chorro and Marsh street elevations, camera facing north (Google,
November 2018).
Figure 65. Marsh Street elevation, near Chorro Street, camera facing northwest (Google,
November 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 114
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
52
Figure 66. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the area shown in Figure 65, above, and Figures 67–
75, below; yellow arrows indicate the pair of stuccoed pillars forming doorway portal.
Figure 67. At west end of display window, aluminum frame is flush-
mounted in brick wall, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest
(SWCA photograph, May 8, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 115
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
53
Figure 68. Roman brick masonry bulkhead on Marsh Street elevation,
camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 69. Upper wall surface, underside of canopy, and left concrete pillar
of doorway portal, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 116
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
54
Figure 70. At east end of display window, aluminum frame flares out on top
of brick masonry, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May
5, 2019).
Figure 71. Articulation of brick masonry bulkhead, display window
assembly, and door assembly, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 117
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
55
Figure 72. Doorway assembly set inside tall, stuccoed concrete entry
portal, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5,
2019).
Figure 73. Articulation of stucco with metal mesh screen on underside of
canopy and awning, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 118
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
56
Figure 74. Metal mesh screening on underside of canvas awning, Marsh
Street elevation, camera facing southwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 75. Overview of Marsh Street elevation near alleyway, camera facing northwest (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 119
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
57
Figure 76. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San
Luis Obispo microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the
area shown in Figures 69-73, below; the yellow area indicates a display
case removed to accommodate the replacement door.
Figure 77. Replacement door assembly near alleyway on Marsh Street
elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 120
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
58
Figure 78. Plan view of new canopy above
original doorway and display case,
constructed in September 1962 by Maino
Construction (City of San Luis Obispo
microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street).
Figure 79. Elevation of new canopy shows original
configuration of Marsh Street doorway and
adjacent display window (City of San Luis Obispo
microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street).
Figure 80. Upper corner of Marsh Street entrance near alleyway, showing
where display window was formerly located, camera facing west (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 121
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
59
Figure 81. Steel angle bar protecting brick masonry at corner of Marsh
Street alleyway behind Rileys building (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Note
difference in brick type and dimensions, and in depth of mortar tooling,
camera facing west.
Evaluation of Architectural Resources in Project Area of
Potential Effects
The former Rileys Department Store building, at 1144 Chorro Street in San Luis Obispo, is evaluated
here, pursuant to CEQA, to determine whether it meets any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the
CRHR, or otherwise constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, or whether it is eligible
for local designation on the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Master List of Historic Resources or as a
contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with Section 14.01.070 of the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Item 2
Packet Page 122
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
60
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California. Eligibility to the CRHR is demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
• Criterion 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national
history;
• Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
• Criterion 4. Has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 1
For an entire century, Rileys Department Store and its direct antecedents played an undeniably large role
in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo—both at its original location on Higuera Street and at the
subject location at Chorro and Marsh Streets. It was, as it claimed to be, a shopping destination for many
Central Coast communities, where customers could find merchandise not readily available elsewhere.
Constructed in 1955, the larger, modern store, with its interior designed by a merchandising and design
professional, was also part of the evolving story of post-World War II consumerism, when Mid-Century
modern storefronts began to prevail and when shopping acquired recreational and acquisitional aspects
for an expanding and relatively well-off middle class. The business also demonstrated a consistent pattern
of employee loyalty and decades of service. As a store that catered primarily to women, most of its sales
staff were also women. Although no women were employed in the uppermost levels of Rileys corporate
management, many female employees were career employees, holding departmental management
positions, sometimes over the course of decades.
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 2
The business enterprise known most recently as Rileys has historical associations with the founders of an
earlier iteration (Aaron, Jacob, and Adolph Crocker, owners during 1887–1920), with D. J. Riley (1920–
1945), and with partners Herbert A. (H. A.) Landeck, Sr., and Coy Humphrey (1945–1987). The 1955
construction of the current commercial building, however, and the relocation of the Rileys Department
Store business to the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets took place under the sole direction of Landeck
and Humphrey. Neither the Crocker brothers nor D. J. Riley had any direct influence on the selection of
the current site or on the design or construction of the modern store. In some respects, D. J. Riley’s legacy
of business acumen might be regarded as continuing to influence company policies about the primacy of
customer comfort and service, a broad selection of quality merchandise, and an attention to the well-being
of its staff—but those policies needed to be endorsed and sustained by Landeck and Humphrey (as they
were) in order to succeed. Their partnership, as well as the subsequent partnership of Humphrey’s sons,
Bob and Ross, proved successful and allowed Rileys to retain its local ownership and local customer base
for an unusually long time.
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 3
Research for this evaluation has not found evidence of any architect associated with the design of the
1955 Rileys Department Store building. William D. Holdredge, the local architect who designed the
Item 2
Packet Page 123
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
61
elegant Mid-Century San Luis Obispo City Hall building in 1951, is credited with the rather ordinary
design of the Union Hardware building absorbed by Rileys in 1960. It seems unlikely, however, that
Holdredge also designed the Rileys building: the two structures are quite different, perhaps surprisingly
so, given the stated intention for the hardware store front design to be “coordinated” to complement
Rileys proposed new building (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1955b:2). Despite the architectural
color rendering (see Figure 35) produced by Frank E. Martin and Associates and J. H. Leman, Engineer,
neither of these principals is mentioned on the building permit, either. Rather, the Rileys building appears
to have been designed by local civil engineer C. F. Hamlin (1910–1999), who had worked as an associate
bridge engineer for the California Division of Highways (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1947:6) and
later owned a manufacturing firm specializing in steel bowstring roof-truss systems. The Rileys building
features large expanses of well-executed Roman brick masonry interspersed with large display windows.
At present, these windows offer extensive interior views and cross views that did not exist originally; the
window displays were relatively shallow, with a rear wall and door allowing the window dresser to access
the mannequins on display. The structural engineer selected cantilevered canopies above standard
commercial plate glass and aluminum display window and door assemblies.
Though it is obviously unrealistic to expect the same of level of architectural merit from the Rileys
building as that embodied in the works of a Morris Lapidus or a Welton Becket, the work of such
architects did establish the Mid-Century style. The Rileys design may appropriately by evaluated in
relation to diagnostic features of the style identified by Mike Jackson (Jackson 2000) and Richard
Longstreth (2000), discussed earlier in this report, as well as the features illustrated by Carol J. Dyson
(Dyson 2008) in Appendix A. As a result, the architecture of the Rileys Department Store building
appears to be a rather underdeveloped example of the Mid-Century commercial style, especially given the
fact that the building was newly constructed in 1955, rather than merely remodeled and updated. Given
the fact that Riley’s owned a parking lot across Marsh Street, and given the auto-centric nature of Marsh
Street, which was much broader than pedestrian-oriented Chorro Street, it was perhaps a surprising
decision to make the primary entrance—with its large-scale signage—face Chorro Street. The vertical
sign at the corner, and the name “Rileys” on the suspended awning, seem to have been the only store
signs facing Marsh Street. Most importantly, the long street frontages on both Chorro and Marsh Streets
lack the dramatic “open front” design that treats views of the interior of the store as part of an integrated
window display. Each of Rileys window displays was backed by a rear wall (with a visible door hatch),
blocking interior views. The window assemblies do feature large plate glass display windows with narrow
extruded aluminum frames, but the windows are supported by bulkheads that do not recede (not even by
as much as a toe kick) and that do not allow the windows to “float” or achieve a gravity-defying “jewel-
box” quality. Window planes are all vertical, as are all wall elements. In plan view, there is some use of
angled windows near the doorways, but the approach from the sidewalk to the door is still basically
perpendicular. The (now-covered) roof canopy is cantilevered, but did not express much dynamic
movement; by 1960 it had already been covered by a boxy canvas awning that hung straight down from
the outer edge of the canopy, obscuring the original design intent. The rough-textured Roman bricks
making up the expansive walls are handsome, and the brick masonry shows excellent workmanship, with
consistent, well-tooled concave mortar. Stacked brick, if used at all in the original design, made up only a
miniscule percentage of the wall surface. Though the brick masonry is indeed admirable, it is not
sufficient to carry an eligibility determination for the building as a whole.
Even without the cumulative loss of physical integrity (discussed below), the Rileys Department Store
building lacked important diagnostic features associated with good examples of Mid-Century commercial
architecture necessary for architectural significance under Criterion 3 (which requires a resource to
embody “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the
work of a master or possesses high artistic values”). This lack can probably be attributed, at least in part,
to the fact that H.A. Landeck. Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey were preoccupied with the store’s interior. The
fact that they hired a professional store merchandising display expert (the representative of a
Item 2
Packet Page 124
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
62
manufacturer of store fixtures) but did not hire an architect probably made all the difference in the final
design.
By way of contrast, one modest example of the dawning use of Mid-Century elements in San Luis Obispo
is the small two-unit commercial building at 1335–1337 Monterey Street (Figure 82), built in 1949, which
includes a vertical element above the roof canopy, a jutting triangular wall feature between the two units,
angled wall planes fronting on Monterey Street, and angled plate-glass windows that cant out slightly
from the upper edge but are flush mounted at the lower edge. This is not meant to suggest superior
workmanship or style, but to demonstrate that diagnostic elements of the Mid-Century design vocabulary
were already being adopted in downtown San Luis Obispo in the late 1940s.
Figure 82. Modest example of early Mid-Century style, 1335–1337 Monterey
Street (Google, November 2018).
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 4
Criterion 4 is almost exclusively applied to archaeological resources and is not pertinent to the Rileys
Department Store historic-period built-environment resources.
EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY
Illinois architectural historian and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Carol J. Dyson recently
posed the following questions regarding architectural evaluations of Mid-Century design (Dyson 2017:8,
11):
What is the integrity of midcentury design? Can you still understand the design intent?
Does the building still tell the story with most components, display windows, and
materials still remaining? For many of these buildings loss of design impact may be due
to the loss of the historic signage. Business or aesthetic changes may have caused
removal of the original postwar signage and replaced it with either neutral or
incompatibly designed signage. Many of these building designs were co-dependent on
their midcentury modern signage. It is likely that the period signage does not remain and
Item 2
Packet Page 125
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
63
should not be given undue weight in evaluation. If it is missing, new signs can usually be
designed that work with the midcentury storefront and help revive the design aesthetic.
The commercial buildings and storefront modifications of the midcentury exhibited an
exuberance, drama, and elegance, as they showcased up-to-date businesses within. These
modifications were just one more step in the continuum of change exhibited in our
dynamic downtowns. They are an important part of our past, and are old enough to no
longer be our “recent past.” As such they deserve our study, survey, careful evaluation,
and in many cases, preservation (Dyson 2017:11).
When considering the potential for historical significance under CRHR Criterion 1 through 4, the
question of the physical integrity of the building must also be considered. The integrity of built-
environment resources is evaluated against seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
Location
The store building retains integrity of its prominent location at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets.
Design
The building’s exterior does little in the way of expressing what Dyson refers to as “exuberance” and
“drama.” As seen in Figure 34, above, the store in its early years of use appears rather boxy and staid,
with windows cluttered with posted notices, and a suspended canvas awning obscuring the clean, thin line
of the cantilevered canopy. It is just modern enough to distinguish itself from older businesses, but it does
not make any innovative architectural statement. The store’s Chorro Street frontage incorporates a portion
designed in 1955 by local architect William D. Holdredge, a portion designed in 1955 by engineer C. F.
Hamlin, and more recent additions and alterations, including a canopy built by Maino Construction in
1962, and the removal of an original display window and installation of a distinctly different doorway
assembly on the Marsh Street elevation, sometime after 1992. Figure 33, above, presents a conundrum
about the integrity of other display windows. The photograph shows the two-light window set within a
very shallow recess, with Roman bricks laid in a stacked bond pattern beneath, but this combination of
wall configuration and brick pattern doesn’t exist anywhere on the current building. This suggests that
one or more of the other display windows may have been replaced or modified. The original canopy
design (along with the style of awning added sometime in the late 1950s) is very different from the
current canopy-and-awning configuration. The new canvas awning completely encloses the edges and
upper surface of the original extant canopy and extends the awning continuously across both the Chorro
Street and Marsh Street elevations. In doing so it adds a prominent new angled form to the overall design
and obscures the tall, bulky entry portal facing Marsh Street. The removal of this awning, though feasible,
would not restore the building to its original appearance. The palm tree, planted on Chorro Street in 1955,
has survived in its planter and grown so tall that, at street level, it appears more pole-like than tree-like.
The two bronze plaques are obviously later installations, but are appropriate to the building. The bench is
a poorly designed and poorly executed recent addition. Because of a change in ownership in 1993, none
of the original Rileys signage (neon vertical sign at corner, letters “R” above the canopy, and the name
Rileys printed on awnings) is still in place on the building. As noted above, Dyson cautions against
attaching too much significance to the loss of the signage, but in this instance, the signage was among the
most conspicuous Mid-Century elements incorporated in the building.
Item 2
Packet Page 126
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
64
Setting
Although the store’s setting became increasingly commercial and less residential over time, it retained its
essential character as part of the existing downtown core, facing and flanked by other downtown
businesses.
Materials
Most of the original Roman brick masonry is extant and still in excellent condition. The concave-tooled
mortar also appears to be original, with no repointing or painting. Plate glass windows are still in place,
and the aluminum frames are intact, though dinged and bent at street level in some locations. With the
exception of the new black-framed doorway on Marsh Street (which constitutes a new and visually
prominent material), the aluminum door assemblies are also original. New materials that have been added
include the discordant application of marble slabs at the west end of the building, a canvas awning with a
metal mesh screen attached to the bottom frame, and the concrete-topped bench.
Workmanship
With the exception of the brick bulkheads directly below the window displays, the brick masonry is of
very high quality and has retained its integrity. The masonry for the bulkheads does not tie into the
adjacent walls; rather, the bricks are merely mortared up against the walls. An examination of the
aluminum frames shows that the installation was serviceable, but not exceptional.
Feeling
The building still “reads” as a storefront, but definitely appears to be stripped down and lacking visual
coherence.
Association
The most deleterious impact to this aspect of integrity is the loss of the store’s signage, interior fixtures,
display cases, and visual identity.
City of San Luis Obispo Local Historic Preservation Criteria
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 14.01.070, Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource
Listing) provides:
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural
Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic
Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the
resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less
than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical
importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master,
or possesses high artistic values.
(1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape
and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors,
Item 2
Packet Page 127
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
65
ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure
of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity
although the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a
particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the
uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the
quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts.
Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are
expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also,
suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder)
accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will
be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic
merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among
carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality
may not be superior.
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly
responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The
architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who
made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect
whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant
contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to
local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's
home - built between 1927 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria:
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to
local, California, or national history. Historic person will be
evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor,
congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding
recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who
made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community,
important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members,
educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
Item 2
Packet Page 128
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
66
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of
whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the
Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early
San Luis Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of
predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical,
educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history.
Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to
which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether
the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately
connected with the building (e.g., County Museum).
a. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the
building (e.g., Park Hotel).
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity
evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s
period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or
not the original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its
historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic
resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
EVALUATION
The primary directive of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is that a prospective historical
resource shall meet three criteria: a high level of integrity, sufficient age (generally 50 years), and
significance. These criteria are standard within the preservation community, with each criterion
accomplishing a specific goal. The integrity threshold is to ensure that resources retain the physical ability
to convey their significance. The 50-year-old threshold is not, as is sometimes thought, to certify that an
older building is automatically an important one; rather, the threshold is meant to ensure that sufficient
time has elapsed to be able to make an informed assessment of its significance. (It is for this reason that
some exceptional buildings and structures that are not yet 50 years old may already be determined eligible
for listing.) Significance is perhaps the most elastic of the City’s three criteria. It is often the case that
local ordinances are more inclusive than CRHR eligibility criteria, where factors such as familiarity in the
landscape, a broad base of personal experience with the resource, and even nostalgia may be considered
along with historical importance.
Age of Resource
In evaluating the former Rileys Department Store building for eligibility under the City’s local ordinance,
the age of the building, constructed in 1955–1956, can easily be seen as sufficient for a fair assessment to
be made of its place in Mid-Century architectural design. The resource as it appears today is therefore
evaluated here in relation to its appearance between 1955 and 1970 (from the time of its construction to
50 years ago, which is the “historic-period” for this resource). The criteria of integrity and significance
Item 2
Packet Page 129
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
67
are interdependent. That is, to constitute an eligible historical resource under the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance, the former Riley’s building needs to demonstrate both significance and a high
level of integrity.
Significance of Resource
The architecture of the Rileys building was a rather undeveloped and unexceptional example of the Mid-
Century commercial style, especially given the fact that it was developed in two phases: the first portion
was newly constructed in 1955, and the second phase was the 1960 annexation and remodeling of an
adjacent hardware store. Rileys was not a trend-setting building in the downtown commercial core. The
building’s exterior expressed neither the exuberance or drama suggested in an early (c1955) architectural
rendering produced by Los Angeles-based Frank E. Martin and Associates but not adopted as the final
design (see Figure 35). The Martin and Associates design featured important hallmarks associated with
the Mid-Century modern style: large-scale signage, including a very prominent tall and broad panel
extending well above the roofline; a broad, uninterrupted span of plate glass permitting unobstructed
views into the interior; a broad and deep overhang sheltering the entire window wall; and a row of tall
pillars articulating the Rileys building with the neighboring Union Hardware building. A comparison of
the Martin and Associates architectural rendering with contemporary photographs (see Figures 23 and 25)
and with local advertising sketches published in 1955 and 1962 (see Figures 24 and 36) reveals that
Rileys operated for 4 to 5 years—until it annexed the 1960 hardware store building—with an overall
architectural design concept that was only partially realized. Martin and Associates is not listed on the
City’s building permit, although, in its completed form, the Rileys building shows the influence of their
design. Rileys owners Landeck and Humphrey ended up constructing a much more staid (and certainly
less expensive) building, as well as annexing the hardware store building designed in 1955 by local
architect William D. Holdredge. Whether Martin and Associates had any further input is as yet
undocumented. The building cannot be said to meet any of the City’s architectural criteria.
This evaluation assessed the potential for local significance in the business and merchandising aspects of
Rileys, as part of the continuing development of San Luis Obispo as a commercial hub and for its
association with merchant-owners Landeck and Humphrey. This potential, however, is tempered in two
ways. In the first place, Landeck and Humphrey were demonstrably less interested in the exterior design
of the building than they were in the interior design of the store. Rileys’ reputation was based on its
excellent customer service, the expertise and well-being of its many longtime employees, its broad
selection of quality merchandise, and its attention to the shopping “experience.” The exterior of the Rileys
building reflects only some of the contemporary Mid-Century design ideas envisioned by Martin and
Associates, but the interior spaces, as documented in contemporary photographs (see Figures 30–32),
clearly show the modish unified architectural interior design and merchandising design aesthetic of the
professional designer, Lee B. Kuhn, hired by Landeck and Humphrey. The difference between Kuhn’s
stylish merchandise displays on the inside (incorporating modern store fixtures and merchandising
techniques) and the ad hoc window displays outside, facing Chorro and Marsh streets (see Figure 33),
demonstrate the disparity in design focus. Eschewing the Mid-Century trend toward unobstructed views
into the store’s interior, Landeck and Humphrey put in large plate glass windows, and then covered them
up with boxed-in display cases. In building their new store, Landeck and Humphrey were chiefly
interested in acquiring more space for the comfort and convenience of shoppers. In that respect, the
“modern” store building was only as modern as it needed to be to house their expanded stock and new
departments. The real modernization effort happened inside. The potential for significance under the
City’s historical criteria lies a great deal in the intangible realm of Landeck and Humphrey’s decisions
about business practices, employee relations, and merchandising, as well as customer reactions to and
memories of their personal shopping experiences.
Item 2
Packet Page 130
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
68
INTEGRITY OF RESOURCE
The second consideration in evaluating the historical significance of the Rileys building is the
complementary evaluation of the resource’s integrity. The opening paragraph of Section 14.01.070 of the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance states, “In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall
exhibit a high level of historic integrity.” The seven aspects of integrity specified in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association—are
identical to those aspects of integrity evaluated in determinations of eligibility under CEQA:
• Location: The Rileys building retains its prominent downtown location at the corner of Chorro
and Marsh Streets; its foundation is original.
• Design: The historic-period design of the Rileys building is a troubled topic to begin with. The
original design of the building appears to have been influenced by an architectural rendering by
Martin and Associates, although the Rileys building is much more conservative and pared down.
The person responsible for the final design of the first phase of Rileys was not identified, but may
have been San Luis Obispo structural engineer C. F. Hamlin. Local San Luis Obispo architect
William D. Holdredge is credited with the design of the Union Hardware building annexed by
Rileys in 1960. The two parts of the Rileys building are similar in style but distinguishable,
nevertheless. The doorway reconstruction fronting on Marsh Street was carried out by Maino
Construction in 1962. Between 1955 and 1962, then, portions of the Rileys building were
designed by, or at least influenced by, at least four architects or structural engineers. The interior
architectural design was the work of Lee B. Kuhn.
The building, as completed in 1962, was in continual service as the Rileys Department Store until
1993. With the change in ownership, the former department store building lost character-defining
features that were not only original to the building but also fundamental to identifying and
advertising its purpose. On the exterior, these features included distinctive signage, display
windows, and canopies. The loss of signage in this instance was especially deleterious to the
building design. The large 8 × 8-foot porcelain “R” installed above the entrance on Chorro Street
and the vertical 15-foot-high neon “Rileys” sign rising above the corner of Chorro and Marsh
Streets had been eye-catching contributors to the building’s limited range of Mid-Century-style
decorative elements. Removal of the boxy window display cases further distanced the purpose of
the building from its form. It is interesting that, even in the 1950s and 1960s, Rileys covered the
strong, thin horizontal line of the cantilevered canopies with substantial scalloped canvas awnings
that were much more in keeping with storefronts from the 1930s and 1940s. After the store
closed, newer awnings of a different configuration were installed over the cantilevered canopies.
It appears that Landeck and Humphrey continued to treat the building’s exterior from a practical
point of view and were not zealous about maintaining or promoting the Mid-Century aesthetic as
a selling tool. The customers evidently patronized Rileys for other reasons and, once inside the
store, were treated to a good selection of merchandise that suited their wants and needs and were
waited on by knowledgeable staff. In 1992, the store was remodeled to accommodate Copeland
Sports, with a prominent new door assembly installed on Marsh Street. This change demolished a
small original display case and created a blank windowless face for much of the Marsh Street
elevation.
• Setting: Facing and flanked by other commercial buildings, the Rileys store building retains its
place as an element of the downtown commercial core,
• Materials: The well-formed, well-fired, textured, full-dimension bricks that make up large
sections of the Rileys building’s walls have very good physical integrity despite decades of
exposure. Most if not all of the extant plate glass windows and their aluminum channel frames are
probably original, or at least were replaced in kind during the years the building operated as
Item 2
Packet Page 131
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
69
Rileys Department Store. The addition of discordant materials such as the heavy black steel
doorway assembly on Marsh Street, and the odd inclusion of marble slab panels on the Chorro
Street, elevation post-date the store’s operation. The current canvas awning is also a later addition
in a style that does not match the original design. These additions degrade the physical integrity
of the exterior design.
• Workmanship: The brick masonry walls continue to exhibit their original high-quality
workmanship, including the well-executed concave mortar tooling. No other features of the
building can be said to display exceptional workmanship.
• Feeling: The Riley building still “reads” as a storefront, but presents itself now as an
undifferentiated and altered commercial structure, stripped down and lacking visual coherence.
• Association: The most deleterious impacts to this aspect of integrity are the loss of the distinctive
signage that contributed so much to its visual identity and the loss of interior fixtures. As a litmus
test for integrity, the “degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic
character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for
its significance” is the crux of this analysis. From the point of view of architecture, Rileys is an
example of a building that was never on a firm stylistic path capable of giving full support to its
commercial purpose. The fact that it annexed a neighboring building designed in 1955 by a
different person did not help. Even in its heyday, the building was an unremarkable structure that
happened to house a department store business. The owners were far more vested in the
appearance and modernity of the store’s interior. As a result, they never seem to have made full
use of what the building did offer, particularly by blocking potential views of the array of
merchandise within—expansive windows were blocked with very ordinary display cases (which
have all been removed). The strongest associations with the former Rileys Department Store
would depend on an interior with good integrity—capable of conveying the building’s prior use
and documentation of their business practices.
FINDINGS
As owners of Rileys Department Store, Landeck and Humphrey seem to have adopted a middle ground in
their selection of building style. Though advertised as extremely modern, this claim does not hold up to
close scrutiny. Documentation makes it reasonable to suggest that they put their corporate money into
signage and into the interior design and amenities. With the exception of the original interior staircase and
mezzanine railings, these aspects of the overall design have not survived.
CONCLUSIONS
The former Rileys Department Store building at 1144 Chorro Street evaluated as part of this study does
not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or otherwise constitute a historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA. Similarly, the former Rileys Department Store building does not meet the high-
integrity threshold criterion for historic resource listing under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
In order for the building to express its integrity as “part of the continuing development of San Luis
Obispo as a commercial hub and for its association with merchant-owners Herbert A. Landeck, Sr., and
Coy Humphrey,” it would need to be restored using Secretary of the Interior Standards for Restoration to
its c1965 appearance by restoring/replicating the signage, decorative canopy awnings, and display
window cases; removing the steel door assembly on Marsh Street and reconstructing the original doorway
and display window; removing the marble panels; restoring the landscaping; and the restoring character-
defining interior features and primary fixtures.
Item 2
Packet Page 132
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
70
PREPARER’S QUALIFICATIONS
SWCA Senior Architectural Historian Paula Juelke Carr, M.A., meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Professionally Qualified Staff as both historian and architectural historian. Ms. Carr has
more than 25 years of experience in California history and architectural history, including more than 11
years as an Associate Environmental Planner (Architectural History) for the California Department of
Transportation, District 5. She has been with SWCA since 2017.
Item 2
Packet Page 133
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
71
REFERENCES CITED
Architectural Forum (in collaboration with Victor Gruen, Morris Ketchum, Morris Lapidus, Kenneth
Welch, and Daniel Schwartzman)
1950 What Makes a 1940 Store Obsolete? Architectural Forum July:62–79. Available at:
https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/WhatMakes_a_1940StoreObsolete_ArchitecturalForu
m_July1950_small.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2019.
Burke, Gene, and Edgar Kober
1946 Modern Store Design. Institute of Product Research, Los Angeles, CA. Available at:
https://babel.hathitrust.org. Accessed April 29, 2019.
California Office of Historic Preservation.
2019a California Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA. Available at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/. Accessed March 29, 2019.
2019b California Register of Historical Resources: Criteria for Designation. Sacramento, CA.
Available at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238. Accessed March 29, 2019
City of San Luis Obispo
2019 Info SLO, Permit History. Available at: https://www.slocity.org/services/info. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
Claass Haus
2019 Morris Lapidus, Storefront King. Available at: https://www.claasshaus.com/blog/the-
storefront-king-morris-lapidus. Accessed March 29, 2019.
Crabb, Guy
2011 San Luis Obispo: 100 Years of Downtown Businesses. The Cross Streets: Osos, Chorro,
Morro, Garden, Broad, Nipomo Streets and Much More. Guy Crabb Publishing, San Luis
Obispo, CA.
Dyson, Carol J.
2008 How to Work with Storefronts of the Mid-Twentieth Century: A Mid-Twentieth Century
Storefronts Components Guide. Presented by Carol J. Dyson, AIA, in “What to Do When a
Storefront is Younger Than You Are: How to Work with Storefronts of the Mid-Twentieth
Century,” prepared for the 2008 National Main Streets meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Available
at: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-century/Pages/midcentury.aspx.
Accessed May 19, 2019.
2015 Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials. In Proceedings of the Mid-
Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium, National Park Service
Centennial Symposium Series, pp. 161–170. Available at:
https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-century/Pages/midcentury.aspx.
Accessed May 19, 2019.
2017 Midcentury Commercial Design Evaluation and Preservation: An Opportunity for
Commissions. In The Alliance Review [National Alliance of Preservation Commissions]
Spring 2017, pp. 4–17. Available at: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-
century/Pages/midcentury.aspx. Accessed May 19, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 134
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
72
PicClick
2018 1956 Riley's Department Store My Baby Magazine San Luis Obispo. Available at:
https://picclick.com/1956-Rileys-Department-Store-My-Baby-Magazine-San-
253799613932.html. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Emerton, Bruce
2003 Built by Becket. Brochure produced by the Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee
(MODCOM).
Franks, Janet Penn
2004 San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. Images of America Series. Arcadia Publishing,
Charleston, SC.
Historic Resources Group
2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of San
Luis Obispo. September 30. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4042. Accessed March 29, 2019.
Hornbeck, James S., ed.
1962 Stores and Shopping Centers. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Houser, Michael
2013 Mid Century Storefronts. The Main Street of Tomorrow: 1930 to 1970. Overview of the
design and application of mid-century storefront systems. Presented by Washington State
Architectural Historian Michael Houser at the Revitalize WA Conference in Vancouver,
WA. May. Available at: https://dahp.wa.gov/local-preservation/main-street-program/recent-
past-on-main-street. Accessed April 29, 2019.
Jackson, Mike
2000 ‘Storefronts of Tomorrow’: American Storefront Design from 1949 to 1970. In Preserving
the Recent Past 2, edited by Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, pp. 2-57–2-78. Historic
Preservation Education Foundation, National Park Service, and Association for Preservation
Technology International, Washington, D.C. Available at:
https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-century/Pages/midcentury.aspx.
Accessed May 19, 2019.
Ketchum, Morris
1957 Shops & Stores. Revised edition (first published 1948). Reinhold Publishing Corporation,
New York, NY.
KSBY
2018 Longtime Operator of Riley’s Dept. Store in San Luis Obispo Dies. April 24. Available at:
https://ksby.com/news/2018/04/24/longtime-operator-of-rileys-dept-store-in-san-luis-obispo-
dies. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Lambert, Cynthia
2014 Ross Humphrey, Co-Owner of Rileys in Downtown SLO, Dies at 78. San Luis Obispo
Tribune 18 January, updated 20 January. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com.news. Accessed May 3, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 135
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
73
Lapidus, Morris
[n.d.] Designs for Modern Merchandising
Longstreth, Richard
2000 Integrity and the Recent Past. In Preserving the Recent Past 2, edited by Deborah Slaton and
William G. Foulks, pp. 2-1–2-11. Historic Preservation Education Foundation, National Park
Service, and Association for Preservation Technology International, Washington, D.C.
Available at: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-
century/Pages/midcentury.aspx. Accessed May 19, 2019.
Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection
c1953 Bullock’s Westwood [photograph]. Identifier: 00074536, Security Pacific National Bank
Collection, Westwood Village-Shops and stores-Department stores-Bullock’s,
CARL0000077343, http://173.196.26.125/cdm/ref/collection/photos/id/115149. Available
at: https://calisphere.org. Accessed May 15, 2019.
Massey, James C., and Shirley Maxwell, comps.
2004 Identification and Evaluation of Mid-20th-Century Buildings. Course materials prepared for
the National Preservation Institute.
Meanwhile, at the Manse
2012 In praise of laundry chutes, and other vintage technology. April 24, 2012. Available at:
https://atthemanse.wordpress.com/tag/pneumatic-tubes/. Accessed May 15, 2019.
Middlecamp, David
2019 For Over 100 Years, this Department Store Brought the Latest Fashions to Downtown SLO.
San Luis Obispo Tribune 4 January. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/photos-from-the-
vault/article223788590.html. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Millville Daily
1964 Christmas Joys for Girls and Boys [advertisement]. Millville Daily 25 November:6.
Millville, NJ. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
PatricksMercy
2010 Bullock's Westwood Department Store West Los Angeles, CA rendering 1951. Uploaded
August 22, 2010. Available at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65359853@N00/4917690598/in/photostream/. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
Pinterest
2019a Artist Rendering of Rileys Department Store Exterior. Available at:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/c9/02/0ec902ab759615bc2bd9c9b8b1c62cf1.jpg. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
2019b Photos of Rileys Department Store Interior. Available at:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/c3/03/bac303c324708d4f369a4a61f8e8072a.jpg. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 136
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
74
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1888 San Luis Obispo. February (sheet 5).
1891 San Luis Obispo. December (sheet 9).
San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram (continued by San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune)
1914a Name Changes February 16. Riley-Crocker Corporation Succeeds to Business. San Luis
Obispo Daily Telegram 9 February:1. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1914b Riley to Manage Big Store. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 10 February:1. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1914c Formal Transfer Today of the Crocker Co. to the Riley-Crocker Corporation. San Luis
Obispo Daily Telegram 16 February:1. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1923 Riley-Crocker’s Reopening Set for Next Week. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 14 April:8.
San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6,
2019.
1929 New System in Big Store. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 30 August:2. San Luis Obispo,
CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (continued by San Luis Obispo Tribune)
1942 School Opening [advertisement]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 19 August:12. San
Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1945a Dan Riley Inspired Loyalty. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 6 September:1. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1945b In memory of Daniel J. Riley. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 6 September:6. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1947 Emergency Repairs on Highway Bridge. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 17
September:6. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1948 Rileys Store Observing 61st Birthday. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 23 August:6. San
Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1954 New Mezzanine Improvements at Rileys Store [illustrated]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-
Tribune 4 March:11. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1955a Rileys Announces New Store. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 9 April:1. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1955b Work Starts on Hardware Store Site. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 4 May:2. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1955c Rileys Opens New Store Tomorrow [illustrated]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 19
October:1–2. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 137
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
75
1956a 1887 – 69 Years of Service. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 10 May:21. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1956b Improvements Come Fast in Business Area [illustrated]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
18 May:24. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
1956c My Baby Magazine, holiday supplement. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune December.
San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6,
2019.
1959 Rileys Store Taking Over Hardware Business. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 24
December:1. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1960 Union Hardware Going Out of Business Sale. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 14
March:6. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
1987 [Untitled]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 3 July. San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
San Luis Obispo Tribune
2014 Ross J. Humphrey Obituary. San Luis Obispo Tribune 18 January. San Luis Obispo, CA.
Available at: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39466137.html. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
2018 Robert Humphrey Obituary. San Luis Obispo Tribune 29 April. San Luis Obispo, CA.
Available at: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sanluisobispo/obituary.aspx?n=robert-
humphrey&pid=188874280. Accessed May 6, 2019.
San Mateo Times
1966 H. Levy to Staff of Levy Bros. San Mateo Times 8 February:17. San Mateo, CA. Available
at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Santa Cruz Sentinel
1987 Ford’s Buys Chain in San Luis Obispo. Santa Cruz Sentinel 30 August:D-2. Santa Cruz, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1992 Ford’s Closes Three Stores. Santa Cruz Sentinel 12 September:D-6. Santa Cruz, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Santa Maria Times
1916 Western Union Night Letter. Santa Maria Times 4 November:4. Santa Maria, CA. Available
at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1917a Announcement. Santa Maria Times 24 March:5. Santa Maria, CA. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1917b A Store Just Overflowing with Pretty Things for Fall and Winter Wear [advertisement].
Santa Maria Times 29 September:8. Santa Maria, CA. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 138
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
76
1917c A Store Full of Beautiful Gifts [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 15 December:5. Santa
Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1918 Expert Corsetiere Coming [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 22 July:2. Santa Maria, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1926 Riley-Lannon Co. Announces Mlle. Jeanne [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 24 June:5.
Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1958 Meet Miss Adrienne Stratton [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 3 November:6. Santa
Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1962a You are Cordially Invited to Attend a Wedding Reception [advertisement]. Santa Maria
Times 28 September:4. Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1962b Friday Night Is Santa Maria Night at Rileys Department Store [advertisement]. Santa Maria
Times 5 December:6. Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1964 Grand Opening, Rileys Home Furnishings and Music Center. Santa Maria Times 12
August:7 Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6,
2019.
1992 SLO Fixture Files for Bankruptcy. Santa Maria Times 12 October:3. Santa Maria, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Slaton, Deborah, and William G. Foulks, eds.
2000 Preserving the Recent Past 2. Historic Preservation Education Foundation, National Park
Service, and Association for Preservation Technology International, Washington, D.C.
Trujillo, Catherine
2018 Photograph of Rileys Department Store Interior. Available at:
http://www.nothinghappenedhere.org. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Wikipedia
2019 San Luis Obispo, California. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Obispo,_California. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Wilson, Nick
2018 Instead of Bowling Alley, SLO Could Get a 75-Foot Tall Building. San Luis Obispo Tribune
26 June, updated 27 June. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com.news. Accessed May 3, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 139
APPENDIX A
Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials, by Carol J. Dyson
Carol J. Dyson, AIA, is the Chief Architect and a Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for the
Illinois State Historic Preservation Office. Since 1999, she has also co-taught a course on the Recent Past
for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s Historic Preservation program. Carol has given frequent
presentations on this topic and has written several articles on midcentury modernism.
Item 2
Packet Page 140
Item 2
Packet Page 141
Item 2Packet Page 142
Item 2Packet Page 143
Item 2Packet Page 144
Item 2Packet Page 145
Item 2Packet Page 146
Item 2Packet Page 147
Item 2Packet Page 148
Proceedings of the
Mid-Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium
St. Louis, Missouri, April 13-16, 2015
Edited by
Kathryn Doyle, The World Monuments Fund
Andrew Ferrell, NCPTT
Frank E. Sanchis Ill, The World Monuments Fund
Mary F. Striegel, NC PTT
Organized by
The National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT)
Friends of NCPTT
In association with
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
National Park Service Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science Directorate
American Institute for Architects St. Louis
Washington University Samuel Fox School of Architecture
World Monuments Fund
Friends of NCPTT
645 University Parkway
Natchitoches, LA 71457
ISBN
Hard copy: 978-0-9970440-0-3
Epub Format: 978-0-9970440-1-0
Mobi Format: 978-0-9970440-2-7
AckJ:1o""UTledgemeJ:1ts
The Editors wish to thank Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director for Cultural Resources and Science for the National
Park Service, for her support in seeing that the symposium came to fruition. Special thanks to NCPTT Executive Direc
tor, Kirk A. Cordell, who offered the staff that planned and organized the symposium. We appreciate the support of
the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, including Superintendent Tom Bradley, Franklin Mares, Janet Wilding, Vic
toria Dugan, Robert Moore, and Jennifer Clark, who provided much of the logistical support in St. Louis. The Samuel
Fox School of Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis provided space for the public lecture and John Guen
ther and Andrew Raimist served as guides for the site tour. Michelle Swatek and the AIA St. Louis Chapter helped
with marketing and logistics. The World Monuments Fund supported the efforts of this symposium and included the
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial on the 2014 World Monuments Watch. Without Thomas Whitehead and the
efforts of the Friends of NCPTT, the symposium would not have been possible.
Item 2
Packet Page 149
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant has applied for the conceptual review of a six-story mixed-use development with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District, see Figure 1. The subject property
is directly adjacent to the Master List Historic Resource Hotel Wineman, and in vicinity of the Master
List Masonic Temple and the Master List Commercial Bank Building. The subject property is not listed
as historic resource. The proposed concept plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories
of office space, and three stories of residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
General Location: The property is located on
the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets within
the Commercial Downtown zone on the border
of the Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the
Downtown Historic District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Design details: Brick design that extends from the street level to the third and fourth stories. Upper
floors consisting of stucco siding that are stepped back five feet from the brick façade.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads and window
header, and black metal awnings/balconies.
3.0 NEXT STEPS
Proceeding the feedback from the CHC, the project will be scheduled for conceptual review by the
ARC, tentatively scheduled for December 3, 2018. The ARC will review the project and provide
feedback based on the Community Design Guidelines. Following conceptual review, the applicant will
Meeting Date: November 26, 2018
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1903-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Item 2
Packet Page 150
consider feedback and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all information is
collected and the project is deemed complete hearings will be scheduled before the CHC, ARC, PC, and
City Council for final review of the project.
4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and other policies and standards identified in this report, and to
provide the applicant and staff with feedback on the proposed conceptual design. A Historic
Preservation Report, prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, has been provided with this
report that includes an assessment of the project’s conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines
(Attachment 2).
Historic Preservation Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Secretary of Interior Standards: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=16940
5.0 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS/DISCUSSION ITEMS
HISTORIC PRESERVATON GUIDELINES CHC Discussion Items
§3.2.1 Architecturally compatible
development within Historic Districts.
The CHC should provide feedback on the project’s compatibility
with the prevailing historic character in terms of scale, massing,
rhythm, detailing, materials, and setting.
The CHC should discuss whether the architectural style could be
found compatible with the district based on scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, and materials.
§3.2.2 Architectural compatibility.
The CHC should discuss and provide feedback on whether the
proposed project contrasts with, significantly blocks public views
of, or visually detracts from, the historic character of historically
designated structures within the vicinity.
§5.2.2 Downtown Historic District
The CHC should discuss and provide feedback whether the
project includes common site features, and predominant
architectural characteristics of the Historic District.
Figure 1: Neighborhood Context and adjacent building heights.
Item 2
Packet Page 151
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) 29.26 DU 13.68 DU
Maximum Height of Structures 75 feet 50 - 75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 91% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.87 FAR 3.75 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 11 spaces 93 spaces
*2018 Zoning Regulations
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
7.2 Historic Preservation Report
Item 2
Packet Page 152
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 1
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, November 26, 2018
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, November 26, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Glen Matteson, Damon
Haydu, Craig Kincaid, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Walter Oetzell, and Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of
October 22, 2018:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 6-0-0-1 (VICE-CHAIR LARRABEE
ABSTAINING), the Cultural Heritage Committee approved the Minutes of the Regular
Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of October 22, 2018, as amended.
Spelling corrections on page 2, Applicant representatives names Emily “Year” should be
changed to “Ewer” and Bryce “Armstrong” to “Engstrom”.
Spelling corrections on page 1, Committee Member Thom Brajkovich should be changed
from “Brajk” to “Brajkovich.”
Update the action for Leff Street on page 2 to reflect it to state “forward recommendation to
find proposed project consistent with applicable standards.”
Update Recess to show that all Committee Members were present excusing Vice-Chair
Larrabee as she was absent for that meeting.
Item 2
Packet Page 153
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. 1144 Chorro Street. Case #: ARCH-1903-2018, C-D-H Zone; Mark Rawson, Applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Mark Rawson with Copeland Properties, Ten Over Studio
Principal Jim Duffy, Project Architect Jessie Skidmore, and Paula Carr provided a
presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comment
Dave Hannings
Jeanne Kinney
James Lopes
Greg Wynn
Sandra Marshall
Stan Carpenter
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, CARRIED 7-0-0, identifying specific directional items
for the conceptual review of a proposed six-story mixed use building with a maximum height
of 75-feet adjacent to the Master List Historic Structure Hotel Wineman within the
Downtown Historic District.
The committee provided the following directional items to the applicant:
1. The project shall include a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity and within the
Historic District, including the Masonic Temple.
2. The shading study shall be revised to identify the specific shadow of the proposed
structure, to distinguish between shading of existing structures.
3. The Historic Preservation Report shall be revised to address the existing structure’s
potential historic eligibility within the district, in consideration of the evaluation criteria
for historic resource listing.
4. The proposed scale and mass of the structure above fourth story, referred to as the
stucco portion”, is considered incompatible with the Historic District.
Item 2
Packet Page 154
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 3
5. The architectural style is considered too “institutional”, alternative styles should be
considered giving the projects prominent location and opportunity to contribute to the
Historic District’s prevailing significance and distinctive architecture.
6. The proposed design should be modified to include more architectural details and
features consistent with the character of the Historic District.
7. The proposed fenestration is considered monotonous and should provide greater variety
and articulation.
8. The project design should provide more articulation and variety along the storefront
elevations.
Recess:
The Committee recessed at 7:35p.m. and reconvened at 7:39 p.m. with all committee
members present.
3. 857 Monterey. Case #: ARCH-1885-2018, C-D-H Zone; Danny Freitas, Applicant
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Ten Over Studios representatives, Jim Duffy and Jessie Skidmore
provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comment
Greg Wynn
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 7-0-0, to recommend that the Community
Development Director find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Ordinance, with
consideration of the consistency of proposed wall sconces with the building’s period of
significance and with the character of surrounding buildings, and with consideration of the
color of the window muntins, for a less stark appearance.
4. 771 Buchon Street. Case #: HIST-1936-2018, R-2-H Zone; Chris and Heidi Frago,
Applicants
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Item 2
Packet Page 155
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 4
Applicant representatives, Chris and Heidi Frago, provided a brief description of their request
and of the Nathaniel Brew Home, and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comment
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY
VICE-CHAIR LARRABEE, CARRIED 7-0-0, to approve a Historical Preservation
Agreement (Mill's Act Program) for the Master List Nathaniel Brew Home at 771 Buchon as
presented, with an amendment to exclude interior painting from the list of improvements
proposed under the agreement.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
5. Review of documentation and discussion of whether additional information should be
provided for the proposed demolition of 664 Upham Street (not a listed historic
resource)
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
Greg Wynn provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The Committee was in consensus that additional information is not necessary, and that the
demolition can proceed without further review of potential historical significance.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting for
December 17, 2018 has been cancelled. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2019 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 01/28/2019
Item 2
Packet Page 156
ARCHITETURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant has applied for the conceptual review of a six-story mixed-use development with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District, see Figure 1. The proposed concept
plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories of office space, and three stories of
residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
General Location: The property is located on
the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets within
the Commercial Downtown zone and
Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the
Downtown Historic District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Design details: Brick design that extends from the street level to the third and fourth stories. Upper
floors consisting of stucco siding that are stepped back five feet from the brick façade.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads and window
header, and black metal awnings/balconies.
3.0 NEXT STEPS
The project has been conceptually reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on November
26, 2018. Following conceptual review, the applicant will consider feedback from the CHC and the ARC
and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all application materials are collected
(including a viewshed analysis and visual assessment) and the project is deemed complete, review
hearings will be scheduled before the CHC, ARC, PC, and City Council for final review of the project.
Meeting Date: December 3, 2018
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1903-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Item 2
Packet Page 157
4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
applicable City policies and standards, to provide the applicant and staff with feedback on the
proposed conceptual design. A Historic Preservation Report, prepared by SWCA Environmental
Consultants, has been provided with this report that includes an assessment of the project’s
conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines (Attachment 2). This was the focus of the CHC’s
review.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Downtown Concept Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=17344
5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Highlighted Sections ARC Discussion Items
CDG Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1 - Site Design The ARC should discuss whether the project concept considers the context
of best examples of architecture in the vicinity.
§2.2 - Building Design
The ARC should discuss whether the building design provides adequate
proportion and balance of the building elements, including articulation that
effectively reduces the apparent mass of the structure.
CDG Chapter 4 - Downtown Design Guidelines
§4.2B - Height, Scale
The ARC should discuss whether the height and scale of the project provides
adequate visual transitions and sensitivity to historic resources of structures
in the vicinity.
The ARC should discuss whether the project provides the appropriate
techniques, identified in CDG 4.2.B.4, to assure the height of the building
respects the context of the site setting.
§4.2C - Façade Design The ARC should discuss whether the building façade provides appropriate
rhythm and proportion of storefront systems and window openings.
§4.2D - Materials and
Details
The ARC should discuss whether the projects materials and architectural
details are consistent with the distinctive character of Downtown.
Figure 1: Neighborhood Context and adjacent building heights.
Item 2
Packet Page 158
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS/ASSOCIATED STUDIES
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) 29.26 DU 13.68 DU
Residential Uses Provided Required
Height of Structures
Minimum 6-stories 2-stories along street
Maximum 75 feet 50 feet
Maximum with PC Exception 75 feet 75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 91% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.87 FAR 3.75 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 11 spaces 93 spaces
Limitations on New Driveways Requested Restricted
Application Requirements
Viewshed Analysis1 & Visual Study Pending Submittal Required
Solar Shading Analysis Provided Required
Parking Demand Management Pending Submittal Required
3-D Digital Model Pending Submittal Required
Solid Waste Management Plan Pending Submittal Required
Green Building Plan Pending Submittal Required
Emergency Services Access Plan Pending Submittal Required
Public Safety Plan Pending Submittal Required
Utilities Infrastructure Analysis Pending Submittal Required
Building Code Analysis Pending Submittal Required
*2018 Zoning Regulations
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
7.2 Historic Preservation Report
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.32.030E.6.a - Viewshed Analysis. A written and graphic viewshed analysis from various
perspectives. The analysis shall identify visual resources within the viewshed of the project and indicate how the design of the
project addresses those views from each perspective. Specific attention shall be given to views from adjacent publicly owned
gathering spaces, such as Mission Plaza.
Item 2
Packet Page 159
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, December 3, 2018
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
December 3, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Brian Rolph, Micah Smith, Angela Soll, Christie
Withers, and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Vice-Chair Amy Nemcik
Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Senior Planner Shawna
Scott, and Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
October 15, 2018.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 6-0-1(VICE-CHAIR NEMCIK ABSENT) to approve the minutes of
the Regular Architectural Review Commission of October 15, 2018, as presented.
Item 2
Packet Page 160
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 1144 Chorro Street. Case #: ARCH 1903-2018, C-D-H Zone; Mark Rawson, applicant
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Project Architect Mark Rawson, provided a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Dave Hannings
James Lopes
Jeanne Kinney
Sandra Marshall
John Grady
Quinn Pullen
Les Beck
End of Public Comment--
By consensus, the Commission reviewed a proposed six-story mixed use building with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District. No final action was taken
on the project.
The following direction was provided to the applicant:
The project should respond to the Cultural Heritage Committee directional items with
emphasis on providing a higher degree of articulation to relieve building mass and
provide a greater variety of fenestration, the project should consider a variety in relief of
roof lines.
The project should consider and respond to the planning principles and goals identified in
the Downtown Concept Plan.
The architectural style should be distinctive as a gateway feature to downtown through
design excellence justifying the requested height above 50 feet, given the project
prominence along the intersection, the design should be of its own time while compatible
with adjacent historic structures.
The project should provide greater step backs on the upper levels and/or consider a height
reduction with sensitivity to adjacent historic resources, the design and mass should
reinforce the horizontal lines of adjacent facades.
The design should focus on pedestrian scale, consider opportunity to revitalize the corner
of Marsh and Chorro as a design feature combined with greater sidewalk widths and
additional relief of storefronts to provide for patio dining. Consider tying into the
pedestrian experience of the Downtown Center.
Item 2
Packet Page 161
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 Page 3
Materials should be high quality and selected carefully to be compatible with the historic
buildings, without replicating design features, the second story windows should be
reduced in height to reflect traditional transom window designs.
3. 1241 Laurel Lane. Case #: ARCH-1909-2018, C-N Zone, Laurel Lane Investments
LLC, applicant
Deputy Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative, Sean Beauchamp, Southpaw Signs, provided graphic materials to
the Commission and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 6-0-1(VICE-CHAIR NEMCIK ABSENT) to adopt Resolution No.
ARC-1023-2018 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE
VILLAGE AT LAUREL LANE SHOPPING CENTER AT 1241 LAUREL LANE
APPLICATION ARCH-1909-2018)”, as amended below.
Approve sign program for shopping center with the monument sign modified to 12-foot
maximum above natural grade with up to 2 foot concrete base, with hanging signs and
market signs as proposed.
The Commission also advised staff to: confirm site distance visibility, including visibility
from the bike path; and consider landscaping around the center identification sign.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. The Regular Architectural Review Commission for
Monday, December 17, 2018 has been cancelled. The next Regular Architectural Review
Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Item 2
Packet Page 162
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 Page 4
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 02/04/2019
Item 2
Packet Page 163
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: September 17, 2019
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT A SIX-STORY MIXED-USE
BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SPACE AND 50 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
LOCATED AT 1144 CHORRO STREET. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
INCLUDE: 1) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (MAJOR); 2) PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REZONE; AND 3) ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the project proposal from staff and the project applicant and direct
staff to proceed with processing of the applications with the following considerations:
1. The application of a Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is an appropriate method for
implementation of the City Council’s goal for higher density housing in the Downtown; and
2. The Mandatory Project Features required for consideration of establishment of the PD
Overlay zone and the Community Benefits Policy Objectives required for consideration of
the proposed building height of 75 feet are appropriate and in alignment with the scope of the
project given the priority that the City Council has placed on new housing in the Downtown.
3. Direct staff to move forward with priority processing of the project through the entitlement
process, including environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the project initiation at 1144 Chorro Street, before the City Council is to offer
feedback to the applicant and staff as to whether the project’s strategies for addressing the
required Community Benefits Policy Objectives1 for structures over 50 feet in height, and the
Mandatory Project Features2 to provide for the Planned Development Overlay are consistent with
the intent of the Zoning Regulations before plans are further refined. These comments do not
1 Zoning Regulations §17.32.030.E.5. Community Benefits Policy Objectives. The intent of the following policy
objectives is to ensure that buildings taller than 50 feet proposed in the C-D zone include features that meet the
specific policy objectives outlined for tall buildings in the General Plan.
2 Zoning Regulations §17.48.060. Mandatory Project Features. The Planning Commission may recommend, and
the Council may approve, a rezoning to apply the PD overlay zone only for a project that incorporates a
minimum of three of the following four features…
Packet Pg. 173
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 164
bind the City Council to any final determinations and actions on the project and are intended to
1) Provide the public and community with opportunities for early and meaningful input on the
project and 2) Provide the Council early input on key elements of the project including key
criterion related to height.
Background
The subject property is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D-H) zone within the
Downtown Historic District. The proposed project consists of a six-story mixed-use development
with a maximum height of 75 feet. The proposed plan includes; ground floor retail (4,806 sq. ft.)
and parking (seven spaces), two stories of office space (25,251 sq. ft.), and three stories of
residential dwellings (50 units) (Attachment A, Project Plans).
1. Zoning Regulation Guidance. The City’s Zoning Regulations, §17.32.030.E, provide
regulations that outline the considerations for buildings higher than 50 feet in the Downtown
Commercial (C-D) zone. This section encourages creative building design, mixed-use
developments, and accommodation of additional residential units in the Downtown Core,
provided that such taller buildings (analyzed through discretionary review processes)
contribute defined community benefits and further the goals of the Downtown Core as stated
in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Planning Commission may approve a
building height up to 75 feet if it determines that the project includes three community
benefits, with at least one of which must be from the affordable and workforce housing
objective. The applicant in this instance seeks a conditional use permit for the 75 feet
building by providing the following three Community Benefits Policy Objectives:
a) Affordable and Workforce Housing: providing 25% moderate-income households; and
b) Pedestrian Amenities: Downtown Centre proposed as a public plaza; and
c) Historic Preservation (Off-site): provide permanent preservation of a listed building off-
site within the Downtown or Chinatown Historic Districts (building not yet specified).
Figure 1: Rendering as seen from mid-block of Marsh Street between Chorro and Morro Streets
Left), Rendering as seen from the intersection of Marsh and Chorro Streets (Right).
Packet Pg. 174
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 165
2. PD Overlay. The PD Overlay zone is
intended to provide for flexibility in the
application of zoning standards for
proposed developments. The purpose is
to allow consideration of innovation in
site planning and other aspects of
project design. This should include
more effective design responses to site
features, land uses on adjoining
properties, and environmental impacts—
than the development standards of the
underlying zone would produce without
adjustment. PD zoning shall be
approved only in conjunction with
derived long-term community benefits
and where the project can help achieve
the vision, goals, and policies of the
General Plan. The applicant in this instance has proposed to include a PD Overlay to join the
property located at 1144 Chorro Street (APN: 002-427-012) with the existing Downtown
Centre property (APN: 002-427-016, 002-427-014, 002-427-015), allowing the residential
density of the Downtown Centre to be completely utilized in the new building3, as seen in
Figure 2. Through the PD Overlay the project proposes to meet three of the Mandatory
Project Features (§17.48.060) by providing:
a) Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income; and
b) Energy Efficiency: LEED Silver rating; and
c) Public Amenity: Guarantee long-term maintenance of a significant public plaza on the
Downtown Centre site.
Previous Advisory Body Actions
1. November 26, 2018 Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Review. The CHC reviewed the
proposed project for consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards. The CHC, with a vote of 7:0:0, provided eight directional items to
the applicant to address specific concerns related to building and site design (Attachment B,
CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
2. December 3, 2018 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) Review. The ARC
reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The
ARC, with a vote of 6:0:1, provided six directional items to the applicant to address specific
concerns related to building and site design (Attachment C, ARC Staff Report and Meeting
Minutes).
The project plans as attached to this report have responded to some of the directional items, staff
will provide a more detailed analysis of how directional items are addressed once an application
has been deemed complete.
3 Zoning Regulations §17.70.040.B.1 Density Transfer. PD Overly Zone. Development potential may be
transferred within the area covered by a planned development (PD) overlay zone, in conformance with the
requirements of Chapter 17.48: Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone.
Figure 2: Vicinity Map, Red line indicates PD
Overlay Boundary, hatch marks indicated project
development site.
Packet Pg. 175
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 166
Next Development and Advisory Body Review Steps
Should Council provide comments for the project to continue; the next step after all application
materials are submitted and the project applications are deemed complete, and environmental
review has been conducted pursuant to CEQA, further public hearings will be scheduled before
the CHC and ARC. The CHC and ARC recommendations will be provided to the Planning
Commission (PC). The PC will review the project as then proposed as well as the associated
entitlements for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City
development standards and guidelines, with a recommendation to City Council for final action.
Staff Analysis
Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 1509 ( 2007 Series)4, several projects have been considered
for increased building heights above the 50-foot limit. However, of the projects that have
received said entitlements, a majority of them have been revised to reduce the maximum height
below 50 feet. The only other active project which received an entitlement to allow a height over
50 feet has not yet been constructed (San Luis Square - 60 feet maximum height).
The applicant’s proposal to satisfy the Community Benefits Policy Objectives and Mandatory
Project Features has been determined by staff to be consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Regulations. A discussion of this analysis is below under the policy section. Notably, the PC or
the City Council may prioritize some of the other Community Benefits identified in the Zoning
Regulations to further the goals of the Downtown Core (Attachment D, Community Benefits
Policy Objectives) in addition to what has been proposed by the project.
Policy Context
The City’s General Plan provides several policies regarding Downtown development. A more
detailed discussion and initial analysis of the proposed project in regard to these policies has
been provided as attached to this report (Attachment E – Policy Context).
Public Engagement
Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual and the City’s
Municipal Code, the project was noticed per the City’s notification requirements for
Development Projects. Newspaper legal advertisements were posted in the Tribune ten days
prior to each advisory body meeting (New Times for City Council). Additionally, postcards were
sent to both tenants and owners of properties located within 300 feet of the project site ten days
before each public hearing. Public comment was provided to the advisory bodies through written
correspondence and through public testimony at each of the hearings.
CONCURRENCE
The project entitlements are currently under review by the various City Departments to ensure
that staff has adequate information for a complete application to evaluate the project and identify
any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. All City Departments will be providing
comments that will be incorporated into the staff reports and recommended resolution/ordinance
as conditions of the project.
4 Ordinance No. 1509 (2007 Series). An Ordinance of the City Council of San Luis Obispo Amending Section 17.42
of the Zoning Regulations Increasing Building Height and Intensity Limits in the Downtown – Commercial Zone.
Packet Pg. 176
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 167
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As this is an initiation with no action regarding project approval to be provided, environmental
review is not required at this time. The required level of environmental review will be addressed
through an initial study as required for the Planned Development Overlay Rezone and in
compliance with CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
Per policy, Development Service fees are based on 100% cost recovery. As this is an initiation
with no action to be provided, no fiscal impact will occur.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Deny the consideration of the application related to the Mandatory Project Features
and/or the Community Benefit Policy Objects chosen for the project by the applicant. The
Council should provide direction to the applicant clearly identifying the priority Mandatory
Project Features and/or the Community Benefit Policy Objects that the application should
incorporate.
2. Continue consideration of the application to a future date. The Council can continue review
of the project to a future meeting. If this alternative is taken, the Council should provide
direction to staff regarding additional information needed to provide further direction
regarding the project application. This alternative is not recommended because the scope of
the Council's current review is limited to initiation, and the project will be sche duled for final
review by the City Council following the typical PD Overlay application procedures.
Packet Pg. 177
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 168
Attachments:
a - Project Plans
b - CHC Report and Meeting Minutes
c - ARC Report and Meeting Minutes
d - Community Benefits Policy Objectives
e - Policy Context
Packet Pg. 178
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 169
Action Update
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, month day, 2019
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor
Harmon.
CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick indicated that the Council meet in Closed Session to discuss two separate items of
pending litigation for right of way near Sueldo Street, Tract 703 and Tract Map 3009. Council provided
direction but no further reportable action was taken.
PRESENTATIONS
1. RIDE SHARE WEEK
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments representative Peter Williamson provided a presentation
regarding Rideshare Week 2019."
2. PROCLAMATIONS
NATIONAL MUSEUM DAY
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Charles Jordan, Board President, San Luis Obispo
Railroad Museum, Ruta Saliklis, Executive Director, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art and Thomas
Kessler, Executive Director, History Center of San Luis Obispo County declaring Saturday,
September 21, 2019 as “National Museum Day.”
RAIL SAFETY WEEK
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Anna Devers, Public Affairs and Planning for San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments declaring September 22 – 28, 2019 as “Rail Safety Week.”
CONSENT AGENDA
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
Item 2
Packet Page 170
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of September 17, 2019 Page 2
4. DRAFT MINUTES REVIEW - SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on September 3, 2019.
5. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE
ENERGY CODE; AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A CARBON
OFFSET REQUIREMENT WITH AN IN-LIEU FEE OPTION
Recommendation: Pulled by Staff and the Council did not discuss or take action on this item.
6. MEADOW PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 1000017
CARRIED 5-0, to
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11045 (2019 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California approving an Amendment to the Meadow Park Pedestrian Bridge
Replacement Project and related budgetary appropriations;”
2. Award a construction contract to R. Burke Corporation in the amount of $199,164 for the Meadow
Park Pedestrian Bridges Replacement Project); and
3. Approve a transfer of $271,164 from the Parks Major Maintenance – Annual Asset Maintenance
Account to the Meadow Park Pedestrian Bridges Replacement project to fund the project and
construction support services.
7. RESPONSE TO THE 2018-19 GRAND JURY REPORT ON FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Manager to submit a letter of response to the report on behalf
of the City Council, as required by the Grand Jury.
8. MARSH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION No. 90480
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the construction documents for the “Marsh Street Bridge Replacement,
Specification No. 90480” project, authorize staff to advertise for bids, and authorize the City Manager
to award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder following a selection process
conforming to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
9. APPROPRIATE ZONE 9 FUNDING FOR MID-HIGUERA BYPASS PROJECT FINAL
DESIGN
CARRIED 5-0, to receive $90,000 from the County of San Luis Obispo, and as recommended by the
Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 9 County Advisory Committee, appropriate it
to fund the final design services for Mid-Higuera Bypass Project.
Item 2
Packet Page 171
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of September 17, 2019 Page 3
10. FIREWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the Administration and Information Technology Department to advertise
for the purchase of a firewall replacement for the City’s current end of life firewall hardware; and
authorize the City Manager to award a contract if the selected quote is within the approved project
budget of $186,500.
11. ORDINANCE ADOPTION - COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY’S SIGN
REGULATIONS, INCLUDING REPEAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.40.070
CAMPAIGN SIGNS) AND REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.40 (SIGN REGULATIONS)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1667 (2019 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California repealing Municipal Code Section 2.40.070
Campaign Signs) and repealing and replacing Title 15, Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Sign
Regulations) to update the regulations for best practices, clarify terms and process, enhance graphics,
and ensure consistency with The Reed v. Town of Gilbert U.S. Supreme Court Decision, as
represented in the staff report and attachments dated August 20, 2019 (Sign Regulations Update)”
12. ADVERTISE COUNCIL CHAMBER AUDIO/VIDEO REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 1000120
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 11046 (2019 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California Approving an amendment to the 2019-20 Budget
Allocation and Capital Improvement Plan;” and approve contract documents for Council Chamber
Audio/Video Replacement project; and authorize staff to advertise for bids; and authorize the City
Manager to award a contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the approved project budget of
200,000 from the City’s share of the Public, Educational and Government (PEG) funds.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
13. PUBLIC HEARING - 1144 CHORRO STREET - INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO
CONSTRUCT A SIX-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SPACE AND 50
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
CARRIED 3-0-2 (COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ AND VICE MAYOR PEASE RECUSED) to
direct staff to proceed with processing of the applications with the following considerations:
1. The application of a Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is an appropriate method for
implementation of the City Council’s goal for higher density housing in the Downtown; and
2. The Mandatory Project Features required for consideration of establishment of the PD Overlay
zone and the Community Benefits Policy Objectives required for consideration of the proposed
building height of 75 feet are appropriate and in alignment with the scope of the project given the
priority that the City Council has placed on new housing in the Downtown.
3. Direct staff to move forward with priority processing of the project through the entitlement
process, including environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA).
Item 2
Packet Page 172
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of September 17, 2019 Page 4
With the following comments:
Community Benefit - Mode shift.
Proforma to make sure there is no less than 25% affordable housing.
Support for allocating the remaining density units in the downtown.
14. RESPONSE TO THE 2018-19 GRAND JURY REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CARRIED 5-0 to authorize the City Manager to submit a letter of response to the report on behalf of
the City Council, as required by the Grand Jury.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Item 2
Packet Page 173
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # EID-0475-2019
1. Project Title:
1144 Chorro Street Mixed Use Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7524
4. Project Location:
Primary Location: 1144 Chorro Street (APN 002-427-012), San Luis Obispo, CA
Off-site Historic Resource Preservation: 868 and 870 Monterey Street (APN 002-416-040), San Luis Obispo, CA
Proposed Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone: 1144 Chorro Street (APN 002-247-012), the existing
Downtown Centre property (876 Marsh Street, 895 Higuera Street, and 890 Marsh Street; APN 002-427-016, -014,
and -015), two parcels located on the east side of Morro Street (973 Higuera APN 022 -432-011 and -012), and one
parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (898 Higuera; APN 022 -425-011), San Luis Obispo, CA.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Mark Rawson
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail LP
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designations:
General Retail
7. Zoning:
Downtown-Commercial with Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project consists of demolition of the majority of an existing one-story commercial building,
construction of a new six-story mixed use building to include approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, and the application of a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay zone on a 0.38-acre parcel located in the historic district in downtown San Luis Obispo (project). The
basement of the existing one-story structure on-site would remain in-tact and the rest of the structure would be
demolished and removed. The proposed 80,249-square-foot building would be 75 feet in height. Proposed
Item 2
Packet Page 174
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 2
demolition and construction activities would result in approximately 50 cubic yards of ground disturbance. The
construction phase of the project is anticipated to last approximately three years.
The first floor of the proposed development would be comprised of three retail suites with accommoda tions for
restaurant use, a residential lobby, commercial office lobby, and a small parking facility with ADA parking, and
delivery/drop off spaces. The second and third floor have been designated for commercial office uses. The fourth,
fifth, and sixth floors would be comprised of residential apartments. Twenty-five percent of the proposed residential
units would be reserved for tenants with moderate incomes (See Section 23 – Source References; source reference
1).
The first three levels of the development would have a light-colored exposed brick exterior and would be setback
approximately 10 feet from the edge of the street/property line to accommodate outdoor dining areas and pedestrian
circulation. The upper three levels of the development would have a t raditional stucco exterior and would be set
back 22.5 feet from the property line to accommodate an outdoor deck area with trees and large planters and reduce
the perceived scale and height of the development as viewed from the street. The project would include the removal
of three existing street trees located along the sidewalk adjacent to Chorro Street and one existing street tree along
the sidewalk adjacent to Marsh Street. Two new blue jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) trees would be planted
along the frontage of Chorro Street and two new blue jacaranda trees would be planted along the frontage of Marsh
Street.
The proposed small parking garage to be located onsite would consist of a total of seven parking spaces, including
1 accessible van space. These spaces are intended to be utilized by car share and short -term use, including pick-up
and drop-off uses. Several strategies have been incorporated into the project design detailed in a Parking Demand
Reduction Plan (source reference 14) to demonstrate compliance with City Zoning Regulations, including provision
of shower and locker room facilities for employees who use alternative modes of transportation, provision of secure
on-site bicycle parking for all employees and residents, and provision of up-to-date public transportation and
rideshare information in office and employee break rooms and welcome packets for new employees and residents.
Water service for the project would be provided by the City ’s Utility Department and the project would require a
total annual water demand of approximately 851,014 gallons (2.61 acre-feet; source references 1 and 2). The
proposed development includes a garbage room with space to accommodate three garbage receptacles, three
recycling receptacles, and several green waste receptacles that would be serviced three times per week by San Luis
Garbage company.
The project is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone, which allows for a maximum building height of
50 feet and a minimum height of two stories. The City’s Zoning Regulations (Title 17) allow consideration of an
increase in maximum height up to 75 feet within this zoning designation if the project includes provision of
community benefits, including, but not limited to, the following criteria: Silver rating on the LEED-CS or NC
checklist (or equivalent measure), no more than 33% of the storefront level to be used for private parking facilities,
and the public benefits associated with the project must significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the
additional height. In weighing potential public benefits, relevant considerations would include objectives related
to affordable housing, modal split (strategies designed to promote a permanent shift to alternative transportation
modes for project occupants), historic preservation, and open space preservation. The project has been designed to
meet the Silver rating on the LEED-CS checklist, include no more than 33% of storefront area as private parking,
and provide affordable housing and pedestrian amenities.
The proposed project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.87. The City Zoning Regulations limit FAR
for buildings in the C-D zone greater than 50 feet in height to 3.75. Allowable FAR may be increased up to 4.0 in
the C-D zone if requested with a transfer of development credits for open space protection or historic preservation
or through a density bonus alternative incentive for affordable housing. The project includes the permanent
preservation of an offsite building located at 868 and 870 Monterey Street that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, which is intended to address this requirement.
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is typically applied to parcels to provide for flexibility in the
application of zoning standards for proposed development. Application of the PD Overlay zone is proposed to be
applied to the property located at the project parcel (1144 Chorro Street; APN 022-427-012), the existing
Downtown Centre property (APN 002-427-016, -014, and -015), two parcels located on the east side of Morro
Street (APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022-425-011; see
Item 2
Packet Page 175
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 3
Figure 3). This PD overlay zone would allow the residential density units of the Downtown Centre to be completely
utilized within the new building at 1144 Chorro Street, and would allow potential future development on the parcels
on Morro and Higuera Streets to accommodate 51.26 additional density units that were allowed but not utilized in
the other four parcels. Based on the City Zoning Regulations, Planned Development (PD) zoning shall be approved
only in conjunction with derived long-term community benefits and where the project can help achieve the vision,
goals, and policies of the General Plan. Through the PD Overlay the project proposes to meet three of the
Mandatory Project Features (§17.48.060) by providing:
a. Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income;
b. Energy Efficiency: LEED Silver rating; and
c. Public Amenity: Guarantee long-term maintenance of a significant public plaza on the Downtown Centre
site.
The project’s potential for cumulatively considerable impacts has been evaluated in Section 21 , Mandatory
Findings of Significance. Potential future development on the two parcels located on the east side of Morro Street
(APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022 -425-011) allowed by
the available density units and PD Overlay has been included in the reasonably foreseeable cumulative development
scenario.
9. Project Entitlements:
Development Review (Major)
Planned Development Overlay Rezone
Affordable Housing Alternative Incentives
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding uses and stories of surrounding buildings are summarized below:
• Northeast – One-story restaurant, Downtown Centre plaza including restaurants, bookstore, and movie
theater
• Northwest – one- to three-story commercial and mixed uses including restaurants on the first level and
studio apartments on the upper levels
• Southwest – One-story restaurant, one-story non-profit office, a one-story commercial printing and
shipping office
• South – Chase bank parking lot
• Southeast – four-level parking structure and shoe store, three-story mixed-use building with commercial
retail on the first floor and studio apartments on the upper floors
11. Have California Native American tribes traditio nally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cul tural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but
not limited to, Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record
search for the property but did not request consultation. A discussion on their request is included in Section 18:
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES of this initial study. No further comments or requests for information have
been received.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
Item 2
Packet Page 176
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 4
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map.
Item 2
Packet Page 177
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 5
Figure 2. Project Location Map.
Item 2
Packet Page 178
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 6
Figure 3. Proposed Planned Development Overlay Zoning.
Item 2
Packet Page 179
Figure 4. Project Architectural Rendering.
Item 2
Packet Page 180
Item 2
Packet Page 181
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
“Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☒ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☒ Noise ☐ Wildfire
Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
☐ The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
☒
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
☒
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 Wildlife, Department of Hou sing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Item 2
Packet Page 182
Item 2
Packet Page 183
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 11
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 t han 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
Item 2
Packet Page 184
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 12
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would
the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
3, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 3, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 6 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project is located in the downtown historic district of the city of San Luis Obispo (city) and is generally surrounded by retail
and commercial uses. The project site currently consists of a one-story building with an exposed brick exterior that historically
operated as a department store. The visual character of the project vicinity is comprised of exposed brick and stucco commercial
developments varying from one to four stories tall, street trees, sidewalks, and crosswalks with brick pavers.
The topography of the city is generally defined by several hills and ridges such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis.
These peaks are three of the nine peaks known as the Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the city. The project
vicinity exhibits intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks, including Cerro San Luis.
The City Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) identifies specific goals and policies intended to protect and enhance
the city’s visual quality and character. Policies in the COSE include, but are not limited to, promoting the creatio n of
“streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways during construction or modification of major roadways, designing new development
to be consistent with the surrounding architectural context, and preservation of natural and agricultural landscapes. Based on the
COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located along roadways considered to be of moderate or high
scenic value or within the cone of view of a scenic roadway.
The primary goal of the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 4 – Downtown Design Guidelines is to preserve
and enhance the attractiveness of the downtown area to residents and visitors as a place where people prefer to walk rather t han
drive, and where the sidewalks, shading trees, and variety of shops, restaurants, and other activities encourage people to spend
their time, slow their pace, and engage one another. The Downtown Design Guidelines include standards for the physical
development and design of new projects within the downtown district, including, but not limited to, the following:
• 4.2-B.1b – New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual
transitions.
• 4.2-B.1d – Portions of the building above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are
not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building’s frontage .
Item 2
Packet Page 185
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 13
• 4.2-B.2 – New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly -owned gathering places including, but
not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall
respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.
• 4.2-B.3 – New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera or Montere y Streets at noon on
December 21st. Information demonstrating this objective shall accompany all applications for architectural review as
detailed on application checklists.
• 4.2-B.4 – Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve mu ltiple policy objectives, including
design amenities, housing and retail land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the context
of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures include, but a re not limited to:
a. For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights and architectural features that penetrate the
roof plane are encouraged to diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure;
b. Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings;
c. Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor. On
upper floors, consider using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce the typical rhythm of
upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and provide architectural interest on all four
sides of the building;
d. Larger buildings (where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly expressed at the street frontage by
changing material or setback to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development;
e. Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be diminished by offsets of building form
and mass;
f. Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other decorative features to decrease the
vertical appearance of the walls;
g. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements;
h. Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
i. Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground floor such as windows, wall detailing,
and public art.
j. Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within and around the project site and
choose materials and colors to enhance lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure.
a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can be
seen from public viewpoints. Some scenic vistas are officially or informally designated by public agencies or other
organizations. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly
degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. The project is located in an urbanized area
of downtown San Luis Obispo with intermittent views of Cerro San Luis. Based on the City’s COSE map of scenic
roadways and vistas, the project site is not located along roadways considered to be of moderate or high scenic value or
within the cone of view of a scenic roadway. Therefore, the project is not located within a scenic vista and potential impacts
would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located approximately 0.4 mile east of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101). Based on Caltrans’ California
Scenic Highways online mapping tool, this section of U.S. 101 is eligible for state scenic highway designation, but is not
officially designated. The project site would not be visible to viewers travelling along U.S. 101 due to existing trees and
vegetation along U.S. 101 and existing development. Based on the City’s COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the
project site is not located along roadways considered to be of moderate or high scenic value o r within the cone of view of
a scenic roadway. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources within a state or local
scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.
c) The site and building design have been designed to comply with the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines. The first three
floors of the proposed development would have a traditional brick architecture style, that would be consistent in character
of neighboring buildings. The top three floors would be constructed of traditional stucco and would be set back 12 feet 6
inches from the frontage of the first three floors to eliminate views of these floors from the pedestrian perspective observed
Item 2
Packet Page 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 14
from the Marsh Street frontage of the building and set back 21 feet from the Chorro Street frontage of the building in
compliance with City Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed development would be further screened by roof
gardens on the fourth floor. Located on the northea st corner of the intersection of Marsh Street and Chorro Street, this
project is situated to cast a shadow inward, towards the alley and services areas of adjacent neighbors. The project has
been designed to avoid casting a shadow on either sidewalk of Marsh St or Chorro St, on any given day of the year between
11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and would therefore be in compliance with the City Downtown Design Guideline 4.2-B.3.
A Visual Study was prepared to assess the proposed project’s potential to obscure views of Cerro San Luis from public
gathering places, including the Downtown Centre Plaza/Paseo Courtyard , in accordance with Zoning Regulations Section
17.32.030.F. Implementation of the project would not result in the obstruction of existing views of Cerro San Luis as seen
from the Downtown Centre Plaza/Paseo Courtyard. Based on the project site location, the project would not have the
potential to obstruct views of surrounding hills from any other public gathering places, such as Mission Plaza, and would
not significantly obstruct views from other public viewing locations including views along Marsh Street and Chorro
Streets. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with City Downtown Design Guideline 4.2-B.2. Lastly, the
project would be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to assess consistency
with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the
project would not result in a conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts
would be less than significant.
d) The project is located in an urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as well as
light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the sit e
include streetlights along Chorro Street and Marsh Street, spill-over lighting from surrounding commercial, retail, and
mixed-use development, and intermittent vehicle lighting from vehicles travelling along Marsh Street or Chorro Street or
parking within either the Chase bank parking lot or Marsh Street parking structure adjacent to the project site. The project
is required to comply with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and
new development, which include, but are not limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and
directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, maximum light intensity, and hours of operation . The
project would be subject to review and approval by the City Architecture Review Co mmittee to ensure compliance with
these standards prior to final approval. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project is not located within a scenic vista or within the viewshed of a designated scenic highway. The project has been
designed to comply with all applicable standards set forth in the City’s Community Design Guidelines and would be subject to
review and approval by the City’s Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council prior to finalization
of design plans. No potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetic resources would occur and no mitigation measure s
are necessary.
Item 2
Packet Page 187
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 15
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the Califor nia
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocol s adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
3, 7, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the DOC FMMP (source reference 7).
The project site currently consists of a one-story commercial building with several street trees along the frontages of Marsh Street
and Chorro Street. No portion of the project site or immediately surrounding areas support active agricultural uses. The project
site is not located within or immediately adjacent to land zoned for agricultu ral uses. Based on Figure 6 in the City COSE, the
project is not located within or immediately adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act Contract.
According to Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10 -percent native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of
Item 2
Packet Page 188
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 16
Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not sup port
any forest land or timberland.
a) The proposed project site is not in agricultural use and is not located on lands designated Farmland by the FMMP.
Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
b) The project site is not located within an Agricultural Zone, and the project site is not located within or immediately adjacent
to land under an active Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for use or
a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur.
c-d) The project site does not include land use designations or zoning for forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with zoning for, result in the loss of, or result in the conve rsion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production and no impacts would occur.
e) The project includes demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new mixed -use development in the city’s
urban downtown area and therefore would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could result in
conversion of nearby agricultural land. Therefore, the project would not result in changes in the existing environment that
could result in conversion of forest land to non -forest use and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to Prime Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or
forestland use, or land under a Williamson Act Contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land would
occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
11, 12,
13, 14,
15
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
11, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 11, 14 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 10, 16 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Item 2
Packet Page 189
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 17
The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the South-Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara
and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(SLOAPCD).
San Luis Obispo county is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the state standards for ground -level ozone, partial
nonattainment for federal ambient standards for ground-level ozone, and nonattainment for the state standards for PM10 (source
reference 9). The City Conservation and Open Space Element identifies goals and policies to achieve and maintain air quality
that supports health and enjoyment for those who live, work, and visit the city. These goals and policies include meeting State
and Federal air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking,
biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recen tly updated with a November 2017 Clarification
Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a project.
To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels,
a Clean Air Plan (2001) has been adopted by the SLOAPCD.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and th e
activities involved. The California Air Resources Board has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected
by air pollution (i.e., sensitive receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors,
including residential dwelling units of the Wineman building to the northwest, single family residential dwellings to the sou th,
and several hotels and inns including the Granada Hotel, Garden Street Inn, Hotel Cerro and Hotel San Luis Obispo.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. Any ground disturbance
proposed in an area identified as having the potentia l to contain NOA must comply with the California Air Resources Board
Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The
SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a
potential for NOA to occur (source reference 10).
a) In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP), a project must be
consistent with the land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the CAP (source
reference 12).
The project would provide a high density development within the city’s downtown district and would include a variety of
measures to encourage its occupants to employ alternative modes of transportation, including, but not limited to, provision
of secure bike facilities and showers onsite, and posting and distribution of public transportation information to employees
and residents. The project has been designed to include 25% of the housing units for moderate income individuals. The
project would therefore be consistent with the land use policies identified in the CAP that encourage cities to develop at
higher densities and encourage growth within their respective urban reserve lines to reduce overall vehicle trips and travel
distances. The project would also be consistent with the CAP land use policy that encourages mixing of compatible
commercial and residential uses when it would reduce occupants’ dependence on automobil es and/or improve the
jobs/housing balance.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are controls implemented at the local or regional level to reduce emissions
resulting from the use of motor vehicles. TCMs are primarily intended to reduce vehicle use by promoting and facilitating
the use of alternative transportation options. Many of the TCMs identified within the CAP are not applicable to the project,
such as campus trip reduction programs, local and regional public transportation improvements, motor vehicle inspection
programs, and maintenance and development of park-and-ride lots throughout the county. The project would be generally
consistent with the CAP TCM to promote bicycle use through provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, locker and
changing room facilities to encourage project employees to bike to and from work. The project site is not located in or
adjacent to an area with proposed/needed bicycle infrastructure or improvements as identified in the CAP or City of San
Item 2
Packet Page 190
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 18
Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. As described above, the project location and provision of moderately affordable
residential units would contribute to the project occupants’ overall reduction of dependence on automobiles and daily
vehicle miles travelled. The project would be consistent with all applicable land use and transportation control measures
identified in the CAP. Therefore, impacts related to a conflict with an air quality plan would be less than significant.
b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under state ambient air quality
standards. Construction of the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors including reactive organic gasses
(ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). In operation, the project would result in emissions of
ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions and other uses.
Construction Emissions
The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 0.38 acre and would require approximately 50 cubic yards of
total earthwork. This would result in the generation of construction dust as well as short- and long-term construction
vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO x), and
particulate matter (PM). Based on the screening emission rates for construction operations in the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, as shown in Table 1 below, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s
applicable thresholds for ROG, NOx, DPM, or PM10.
Table 1. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Total Project Emissions APCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 5.69 lbs 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.25 lbs 7 lbs/day No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.29 tons 2.5 tons/quarter No
Operational Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in vehicle trips , natural gas use, and architectural
coating off-gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Based on Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD’s CEQA
Handbook, the project would not exceed any of the operational thresholds established by APCD for greenhouse gas or
ozone precursor emissions (Table 2).
Table 2. Project Operational Emissions
Use
Total
Proposed
Square
Footage/Units
Size of Project
Expected to
Exceed APCD
GHG Threshold
% of GHG
Threshold
Size of Project
Expected to
Exceed APCD
Ozone
Precursor
Threshold
% of
Ozone
Precursor
Threshold
Exceeds
Thresholds?
Sit Down
Restaurant 11,049 sf 14,000 sf 78.9% 19,000 sf 58.2% No
Offices 26,442 sf 75,000 sf 35.3% 149,000 sf 17.7% No
Residential
(apartment units)
50 units
(27,169 sf) 122 units 40.9% 192 units 26.0% No
Weighted Average 47.36% 28.09% No
Item 2
Packet Page 191
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 19
As shown in Table 2 above, each of the project’s proposed uses were compared to the size of project expected to exceed
SLOAPCD GHG and ozone precursor thresholds. The percentage of each threshold was then weighted based on the
proportion of that use within the proposed building (17.1% restaurants, 40.8% offices, 42.0% residential uses). Based on
the weighted average of each proposed use percentage of the SLOAPCD thresholds, the project would not exceed
SLOAPCD’s Brightline GHG threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year (MTCO 2e/yr) or the
25 pounds per day threshold for ozone precursors. In addition, o perational air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle
trips (mobile source emissions) would be notably minimized through the mixed-use design of the project, location of the
project as urban infill development, provision of bicycle amenities, and location near public transit stops. Lastly, residential
and commercial energy use for lighting, heating, and c ooling is a significant source of direct and indirect air pollution
from buildings nationwide. Through full compliance with the California Building Code and LEED Silver certification, the
project’s operational air pollution emissions associated with these building components would be reduced significantly.
Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors, including , but not limited to, residential
dwelling units of the Wineman building to the northwest, single family residential dwellings to the south, the Learn,
Connect, Play Preschool located at the First Presbyterian Church, and several hotels and inns including the Granada Hotel,
Garden Street Inn, Hotel Cerro and Hotel San Luis Obispo. Construction activities such as excavation, grading, vegetation
removal, staging, and building construction would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust
that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce
exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust; therefore, impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
d) Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction smoke and dust and equipment
exhaust and fumes. Excavated and demolished materials may also contain objectionable odors within unearthed materials.
The proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those resulting from any other type of construction
project. Any effects would be short term in nature and limited to the construction phase of the proposed project.
The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as
having a potential for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) to occur. The project would include approximately 50 cubic
yards of earthwork, demolition of the existing structure onsite, and construction of the new mixed-use development.
Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and ARB Air Toxics Control Measur e (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation measures AQ-3 and
AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol
and procedures if NOA is determined to be present onsite.
The existing structure located on-site was constructed in 1955 and may have the potential to include asbestos containing
materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint. Demolition of this structure may have the potential to result in harmful asbestos
or lead emissions. Mitigation measure AQ-5 has been identified to require full compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements for removal and disposal of these toxic contaminants if present on -site, including notification of the
SLOAPCD prior to demolition of the existing structure. Based on compliance with identified mitigation and existing
regulations, potential impacts associated with other emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
Item 2
Packet Page 192
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 20
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles
with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pou nds and licensed for operation on highways. It
applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said
vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as
noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or
any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than
5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Su bsection
(d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 -minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter
control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans:
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of
grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water is to be used in all
construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shal l be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders or soil binders are
used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m .p.h. on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads.
k. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
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, reduce visible emissions below
the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall
Item 2
Packet Page 193
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 21
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.
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a
geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance
with California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the
City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project
would not have the potential to disturb asbestos containing materials (ACM), the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM
exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If asbestos containing materials (ACM) are determined to be present onsite, p roposed earthwork, demolition, and
construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding ACM,
including the ARB Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to , the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and,
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified ACM.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce
the risk associated with disturbance of ACM and lead-coated materials that may be present within the existing structure
onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structure shall comply with the procedures required by the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos emissions during
demolition activities. SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement the Federal Asbestos
NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be notified, per NESHAP requirements.
The project applicant shall submit proof that SLOAPCD has been notified prior to demolition activities to the
City Community Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structure, paint is separated from the construction materials (e.g.,
chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a
qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be
handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. According to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition (and
is not chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non -hazardous construction debris. The landfill
operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead -based paint materials. If required, all lead work plans shall
be submitted to SLOAPCD at least 10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall submit proof that
paint waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials inspector and handled according to their
recommendation to the City Community Development Department.
Conclusion
Mitigation measures have been identified above to address potential project impacts associated with sensitive receptors’ expo sure
to air pollutants and potential impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos. Upon implementation of these measures,
residual impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 194
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 22
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
18 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
3, 18 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
3, 17 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project site is located in an urban ized area within downtown San Luis Obispo and is surrounded by retail and commercial
uses. The project site currently consists of a one-story building with several street trees located along the frontage of Marsh Street
and Chorro Street. The nearest water feature to the project site is San Luis Obispo Creek, which is located approximately 500
feet to the northwest.
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally surrounded by open rangeland used for grazing and other agricultural uses and open
space areas that support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corrido rs
that allow local wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City COSE identifies various goals and policies to
maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to,
protection of listed species and species of special concern, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of signi ficant
trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks.
The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) was adopted in 2010 and recently updated in 2019 with the purpose
of establishing a comprehensive program for installing, maintaining, and preserving trees within the city. This ordinance includes
policies that encourage preservation of trees whenever possible and feasible, detail the procedure and requirements for acquisition
of a permit for tree removal within the city, and identify application requirements for tree removals associated with development
permits. The City has also established a Heritage Tree Program which protects Heritage trees throughout the city designated by
the Tree Committee and City Council. Based on the City’s GIS Division Heritage Trees map, no heritage trees are located withi n
Item 2
Packet Page 195
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 23
the project site (source reference 17). Two tree removal permits were previously approved for the project site in 2013 and 2016
for the removal of onsite carrotwood, eucalyptus, and Brachychiton trees. The trees were never removed and these permits have
since expired. Therefore, this analysis considers removal of these trees.
a) The project site is fully developed and located in downtown San Luis Obispo, surrounded by moderately dense commercial
and retail uses. Due to the level of existing development, frequent human activity, regular vehicle noise, lighting, and
developed nature of the area, the project site does not contain suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. The
project is not located within an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. Bird species protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to pass through the area, but due to lack of suitable foraging
habitat and highly active urban environment, these species are not expected to nest within the project area. Therefore,
potential impacts to these species would be less than significant.
Based on existing site conditions and lack of suitable habitat, the project site does not have the potential to support any
candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, po licies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
b) There are no mapped blue line creeks and no riparian vegetation or other sensitive nat ural communities within or
immediately adjacent to the proposed area of disturbance. The project is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest
creek and associated riparian habitat and would not result in any direct impacts to this habitat area. Therefore, the project
would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities and impacts would be less than
significant.
c) Based on the National Wetlands Inventory Map, the project site does not support state or federal wetlands or other
potentially jurisdictional water features. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands and no impacts would occur.
d) The project is not located within an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. The project site does not
contain habitat features conducive to migratory wildlife species such as riparian corridors, shorelines, or ridgelines. Bird
species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to pa ss through the area. While in an
urban environment, mature trees do have the potential to support nesting habitat for birds. The removal of trees and
construction activity proximate to nests may result in abandonment of eggs and potential avian harm or mortality, resulting
in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant by implementation of mitigat ion
identified below, which requires either avoidance of tree removal and construction within the nesting bird season, or pre -
construction surveys and avoidance measures to ensure nests, eggs, and nesting birds are not harmed (refer to Mitigation
Measure BIO-1). Therefore, the project would not interfere with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) The project site does not contain any heritage tre es or significant native vegetation. The project includes the removal of
two existing carrotwood trees, one existing Brachychiton tree, and one palm tree on -site. The two larger street trees
currently located on the Chorro Street frontage of the property would remain in place and the project would add four new
street trees (Jacaranda trees) to be located along the Chorro Street and Marsh Street property frontages. The City Arborist
has previously approved two tree removal permits for the two carrotwood trees, a eucalyptus tree, and the Brachychiton
tree onsite. The trees were never removed, and the permits have since expired. The project would not adversely affect
sensitive habitats or resources identified in the COSE or impact any heritage trees designated by the Heritage Tree
Program. The proposed area of disturbance does not support sensitive resources that are protected by local policies and
plans. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended methods of preservation for the trees to remain
and supports the removal of the trees requested. The City Arborist has determined that the replanting plan to provide four
new street trees (Jacaranda trees) is appropriate for the project, the City Arborist’s recommendation will be provided for
consideration by the City’s Tree Committee. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 196
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 24
f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project is not located within an area
designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Site preparation, ground-disturbing, and construction activities should be conducted outside of the migratory bird
breeding season when feasible. If such activities are required during this period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting
bird survey and verify that migratory birds are not nesting in the impact zone. If nesting activity is detected, the followin g
measures shall be implemented:
a. The project shall be modified via the use of protective buffers, delaying construction activities, or other methods
designated by the qualified biologist to avoid direct take of identified nests, eggs, and/or young protected under the
MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code;
b. The Environmental Monitor shall document all active nests and submit a letter report to City Planning staff and the
City’s Sustainability Officer documenting project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, a nd
applicable project mitigation measures.
Conclusion
The project site does not support suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species, wetlands, riparian habitat, or ot her
sensitive biological resources. The project would not conflict with local plans or policies for protection of biological resources.
Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant based on the discussion above and
implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5 ?
3, 6,
19,20,
21
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast
for at least 10,000 years. The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County; the
earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast. The project site is located
within a Burial Sensitivity Area as identified in Figure 1 of the COSE.
Historic Setting
Item 2
Packet Page 197
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 25
The City COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other
community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources ;
b) Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove a
threat to health and safety;
c) Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic
structures; and
d) Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective eff ect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The project site is located within the Downtown-Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H). The Downtown Historic District
is one of five Historic Districts in the City which also include Old Town, Chinatown, Mill Street, and the Railroad Historic
District. The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors along Monterey, Higuera,
Chorro, Garden, and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. The
Downtown District was primarily built in the 1870s-1910s when the town’s population increased rapidly from about 600 people
in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910. Architectural styles in the downtown include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque
structures and more modest early American commercial (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 5.2.2).
The City Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC14.01) was adopted in 2010 for the purpose of promoting the public health,
safety and welfare through the identification, protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, structures, sites,
artifacts and other cultural resources that represent distinctive elements of San Luis Obispo’s cultural, educational, social,
economic, political and architectural history . This ordinance includes the responsibilities of the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC), whose role is to review and provide recommendations to City Council regarding certain projects associated with historic
districts and/or resources. The ordinance establishes the City’s historical designations “Master List”, “Contributing List
Resources or Properties”, and “Non-contributing Properties”, and references the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards,
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines for projects that
involve new development in Historic Districts and the modification, demolition, or relocation of structures included on the
Inventory of Historic Resources.
The City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for construction within historic districts and on properties
with historic resources, alterations to historic resources, and reconstruction of historic resources.
An Architectural Evaluation was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants to evaluate the h istoric-period built-
environment resources (i.e., resources 50 years old or older) that are present within the project site (source reference 19,
Attachment 2). The existing one-story building located on the project site, constructed in 1955, operated as Rileys Department
Store from 1955 to 1993, when it was purchased by the current owners. In early 1955 co-owners of the company, Coy C.
Humphrey and Herbert A. Landeck, acquired the subject property at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets, and in May 1955
announced plans for a new store. The City issued a building permit (No. A475) on June 23, 1955, listing C. F. Hamlin as the
engineer and [Theo.] Maino Construction as the builders. Overlapping with construction of the Rileys store, a new Union
Hardware building had been under construction next door at 1126 Chorro Street, which was later acquired and incorporated into
the Rileys Department Store in December of 1959-60.
For an entire century, Rileys Department Store and its direct antecedents played a large role in the commercial life of San L uis
Obispo—both at its original location on Higuera Street and at the subject location at Chorro and Marsh Streets. It was, as it
claimed to be, a shopping destination for many Central Coast communities, where customers could find merchandise not readily
available elsewhere. The larger, more modern store located on Chorro and Marsh Streets, with its interior designed by a
merchandising and design professional, was also part of the evolving story of post -World War II consumerism, when Mid-
Century modern storefronts began to prevail and when shopping acquired recreational and acquisitional aspects for an expanding
and relatively well-off middle class.
The parcel is occupied by a rectangular commercial building made up of two adjoining buildings with a slight recessed area
between them on the Chorro Street frontage. The building is one story high, with an interior staircase and mezzanine railings.
Item 2
Packet Page 198
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 26
The main structural support depends on a grid of columns and beams, with infilled exterior wall areas of Roman brick interspe rsed
with anodized aluminum-framed plate-glass door and display-window assemblies.
a) On November 26th, 2018, the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed a conceptual plan of the proposed project and
provided a number of specific directional items to the applicant, including, but not limited to, revision of the Architectural
Evaluation Report to address the existing structure’s potential historic eligibility within the district, a request for alter native
architectural styles, and additional architectural details to increase consistency with the Historic District’s prevailing
significance and distinctive architecture, and a request for the provision of a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity
and within the Historic District, including the Masonic Temple. The current project design plans have been revised in
response to the comments and recommendations made from the Cultural Heritage Committee's conceptual review.
The former Rileys Department Store building within the project site was evaluated pursuant to CEQA to determine whether
it meets any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or otherwise
constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA , or whether it is eligible for local designation on the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with
Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The CRHR includes buildings, sites, structures, objects,
and districts significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, politic al,
military, or cultural annals of California. Eligibility to the CRHR is demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following
criteria:
• Criterion 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
• Criterion 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
• Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
• Criterion 4. Has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, California or the nation.
When considering the potential for historical significance under CRHR Criterion 1 throug h 4, the question of the physical
integrity of the building must also be considered. Guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation makes it
clear that determinations of eligibility require that resources possess not only significance but als o integrity; that is,
resources must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to
convey the reasons for their significance.” The integrity of built environment resources is evaluated against seve n aspects
of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The primary directive of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is that a prospective historical resource shall meet
three criteria: a high level of integrity, sufficient age (generally 50 years), and significance. These criteria are standard
within the preservation community, with each criterion accomplishing a specific goal. The integrity threshold is to ensure
that resources retain the physical ability to convey their significance. The 50-year-old threshold is not, as is sometimes
thought, to certify that an older building is automatically an important one; rather, the threshold is meant to ensure that
sufficient time has elapsed to be able to make an informed assessment of its significance. It is often the case that local
ordinances are more inclusive than CRHR eligibility criteria, where factors such as familiarity in the landscape, a broad
base of personal experience with the resource, and even nostalgia may be considered along with historical importance.
The opening paragraph of Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance states, “In order to be eligible
for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integri ty.” The seven aspects of integrity specified in the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association —are
identical to those aspects of integrity evaluated in determinations of eligibility u nder CEQA.
Based on the Architectural Evaluation prepared for the project, t he former Rileys Department Store building at 1144
Chorro Street does not retain sufficient physical integrity to the period of its significance (1955–1967) to be able to convey
Item 2
Packet Page 199
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 27
its historic-period identity and role in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo. Similarly, the former Rileys Department
Store building does not meet the high-integrity threshold criterion for historic resource listing under the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The building’s historic character and appearance have been altered and diminished by the loss of
important original, character-defining features (such as the prominent and distinctive signage, scalloped awnings, and
enclosed window display cases along both Chorro and Marsh street frontages; well -proportioned landscaped niche on
Chorro Street), as well as by the interpolation of newer, incompatible features (new modern entrance on Marsh Street;
new, boxy awning style and configuration on both street frontages; intrusive marble wall panel on Chorro). For a business
that relies on branding and visibility, the loss of distinctive and prominent signage (the letter “R” above the canopy on the
Chorro Street frontage, and a tall neon “Rileys” sign that rose above the roofline at the corner of Chorro and Marsh) is a
substantial loss to the building’s integrity of design, materials, feeling, and association. The interpolation of the marble
wall cladding and brick-and-cement bench on Chorro Street; the expansive, angled canvas awning along both street
frontages; and the prominent, new black anodized aluminum door assembly installed on Marsh Street, which demolished
a small original display case and created a blank windowless face for much of the Marsh Street e levation, have caused
further inroads on the integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association that would need to be present
to meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or for local designation . The addition of discordant materials such
as the heavy black steel doorway assembly on Marsh Street, and the inclusion of marble slab panels on the Chorro Street
elevation, post-date the store’s operation. The current canvas awning is also a later addition in a style that does not ma tch
the original design. These additions degrade the physical integrity of the exterior design (source reference 19, Attachment
3).
The Architectural Evaluation noted that it appears the Rileys Department Store owners treated the building’s exterior from
a practical point of view and were not zealous about maintaining or promoting the Mid -Century aesthetic as a selling tool;
the customers evidently patronized Rileys for other reasons. The owners were far more vested in the appearance and
modernity of the store’s interior. As a result, they never made full use of what the building did offer, particularly by
blocking potential views of the array of merchandise within (expansive windows were blocked with very ordinary display
cases, which have all been removed). The strongest association with the former Rileys Department Store would depend
on an interior with good integrity – capable of conveying the building’s prior use and documentation of their business
practices. With the exception of the original interior s taircase and mezzanine railings, these aspects of the overall design
have not survived.
Therefore, the building does not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR, for local designation on the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District, or otherwise constitute
a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA. In order for the building to express its integrity as part of the continuing
development of San Luis Obispo as a commercial hub and/or its association with its merchant/owners (Herbert A. Landeck,
Sr. and Coy Humphrey), it would need to be restored using the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Restoration to its
c1965 appearance by restoring/replicating the signage, decorativ e canopy awnings, and display window cases; removing
the steel door assembly on Marsh Street and reconstructing the original doorway and display window; removing the marble
panels; restoring the landscaping; and restoring the character-defining interior features and primary fixtures.
A Historic Preservation Report was also prepared for the project in order to evaluate the project’s overall consistency with
the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines regarding development within historic districts and development
adjacent to historical resources and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties
(source reference 20, Attachment 4). The project site is located within the Downtown Historic District and some individual
City-listed historic buildings located within the Downtown Historic District (e.g., Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian
Church, Masonic Temple) are sited in such a way that both the historic building and th e proposed Marsh & Chorro
Development project would be visible concurrently.
The project incorporates numerous design elements to be compatible with adjacent and nearby architectural styles and
materials. The massing of the proposed building is softened by subdued colors and fenestration (i.e., the arrangement of
windows and doors) of the lower stories, as well as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories.
Cornice trim is suitably incorporated at an appropriate scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary
style that neither misleads viewers to assume it has historic value nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more
flamboyant architecture of the historic Masonic Temple on the opposite side of Marsh Street. Marsh Street is noticeably
wider than Higuera and Monterey Streets, but the numerous mature street trees (existing and proposed) would provide
considerable screening of building mass on both sides of the street. Marsh Street at Chorro Street is also located at a lower
Item 2
Packet Page 200
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 28
elevation than the uphill topography that characterizes the intersections of Higuera and Osos Streets or Chorro and Palm
Streets, where buildings that are tall to begin with look even taller against the horizon. The City parking structure on th e
opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets provides a tall visual counterpoint to the proposed project development. Other
nearby designated historic buildings within a one -block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street,
generally because of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
Based on an analysis of historical development of the Downtown Historic District, the character -defining features of
adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings, site topography and sightlines, the proposed materials, colors, massing,
and other design features of the project, the project would be compliant with the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (source
reference 20, Attachment 4).
Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant
to §15064.5 and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited
to, Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record search for the
property but did not request consultation. A discussion on their request is include d in Section 18: TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES of this initial study. No further comments or requests for information have been received.
The project would include minimal ground disturbance onsite associated with demolition and removal of the existing
building, with the exception of the basement, which would be retained in place, as well as construction of proposed
stormwater retention facilities, for a total of 50 cubic yards of proposed earthwork. The project is located within a Burial
Sensitivity Area associated with San Luis Obispo Creek identified in “Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City COSE.
Based on the project’s location and proposed ground disturbance, the pro ject may have the potential to impact previously
unidentified cultural materials during subsurface grading and excavation activities. Mitigation measure CR-1 and CR-2
have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training of all construction personnel and preparation of an
archaeological monitoring plan that would ensure monitoring during the d isturbance of native soil that may contain
archaeological resources. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during proposed ground-disturbing
activities, mitigation measure CR-3 has been identified to require work be halted in the area until a qualified archaeologist
can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, based on the limited extent of proposed earthwork and identified
mitigation measures, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources would
be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is partially located within a Burial Sensitivity Area associated with San Lu is Obispo Creek identified in
“Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City COSE. No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however,
the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains is a possibility during ground disturbing activities. Protocol for
properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in the State of California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 and is detailed in mitigation measure CR-4. Potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains
would be less than significant with compliance with existing state law and incorporation of mitigation measure CR-4.
Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resource awareness training for all
construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved o r interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials
and burial-associated artifacts.
Item 2
Packet Page 201
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 29
CR-2 Archaeological Monitoring: The applicant shall provide an arch aeological monitoring plan prepared by a City-qualified
archaeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will
conduct the monitoring and shall require monitoring by a City-qualified archaeologist during any ground-disturbing
activities within native soil that may contain archaeological resources. The archaeological monitoring plan shall include
a description of: Native American involvement, how the monitoring shall occur, the location and frequency of
monitoring, what resources are expected to be encountered, circumstances that would result in the halting of work at
the project site, procedures for halting work at the site and notification procedures, monitoring reporting procedures,
and specific detailed protocols for what to do in the event of the discovery of human remain s. The plan shall recommend
specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project
consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be
submitted as a part of the building permit.
CR-3 In the event that historical or archaeological remains are discovered during earth disturbing activities associated with
the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified.
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if
necessary. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Chumash representative
shall monitor any mitigation excavation associated with Native American materials. The conditions for treatment of
discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
CR-4 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immed iate
halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified. State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall
be printed on all building and grading plans.
Conclusion
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
1, 22,
23, 24,
26
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
1, 24,
25, 26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October of 2018,
the City Council committed to joining the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and beginning in January 2020, MBCP
will be the City’s primary electricity provider. MBCP provides 100 percent carbon -free electricity.
Item 2
Packet Page 202
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 30
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real
property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent
version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas:
smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the
exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non -residential lighting requirements.
The City is currently developing local amendments to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) to encourage all -electric new
buildings. When paired with Monterey Bay Community Power's carbon free electricity supply , all electric new buildings are
carbon free and avoid health and safety issu es associated with fossil fuels and GHGs. At its meeting on Tuesday, September 3,
2019, the City Council introduced the Clean Energy Choice Program; the City Council has yet to adopt the ordinance. Unlike
other cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program will provide options to people who
want to develop new buildings with natural gas. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more effici ent
and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in -lieu
fee that will be used for the same purpose.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized green building certification system
that provides third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving
performance metrics in energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and
stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. LEED provides a point system to score green building design and
construction. The system is categorized in nine basic areas: Integrative Process, Location and Transportation, Sustainable Sites,
Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resourc es, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation in Design, and
Regional Priority. Buildings are awarded points based on the extent various sustainable strategies are achieved. The more points
awarded the higher the level of certification achieved from Certified, Silver, Gold, to Platinum (source reference 22). The project
has been designed to earn enough points to achieve a LEED Silver rating for building design and construction (Building Design
and Construction [BD+C]).
The City COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally
controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non -
sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies
identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use and production, energy -efficiency improvements, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design, fostering
alternative transportation modes, compact, high-density housing, and solar access standards.
The City Climate Action Plan also identifies strategies and policies to increase use o f cleaner and renewable energy resources in
order to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of
renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and e xisting developments, and
increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs (source reference 24).
a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The
energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar construction
activities in the city. State and federal regulations in place require fuel -efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit
wasteful activities, such as diesel idling; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy use would be
less than significant.
The project would rely on the local electricity service provider, MBCP, to supply project electricity needs. MBCP provides
100 percent carbon-free electricity.
The project would result in an overall increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips and
electricity and natural gas usage by project occupants. The project would be designed in full compliance with the California
Building Code including applicable green building standards which include thermal envelope standards (preventing heat
transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresident ial ventilation requirements, and non-
residential lighting requirements. The project has been designed to achieve a LEED Silver certificatio n, which
Item 2
Packet Page 203
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 31
demonstrates that the project has been located and designed in a manner that achieves high energy efficienc y, including,
but not limited to, access to quality transit, provision of bicycle facilities, and development within an infill site. Compli ance
with existing building codes and achieving LEED Silver certification would ensure the project would not result i n a
potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
and through use of 100% greenhouse gas-free electricity resources, project energy use would not result in a significant
environmental impact; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would be designed in full compliance with the California Building Code including applicable green building
standards. The project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE associated with use of best available
practices in energy conservation, encouraging energy-efficient “green-buildings” as certified by the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED, and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. The project would not conflict with other goals and policies
set forth in the City Climate Action Plan associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the project
would not result in a conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project has been located and designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards, would meet the criteria
for a LEED Silver certification rating and would not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
No potentially significant impacts related to energy would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
27, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 27, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 28 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 30 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
28, 29 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 204
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 32
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
30 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? 31, 32 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred faults with the potential to affect
the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State of
California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna faults are considered
potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and the offsh ore
Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probability of producing
a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk from ground shaking is found on deep soils that were deposite d
by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These are typically in valleys (source
reference 27).
Faults capable of producing strong ground shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Riconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas faults. Engineering standards and building codes set
minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the Department of Conservation
Fault Activity Map and the City Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or
within the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone (source references 25, 26).
Seismic-related ground failure
Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers mor e than
the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with groundwater
rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubri cating
the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically sandy and in
creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the gro und. The
likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide
Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with high liquefaction potential.
Slope instability and landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Causes
include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and manmade drainage can be
contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability.
Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Elem ent, the project site is located within an area
with low landslide potential.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials.
Primary causes are ground-water withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the
ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such
as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground-
Item 2
Packet Page 205
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 33
surface subsidence. Based on the USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map, the project site is not located in an area of
known subsidence (source reference 27).
Soil limiting factors
The project site is underlain by two soil units, as described below based on the San Luis Obispo County Soil Survey (source
reference 28):
162. Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5-9% slopes. These gently rolling soils are moderately deep to deep and well drained.
Permeability of this complex is slow, and surface runoff is medium. The hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate.
This soil has high shrink swell potential. The main limitations for urban development are high shrink-swell potential, low
strength, and slow permeability. The high clay content of the Diablo soil and the Los Osos subsoil makes these soils hard
to pack. These limitations can require special design considerations for urban development and most other engineering
practices. Septic tanks do not function properly because of slow permeability and depth to rock.
198. Salinas silty clay loam, 2-9% slopes. This very deep, well drained, gently sloping and moderately sloping soil has
moderately slow permeability and a surface runoff of slow or medium. Th e hazard of water erosion is slight or moderate.
Building sites and most engineering uses can require special designs. Roads, buildings, and other structures need to be
designed with consideration of the soil’s moderate strength and moderate shrink-swell potential.
a.i) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan and the Department
of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project
site. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault and impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan and the Department
of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project
site. Due to the highly seismic nature of the region, the project would very likely be subject to strong seismic gr ound
shaking at some point(s) during the life of the project. The proposed development would be required to be designed in full
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code (CBC) to adequately withstand and
minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground shaking expected to occur in the project region; therefore,
impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an
area with high liquefaction potential. Development of the project within this area may have the potential to result in adverse
effects due to seismic-related ground failure. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of
the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with
the California Building Code Chapter 18, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site
construction techniques, as required by the Code. In addition, the proposed development would be required to be designed
in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to causing
substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an
area with low landslide potential. Therefore, the project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with
landslides and no impacts would occur.
b) The project is located within a fully developed infill site and does not include substantial vegetation removal and would
result in less than 50 cubic yards of earthwork. No substantial permanent changes in existing topography or total area of
exposed soil would occur. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Landslides typically occur in areas with steep slopes or in areas containing escarpments. Based on the Ground Shaking
and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with low landslide
Item 2
Packet Page 206
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 34
potential. Based on the County Safety Element and USGS data, the project is not located in an area of historical or current
land subsidence. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is
located within an area with high liquefaction potential. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon
review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in
accordance with the CBC, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction
techniques, as required by the Code. The project would also be required to comply with CBC seismic requirements to
address potential seismic-related ground failure including lateral spread and liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts
related to location on a geologic unit or soil unit that is unstable would be less than significant.
d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is located in an are a underlain
by soils with moderate to high shrink well potential. The volume changes that soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can
stress and damage slabs and foundations. A geotechnical study is required upon review of the building permit, in
accordance with CBC, to evaluate the proposed development activities and provide specific recommendations to
adequately protect future proposed development against soil stability hazards, including expansive soils. In accordance
with CBC the geotechnical study will address typical precautionary measures including premoistening of the underlying
soil in conjunction with placement of nonexpansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced
foundation., potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) The project would include a new connection to the city sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment
systems are proposed onsite. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project site is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels (source reference 29). Holocene
age units, particularly those younger than 5,000 years old, are generally too young to contain fossilized mater ial. The
project would result in less than 50 total cubic yards of earthwork and would not require deep excavations, as the majority
of the existing foundation and basement of the existing building onsite would remain intact. Therefore, potential impacts
on paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulatio ns,
potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 11, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
12, 14,
24, 25,
26
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are different from the criteria
pollutants discussed in Section III, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of
human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City of San
Item 2
Packet Page 207
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 35
Luis Obispo established a Climate Action Plan that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the
City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In addition, the City is currently developing a plan for achieving
carbon neutrality by 2035. The City of San Luis Obispo 2005 Community Wide GHG emissions inventory showed that 50% of
the city’s GHG emissions came from transportation, 22% came from commercial and industrial uses, 21% came from residential
uses, and 7% from waste (source reference 2 3).
Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill
(SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the State’s GHG reduction goals and required the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 20 50. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG
emissions include AB 32, SB 375, SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building codes, and the California Solar Initiative.
Plans, policies, and guidelines have also been established at the regional and local levels to address GHG emissions and climate
change effects within the city. In March 2012, the SLOAPCD approved thresholds for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission impacts,
and these thresholds have been incorporated into the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and updated in 2017 with a clarification
memorandum. The Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons CO2/year (MT CO2e/year) is the most applicable GHG threshold
for most projects. Table 1-1 in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (updated November 2017) provides a list of general
land uses and the estimated sizes or capacity of those uses expected to exceed the GHG Bright Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric
Tons of carbon dioxide per year (MT CO 2/year). Projects that exceed the criteria or are within ten percent of exceeding the
criteria presented in Table 1-1 are required to conduct a more detailed analysis of air quality impacts. It is important to note the
Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 MT CO2/year was developed to meet the state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020; however, construction and operation of the project would occur well beyond 2020. Therefore, the project would be
subject to the SB 32- based targets for 2030, which are 40% below the AB 32-based 2020 targets. The SLOAPCD’s GHG
thresholds have not been updated to comply with SB 32 and the more recent, more stringent GHG reduction goals; therefore, the
Bright Line Threshold and SLOAPCD screening thresholds are included for informational purposes only.
a), b) Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker trips and hauling trips to and from the
project site, and off-road construction equipment (i.e. dozers, loaders, excavators). Demolition activities would also generate
GHG emissions. As discussed in Section 3. Air Quality, project emissions during construction activities would not exceed
SLOAPCD’s construction emissions thresholds. In addition, impacts related to GHG emissions occur on a global scale and are,
therefore, cumulative in nature. Short-term construction-related emissions rarely result in a considerable contribution to GHG
emissions.
GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project are primarily attributable to energy expenditures of the building
and vehicle transport to and from the project site. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, each of the project’s proposed uses
were compared to the size of projects expected to exceed SLOAPCD GHG and ozone precursor thre sholds. Based on the
weighted average of each proposed use percentage of the SLOAPCD thresholds, the project would not exceed SLOAPCD’s
Brightline GHG threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year (MTCO 2e/year) or the 25 pounds per day
threshold for ozone precursors. However, as discussed previously, this threshold is no longer applicable to projects developed
after 2019; therefore, the project has been evaluated for consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a
framework for achieving the 2030 target. A discussion pertaining to the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is
provided in Table 3, below.
Table 3. Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Programs and Policies Primary Objective Consistency Analysis
SB 350 Reduce GHG emissions in the
electricity sector through the
implementation of the 50 percent
Renewables Portfolio Standard,
doubling of energy savings, and
Consistent. 100% of the energy
MBCP provides to the City of San
Luis Obispo is from renewable
sources.
Item 2
Packet Page 208
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 36
other actions as appropriate to
achieve GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the Integrated
Resource Plan process.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard Transition to cleaner/less-polluting
fuels that have a lower carbon
footprint.
Not Applicable. This Statewide
policy establishes carbon reduction
standards for transportation fuels
and does not directly apply to the
project.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner
Technology and Fuels)
Reduce GHGs and other pollutants
from the transportation sector
through transition to zero-emission
and low-emission vehicles, cleaner
transit systems and reduction of
vehicle miles traveled.
Consistent. The project would be
consistent with the Mobile Source
Strategy because it is an infill,
mixed-use project located in an
urban setting with quick access to
alternate modes of transportation,
such as walking, biking, and public
transportation to reduce emissions
associated with automobile use.
Additionally, the project would only
include seven parking spaces,
including 1 accessible van space.
These spaces are intended to be
utilized by car share and short-term
use, including pick-up and drop-off
uses. Several strategies have been
incorporated into the project design
detailed in a Parking Demand
Reduction Plan (source reference
14) to demonstrate compliance with
City Zoning Regulations, including
provision of shower and locker room
facilities for employees who use
alternative modes of transportation,
provision of secure on-site bicycle
parking for all employees and
residents, and provision of up-to-
date public transportation and
rideshare information in office and
employee break rooms and welcome
packets for new employees and
residents.
SB 1383 Approve and Implement Short-
Lived Climate Pollutants strategy to
reduce highly potent GHGs.
Consistent. This policy addresses
methane emissions generated from
landfill disposal of organic waste.
To help reduce the waste stream
generated by this project, consistent
with the City’s Conservation and
Open Space Element policies to
coordinate waste reduction and
recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and
the City’s Development Standards
for Solid Waste Services, recycling
Item 2
Packet Page 209
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 37
facilities have been accommodated
into the project site and a solid
waste reduction plan for recycling
discarded construction materials is
a submittal requirement with the
building permit application.
Therefore, the project would be in
compliance with SB 1383.
California Sustainable Freight
Action Plan
Improve freight efficiency,
transition to zero emission
technologies, and increase
competitiveness of California’s
freight system.
Not Applicable. This policy
addresses goods movement
efficiencies that are not affected by
the project.
Post-2020 Cap and Trade Program Reduce GHGs across largest GHG
emissions sources
Not Applicable. This program
involves capping emissions from
electricity generation and industrial
facilities. The project does not
include electricity generation or
industrial land uses.
Source reference 64.
As shown in Table 3 the project would not conflict with the implementation of the 2017 Scoping Plan. Many of the programs
are not applicable at a project level, such as developing low carbon fuel standards and the cap and trade program, however so me
programs are applicable, such as the Mobile Source Strategy and SB 1383. The project is a mixed -use infill development that
would be located in an urban area with quick, easy access to alternate modes of transportation. Operational air pollutant emissions
associated with vehicle trips (mobile source emissions) would be notably minimized through the mixed-use design of the project,
location of the project as urban infill development, provision of bicycle amenities, and location near public transit stops. Lastly,
through compliance with the California Building Code, LEED Silver certification, and the Clean Energy Choice Program, the
project’s operational air pollution emissions associated with these building components would be reduced significantly .
Therefore, the project impacts related to generation of greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with applicable plans and
policies intended to reduce GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 would further
reduce GHG emissions generated by the project.
Conclusion
The project would be located and designed to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and would not result in a conflict with an
applicable plan or policy adopted for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No potentially significant impacts associated with
greenhouse gas emissions have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Item 2
Packet Page 210
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 38
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
33, 34,
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use pla n or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
36 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers
to comply with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release
sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California EPA to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List.
Various state and local government agencies are required to track and document hazardous material release information for the
Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup,
permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination, such as
federal superfund sites, state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, school investigation sites, and military
evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database contains records for sites that
impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites,
Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or sites identified as meetin g
the “Cortese List” requirements can be located on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
Based on a review of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Geotracker database and the California Department
of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database, there are no active hazardous waste cleanup sites within the project site o r
Item 2
Packet Page 211
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 39
immediately surrounding areas. The closest cleanup site is located approximately 630 feet east of the project site, and this site is
closed and has been remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory agency staff.
The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Land Use Planning Area or noise contours (ALUP;
source reference 35).
a) The project does not propose the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous substances. Any commonly used hazardous
substances within the project site (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used
according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, project
impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances would be less than significant.
b) The project does not propose the routine handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile substances that would result in
a significant risk of upset or accidental release conditions. Demolition and construction activities associated with the
proposed project are anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel
fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc.
The project includes demolition of existing structure on the property that is over 50 years old that could contain asbestos
and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing an d insulating agent in building
construction before being banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely
used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building mater ials and
components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and
pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release
asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily
crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry
into the body, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non -friable asbestos will release fibers less readily
than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non -friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable
asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)
considers asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent
asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead -based
paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0 .06 percent (600 parts per
million [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more
than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and b ones. Children
are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing
systems and organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state -certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards
are determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the
project sponsor would be required to retain a state certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor)
to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities
would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented,
the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing, and
abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include
Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead -based paint abatement must be performed
and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services.
Item 2
Packet Page 212
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 40
Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than
significant.
The project would be subject to the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code requirements associated with Demolition
and Moving of Buildings public safety standards. These standards include general requirements for building demolition
activities, permitting for such activities, and includes subsections for dust an d debris management, fire safety, and removal
and disposal of demolition materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and
state environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the Federal OSHA
Process Safety Management Standard (California Code of Regulations 29.1910.119), which includes requirements for
preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials. In addition, mitigation measure
AQ-5 has been identified to require full compliance with applicable regulatory requirements for removal and disposal of
toxic contaminants if present on-site, including notification of the SLOAPCD prior to demolition of the existing structure.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is located approximately 340 feet (0.06 mile) from the nearest school facility, which is the Learn. Connect.
Play. Preschool located at the First Presbyterian church on Marsh Street. The project site is also located within 0.25 mile
of the Mission College Preparatory Catholic High School located on Palm Street. Construction activities such as
excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and installation of new components would result in temporary
construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may have the potential to affect nearby school attendees. Mitigation
measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce sensitive receptors’ exposure to adverse construction vehicle
emissions and fugitive dust through implementation of equipment best management practices and dust control measures.
Upon implementation of these measures, potential impacts associated with hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of school
facilities would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Based on a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStar database, the State Water
Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database, and CalEPA’s Cortese List website, there are no hazardous waste cleanup
sites within the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
e) The project site is located within 2 miles of the San Luis Obispo County Region al Airport. Based on the Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the project is not located within the Airport Land Use
Planning Area or noise contours. Therefore, potential impacts associated with safety hazards or ex cessive noise from
aircraft would be less than significant.
f) The project would result in periodic temporary road closures along Marsh Street during the three -year construction phase.
Due to the project site location, there are multiple detours available within 500 feet of proposed road closures. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Any construction-related detours would include proper signage
and notification and would be short-term and limited in nature and duration. For further discussion on potential impacts to
transportation, see Section 17. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
g) The project is not located within or adjacent to a wildland area. The project would be required to comply with all applicable
fire safety rules and regulations including the California Fire Code and Public Resources Code prior to issuance of building
permits; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-5.
Conclusion
The project does not propose the routine transport, use, handling, or disposal of hazardous substances. It is not located wit hin
proximity to any known contaminated sites and potential impacts associated with hazardous emissions in close proximity to
Item 2
Packet Page 213
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 41
school facilities would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ-2.
Project implementation would not subject people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would n ot
impair implementation or interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Upon implementation of measures
AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-5, potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and
no further mitigation is necessary.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
1, 18 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
1, 41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
1, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
1, 42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 38,
42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 38, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
1, 42,
44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed is an
approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about 2,500 feet above
sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean and has six major tributary basins: Stenner
Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport Creek, and See Canyon. The creek flows
through the city of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach (source reference 36).
The City is enrolled in the State General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post
Item 2
Packet Page 214
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 42
Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the development review process. The primary objective of these
post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable
and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all
applicable development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued.
The 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation in a 100 -year storm event, or a storm with a 1%
chance of occurring in any given year. Based on the pertinent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located
within a 100-year flood zone. The City’s Floodplain Management Regulations (FPMR) along with the Drainage Design Manual
(DDM) of the Waterways Management Plan, include provisions for development and re-development projects within the
Downtown. The FPMR and FEMA model codes allow for the “dry” floodproofing of commercial and mixed -use buildings. As
such, these code requirements will provide protections for both the structure, appurtenant building service equipment, and the
occupants. The DDM and corresponding flood analysis has already taken into account full general plan build -out within the
Downtown. The build-out assumptions have considered that the creek corridors, public streets, and alleys alone will be available
to carry floodwaters.
a) The project is located within a developed infill site and does not include substantial vegetation removal and would result
in approximately 50 cubic yards of earthwork. The project site is not located in proximity to any mapped creek or surface
water bodies that could be adversely affected by project construction or operation. The project site does not contain Waters
of the U.S. or the State. Because the project would be located within a currently fully developed area comprised almost
entirely of impermeable surfaces and would include gutters and downspouts to capture and retain stormwater flows similar
to existing conditions, implementation of the project would not substantially change the volume or velocity of runoff
leaving any point.
The City’s Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development Departments are responsible for coordinating the
implementation of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). This comprehensive program is required under the
Phase II Stormwater Regulations regulated by SWRCB, San Luis Obispo Region. The primary goal of the program is to
minimize urban runoff that enters the municipal storm drain system and carries bacteria and other pollutants into the local
creeks, watershed, and to the ocean. As part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set of
minimum designated Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are steps
taken to minimize or control the amoun t of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting
materials, and/or not exposing potential pollutants to rainwater or other runoff. Development is required to be undertaken
in strict accordance with conditions and requiremen ts of this program. The project site is generally flat and does not pose
a substantial risk to downslope runoff, sedimentation, erosion, or runoff. With implementation of standard BMPs and
PPMs, and compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards related to stormwater management, the
project would not substantially affect surface water or groundwater quality. Therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
b) The project would be serviced by the City water system, which has four primary water sources, including the Whale Rock
Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving as a
fifth supplemental source. The City of San Luis Obispo no longer draws groundwat er for potable purposes as of 2015.
Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i-iii) The project site is generally flat and does not pose a substantial risk to downslope runoff, sedimentation, erosion, or runoff.
The project site is currently developed with 0.36-acre of the existing built structure and 0.02-acre of flatwork with street
trees. The proposed mixed-use development building would include rooftop gutters and downspouts to capture surface
runoff and direct it to the planters located on the outdoor patio areas on the fourth floor. The planters located on the fourth
floor would contain bio-media layers that would filter the water through a gravel layer before draining to an underdra in.
The underdrains would then direct filtered stormwater flows to the existing storm drain pipe beneath Chorro Street. Surface
runoff at the ground-level flatwork would drain into a proposed trench drain system that would connect to a proposed
stormwater storage system. The proposed trench drain system has been designed to accommodate the volume of an 85th
percentile 24-hour storm (1.2 inches of rainfall), which would be 275 cubic feet (2,057.14 gallons), before draining to the
existing City stormwater drain beneath Chorro Street.
Item 2
Packet Page 215
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 43
The project would not result in substantial permanent changes in impervious surface area onsite and would be designed to
adequately capture and retain stormwater flows up to 275 cubic feet (2,057 gallons) before draining to an existing City
stormwater drainpipe. The project site is not located in proximity to any surface stream or body of water that would be
subject to risk associated with erosion or siltation as the result of project construction or opera tion. The project includes
stormwater storage system that would prevent substantial increases in stormwater runoff that would lead to on - or off-site
flooding or exceedance of existing stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of standard BMPs and PPMs, and
compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards related to stormwater management, t he project would
not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, potential impacts associated with alteration of
the existing drainage pattern of the site would be less than significant.
c. iv) Based on the City Flood Preparedness Map, the project site is located within a 100-year flood zone. Section 3.5 of the City
of San Luis Obispo Waterways Management Plan encourages infill development in the 100-year floodplain within the
Urban Reserve Boundary as a method to reduce sprawl development. The Waterways Management Plan recognizes that
the floodplain has already been substantially modified within the urban infill areas , and significant additional off-site
impacts are less likely to occur in these areas. The City has determined that there are no significant impacts for floodwater
surface elevation rise for projects that meet the design criteria described in Section 3.5.1 of the Waterways Management
Plan, Volume III, which include, but are not limited to, mandating all finish floor elevations for new buildings be at least
1 foot above the defined FEMA 100-year flood elevation or flood-proofing of the proposed structure, and creek setbacks.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with impeding or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant.
d) Based on the FIRM, the project site is located within a 100-year flood zone. The project would establish commercial retail
uses on the ground level and would not include storage or use of hazardous materials beyond standard cleaning products,
which would be securely stored in a fully enclosed area per FEMA Flood Plain Management Criteria for Flood Prone
Areas. In addition, current code requirements include designing floor elevations to be at least 1 foot above the defined
FEMA 100-year flood elevation and/or that “dry” flood-proofing of the proposed structure will be provided to a
comparable height, which would reduce risk from flood flows inundating the project site. Based on the San Luis Obispo
County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with potential for inundation by a tsuna mi. The
project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water with the potential for a seiche to occur.
Therefore, the project’s potential impacts associated with release pollutants due to project inundation would be less than
significant.
e) As discussed in the threshold analysis above, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge. The project includes stormwater treatment and storage facilities and would not conflict with
the Central Coastal Basin Plan, or other water quality control plans. The project would not conflict with SGMA, or other
local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
With implementation of the standard code requirements and documentation noted above and standard BMPs, PPMs, and City
Engineering Standards, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, substantially alter drainage patterns, or degrade
surface water quality. The project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces and does not propose alterations to
existing water courses. Therefore, potential impacts related to hydrology a nd water quality are considered to be less than
significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 216
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 44
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone, and is generally surrounded by retail commercial and mixed -
use developments, as summarized below:
• Northeast – One-story restaurant, Downtown Centre plaza including restaurants, bookstore, and movie theater
• Northwest – one- to three-story commercial and mixed uses including restaurants on the first level and studio apartments
on the upper levels
• Southwest – One-story restaurant, one-story non-profit office, a one-story commercial printing and shipping office
• South – Chase bank parking lot
• Southeast – four-level parking structure and shoe store, three-story mixed-use building with commercial retail on the
first floor and studio apartments on the upper floors
a) The proposed infill development would not result in a physical division between an established community. The project
would be downtown infill development consistent with the general level of development within the project vicinity and
would not create, close, or impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other barriers to movement or
accessibility within the community. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community
and no impacts would occur.
b) The project would be consistent with the property’s land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development
within the applicable zoning designation, Land Use Element, and COSE. The project is consistent with existing surrounding
developments’ uses and is not located within a site containing sensitive environmental resources; therefore, the project would
not conflict with policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. The project
would include the addition of the Planned Development Overlay Zone over the proposed project site and surrounding parcels
(Figure 3) to allow the residential density units of the Downtown Centre to be completely utilized within the new building
at 1144 Chorro Street.
The project would be consistent with existing land uses and designations for the proposed site and, therefore, would not
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
environmental effects. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No potentially significant impacts associated with land use would result from the proposed p roject; therefore, no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Item 2
Packet Page 217
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 45
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Based on the City Conservation and Open Space Element, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits.
a-b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely
due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
6, 45,
46 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
1, 47,
48 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
36 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 2
Packet Page 218
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 46
The project is located in a relatively traffic noise-dominated area. The City’s General Plan Noise Element establishes standards
for maximum acceptable noise levels associated with station ary and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation
noise sources are required to be mitigated to not exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels identified in Table 4, below.
Table 4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources
Outdoor Activity
Areas1 Indoor Spaces
Noise-Sensitive Use Ldn or CNEL, in dB
Ldn or
CNEL, in
dB
Leg in
db2 Lmax in db3
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing
homes 60 45 -- 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building,
mortuaries 60 -- 45 --
Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 -- -- --
Playgrounds 70 -- -- --
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of
the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
The City Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4 regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road, rail road,
and airport expansion projects, which states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in
Table 4 (above) for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition, per the City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construct ion between
weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or any time on Sundays or holidays, is strictly prohibited, except for emergency works
of public service utilities or by exception issued by the Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states
that construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maxim um
noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 dBA at single -family residences, 80 dBA at multi-family residences, and
85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. Based on the City Municipal Code, operating any device that creates vibration
which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public sp ace or
right-of-way is prohibited (9.12.050.B.7).
a) The project includes demolition of the majority of the existing structure onsite and construction of the proposed
development. During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise
environment in the immediate area. Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used for demolition and
construction projects are shown in Table 5, below.
Table 5. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 ft From Source
Backhoe 80
Compactor 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Item 2
Packet Page 219
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 47
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Excavator 85
Heavy Truck 84
Jackhammer 85
Man Lift 85
Paver 85
Scraper 85
The project site is located approximately 40 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, residential units, which are located in
the upper levels of the mixed-use Wineman building on Chorro Street, and less than 25 feet from commercial uses such as
restaurants Eureka and Sweetie Cup Tea House. Noise produced by construction equipment would be short-term,
intermittent, and would be required to comply with City Municipal Code construction timeframe constraints prohibiting
construction equipment use between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or any time on Sundays or holidays. Due
to the close proximity of nearby residential uses, the proposed demolition and construction project activities have the
potential to periodically exceed the City’s Municipal Code standard for conducting construction activities in such a manner
that prevents noise levels above 85 dBa from reaching mixed-use residential and commercial uses, when technically and
economically feasible. Mitigation measures N-1 through N-5 have been identified to reduce the potential for exceedances
to occur and minimize potential temporary construction noise impacts to surrounding residential and commercial uses .
b) Upon completion of construction activities, the project includes the installation and use of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems that would have the potential to contribute additional noise to the existing noise environment.
While the project site is located within the 60-dB noise contour, as designated by the City Noise Element (1990) and
buildout maps, the additional noise generated by these systems would have the potential to result in a permanent increase
in ambient noise levels for surrounding residential units above the outdoor activity area threshold of 65 dBA. Mitigation
measure N-6 has been identified to require all proposed rooftop HVAC systems to be directed away from adjacent
residential uses or shielded with appropriate noise barriers.
Advancements in construction methods, coupled with energy conservation practices, have had a vast performance impact
on the way buildings are constructed today. Interior noise levels are substantially reduced through compliance with existing
building code requirements. At the most conservative level, a typical structure covered with siding will have a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 39 dBa based on current methods. Basic dual-pane vinyl windows will achieve an STC
rating of 28 dBa. Averaged out, this comes to a combined STC rating of about 33, meaning a typical exterior wall assembly
will reduce 33dB of sound transfer. These numbers are based off of a 2x4 wall cavity with insulation and the rating improves
with increased wall thickness and/ or stucco or other sidi ng materials. In using the example of the previous Noise Element
and Noise Guidebook standards from the 1990s, compliance with current required conventional building standards would
double, or even triple, the noise reduction requirements. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project does not propose pile driving or other high impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne noise
or groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration ;
these activities would have the potential to generate intermittent periods of vibration that may have the potential to affect
surrounding historical buildings and occupants of surrounding buildings.
The vibration threshold at which there is a risk to historic and historic-age buildings is 0.5 inches per second particle velocity
(in/sec ppv) for transient sources and 0.25 in/sec ppv for continuous/frequent intermittent sources. With regard to human
perception, vibration levels would begin to be perceptible at levels of 0.04 in/sec ppv for continuous events and 0.25 in/sec
Source reference 45
Item 2
Packet Page 220
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 48
ppv for transient events. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are
summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 feet (in/sec)
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozers 0.0003
Source references 47 and 48.
While some construction activities may result in perceptible vibration, t he project generated vibration levels would be well
below the thresholds identified as having the potential to adversely affect surrounding historic buildings and the substantial
majority of construction activities and resulting vibration would not be at levels perceptible to humans. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
d) The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Land Use Planning Area or associated aircraft
noise contours. Therefore, impacts associated with project worker or occupant exposure to excessive noise levels from
aircraft would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the fo llowing Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall
be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise Best Management Practices
(BMPs), and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of
grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior
to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All construction
workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where BMP
measures are to be implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 80 dBA
for multi-family residential and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial uses, restaurants, and meeting places.
Item 2
Packet Page 221
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 49
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound)
of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways
adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project of
proposed construction timelines and noise compliant procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction
noise. Signs shall be in place prior to and throughout grading and construction activities informing the public that noise -
related complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community Development Department.
N-6 All noise-generating rooftop building equipment, such as air conditioners and kitchen ventilation systems, shall be
installed away from existing noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) or be placed behind adequate noise barriers.
Conclusion
The project has the potential to periodically exceed City Municipal Code construction and operational noise standards for mixed-
use residential and commercial development. Upon implementation of measures N -1 through N-6, potential impacts associated
with temporary and/or long-term exceedances of local established standards would be less than significant. No other potentially
significant impacts associated with noise were identified, and no further mitigation measures are necessary.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1, 49,
50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and has grown from 45,119 in
2010 to approximately 46,548 in 2018 according to the City General Plan 2018 Annual Report . The City’s housing tenure is
approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced by Cal Poly University and Cuesta
College enrollment. Many segments of the City’s population have difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to
Item 2
Packet Page 222
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 50
their economic, physical or sociological circumstances. San Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the County,
and during workdays, the City’s population increases to an estimated 70,000 persons (source reference 47).
The City’s Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an assessment of the City’s housing need s,
opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include safety, affordability, conservation of existing
housing, accommodation for mixed -income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and tenure, planning for new housing,
maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable housing and neighborhood design,
maximization of affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the City, and develop ing housing on suitable
sites.
a) The project would establish a total of 46 new studio and one-bedroom apartment units and 3 two-bedroom apartments, which
would result in approximately 104 new residents (assuming 2 people per bedroom). Twenty-five percent of the proposed
residential units would be reserved for tenants with moderate incomes. The project has been designed to be consistent with
goals and policies established in the City Housing Element associated with provision of new housing, sustainable housing
design, and provision of affordable housing opportunities. According to the City Housing Element, between 2005 and 2019,
the City’s population grew by 2,140 persons, a total increase of 4.8 percent, or annual increase of 0.3 percent. Based on the
City’s 2018 General Plan Annual Plan Report, the city’s to tal buildout population would be 57,200 people. The project
would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Obispo and City Housing Element goals
and policies. The project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth; therefore, potential impacts would be
less than significant.
b) The project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing; therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the city’s projected population growth and City H ousing Element goals and policies. No
potentially significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance object ives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1, 49,
51, 63 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 223
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 51
Evaluation
The project site is located within the existing service area of the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department and would likely be
served by City Fire Station 1. The newest fire station in the City, Fire Station 1 provides primary response to the downtown area
of San Luis Obispo. This station is staffed by a Battalion Chief and a 4 -person paramedic truck company.
The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city which consists of 85.5
employees, 59 of which are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station which is located at 1042
Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) a nd U.S. Highway 101.The project is located within the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District and public parks and recreation trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City of
San Luis Obispo Department of Parks and Recreation.
All new residential and non-residential development within the City is subject to payment of Development Impact Fees, which
are administered by and paid through the Community Development Department. Development Impact Fees provide funding for
maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for
projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles and equipment.
a) Fire protection: The project would be served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, the closest station of which
is Station 1, located at 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue. The project proposes uses generally consistent with the surrounding
downtown areas and the proposed level of development would be fairly similar to surrounding commercial and mixed -use
developments. While the project would not directly result in the need for construction of new fire service facilities, p roject
development of new residential and commercial uses would result in a marginal cumulative increase of demand on City
services, including fire protection. The project would be required to participate in the City’s system of required developer
impact fees and dedications established to address direct demand for n ew facilities associated with new development.
Potential increases in property tax revenue associated with valuation of the new residential units, businesses, and other
revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to new residential
and commercial uses. Based on correspondence with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, the City Fire
Department currently has one fire apparatus with the capabilities to reach a six-story building, and this apparatus is
currently kept at Fire Station 1. Therefore, the implementation of the project would not require the purchase of a new fire
apparatus. Therefore, impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered Fire Department facilities would
be less than significant.
Police protection: The project would be served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. Project development
of new residential and commercial uses would result in an increase of demand on City services, including police protection.
The project proposes uses generally consistent with the surrounding downtown areas and the proposed level of
development would be fairly similar to surrounding commercial and mixed -use developments. While the project would
result in an overall increase in residents within the city, the project would be consistent with the projected population
growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The City has a system of required developer impact fees and dedications established
to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Potential increases in property tax revenue
associated with valuation of the new residential units, businesses, and other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset
the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to new residential and commercial uses. Therefore, impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities would be less than significant.
Schools: The project site would be located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) and would be
subject to payment of SLCUSD developer fees to offset the potential marginal increase in student attendance in the
district’s schools as a result of the project. These fees would be directed towards maintaining sufficient service levels,
which include incremental increases in school capacities. Through participation in this fee program, potential project
impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Parks: Project development of new residential uses would result in an increase of demand on local parks and recreational
facilities in the area. The project would result in a marginal increase in residents that would lead to an incremental increase
in local park usership. While the project would result in an overall increase in residents within the city, th e project would
Item 2
Packet Page 224
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 52
be consistent with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The project would be subject to park
development impact fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park and recreational
facilities. Through participation in this fee program, potential project impacts on parks would be less than significant.
Other public facilities: The project would result in a marginal increase in use of other City public facilities, such as
roadways and public libraries. The project would be subject to transportation development impact fees, which would offset
the project’s contribution to increased use of City roadways. Through participation in this fee program, potential project
impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would not result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
16. RECREATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 51,
52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Existing City recreation facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated Natural resources
and open space areas and two bike trails. The City Recreation Element identifies goals, policies, and programs to help plan,
develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The City’s statement of overall department goals is for the City
Parks and Recreation facilities and programs to enable all citizens to participate in fun, healthful, or enriching activities which
enhance the quality of life in the community.
As demand for recreation facilities and activities grow and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following ar eas:
continued development of athletic fields and support facilities, providing parks in underserved neighborhoods, providin g a multi-
use community center and therapy pool, expanding paths and trails for recreational use, link recreation facilities, and meeti ng
the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth, and senior citizens (source reference 49). Parks and Recreation Element
Policy 3.13.1 establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents, 5 of which acres shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
a-b) The project would increase the demand on public parkland and neighborhood parks from an increased residential
population. While the project would result in an overall increase in residents within the city, the project would be consistent
with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Ob ispo. The project would be subject to Park Land In-Lieu
fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park and recreational facilities and contribute
to helping the City achieve its goal service ratio of 10 acres of parkland pe r 1,000 residents. These fees would be used in
Item 2
Packet Page 225
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 53
the future to contribute funding for the establishment of new park/recreation facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
however, these actions would not be directly triggered by or required as a result o f implementation of the project. Through
participation in this fee program, potential project impacts associated with accelerated deterioration of existing facilities
or construction of new park facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be subject to payment of Park Land In-Lieu fees for parks and recreation facilities, which would offset
potential project impacts associated with the incremental increase of demand on these facilities. No pot entially significant
impacts to parks or recreation facilities would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
13, 14,
53, 54 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
1, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways and identifies transportation go als
and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and future conditions. Goals included in
the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment throughout San Luis Obispo
while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, reducing use of cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools, promotion of the safe operation of all modes of
transportation, and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects would cause
no significant, long-term environmental problems.
Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating conditions of a n intersection or roadway based on factors such
as speed, travel time, queuing time, and safety. LOS designations range between A and F, with A representing the best operating
conditions and F the worst. The circulation element establishes the minimum acceptable LOS standard for vehicles in the
downtown area of the city as LOS E and states any degradation of the level of service below this standard shall be determined
significant under CEQA.
The City 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines the City’s official policies for the design and development of bikeways
within the city and in adjoining territory under County jurisdiction but within the city’s Urban Reserve and includes specifi c
Item 2
Packet Page 226
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 54
objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other modes. This plan identifies existing Class II bike path(s) within the
vicinity of project site along Marsh Street. Class II Bikeways are located along major streets and provide direct access to
important destinations.
In 2013, Senate Bill 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion managemen t
with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and re duction of
greenhouse gas emissions” and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resource s
Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the
implementation of Senate Bill 743 and identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as
new metrics for transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3 [b]). Beginning July 1, 2020, the newly
adopted VMT criteria for determining significance of transportation impacts must be implemented statewide.
The project site would be accessed by Marsh Street and Chorro Street. Chorro Street is a north-south, two-way, two-lane arterial
road in the study area. Chorro Street terminates at Highland Drive near Cal Poly and at Broad Street south of downtown San
Luis Obispo. Chorro Street is designated as a Class III bike route near the study area. There is on-street parking on the west side
of the roadway as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the roadway between Higuera Street and Marsh Street.
Marsh Street is an east-west, one-way eastbound, three-lane arterial road in the study area. Marsh Street terminates at US
Highway 101 and at California Boulevard near San Luis Obispo High School. Marsh Street has a designated Class II bike lane
on the south side of the road. There is on-street parking as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the roadway between
Chorro Street and Morro Street.
SLO Transit operates transit service in the City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)
operates transit service throughout San Luis Obispo County and adjacent areas. Four transit routes travel on Marsh Street adjacent
to the proposed project: SLO Transit Route 1A, SLO Transit Route 2A, SLO Transit Route 2B, and SLORTA Route 10. The bus
stop for SLO Transit Routes 1A, 2A, and 2B is located on the south side of Marsh Street east of Chorro Street across from the
project entrance. An awning-protected bench and signage is provided. The bus stop for SLORTA Route 10 is located on Marsh
Street west of Broad Street less than 1,000 feet from the project site. The Downtown Transit Center, located approximately one
third of a mile from the project site near the intersection of Palm Street and Osos Street, is served by most SLO Transit and
SLORTA routes. The bus stop across from the project entrance is additionally served by SLO Transit’s Old SLO Trolley which
loops between the downtown area and upper Monterey Street to the east.
a) The project would be urban infill located in the downtown historic district of the city of San Luis Obispo. The project site
would be accessed by Marsh Street and Chorro Street. The project would be generally consistent with the goals and policies
outlined in the City Circulation Element regarding traffic congestion reduction through compliance with City Zoning
Regulations requiring provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, and locker and changing room facilities to encourage
project employees to use alternative modes of transportation. The project would maintain the existing sidewalk areas onsite
in compliance with the City Downtown Pedestrian Plan and Circulation Element policies regarding maintaining continuous
sidewalks and pedestrian paths within major activity centers. The project site is not located in or adjacent to an area with
proposed/needed bicycle infrastructure establishment or improvements as identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Based on the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project, surrounding intersections Higuera Street/Chorro Street,
Higuera Street/Morro Street, Marsh Street/Chorro Street, and Marsh Street/Morro Street are all currently operating at a
vehicle LOS B. Based on the project’s projected vehicle trips generated, the project would not result in a change in any of
the surrounding intersections’ vehicle LOS. Current LOS for pedestrian or bicycle facilities at these intersections would
also not be altered by implementation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b), projects located within one-half mile of either an existing
major transit stop or along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant
transportation impact. The project would be urban infill and located within 0.5 mile of the San Luis Obispo Downtown
Item 2
Packet Page 227
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 55
Transit Center and approximately 10 public transit stops. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the standards set
forth in CEQA Guidelines Section15064.3 subdivision (b) and impacts would be less than significant.
During the construction phase, the project would result in the periodic closure of one lane on Marsh Street. Proposed lane
closures and use and transport of construction vehicles and equipment within an area that experiences a substantial amount
of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic would have the potential to result in safety hazards. Mitigation measure T -1 has
been identified to require the preparation and approval of a transportation management plan to require the implementation
of traffic control measures, notification procedures, and other measures to significantly reduce the safety risks in and
around the project site during construction activities. Therefore, project impacts associated with increased hazards during
construction would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project, as proposed, would result in the removal of one of the two existing commercial loading spaces on the north
side of Marsh Street and establish a new project driveway at this location. Street features including trees, trash cans, fire
hydrants, light poles, signs, news receptacles, and parked cars can limit sight distance in urban areas. In general, a clear
line of sight exiting the proposed driveway is available to Marsh Street. However, when vehicles are parked in the on-
street loading zones on the north side of Marsh Street between Chorro Street and the proposed project driveway, the sight
distance is restricted. When vehicles are parked in the loading zone adjacent to the project driveway, vehicles would need
to “creep” into the parking lane to see oncoming traffic prior to making a turning movement.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends a minimum of 6 feet of red curb be
placed adjacent to driveways. To provide the recommended red curb, the remaining commercial loading zone adjacent to
the project would need to be modified or removed pursuant to existing City Engineering Standards. The City’s Engineering
Standards Section 7410 requires that new driveway connections to streets be designed to provide sight distance for street
parking spacing to further ensure pedestrian safety, and project driveway exits shall provide a minimum of ten feet clear
visibility to the back of sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building corners, columns, or any other visual
impediments. The proposed loading spaces and any associated street parking shall comply with the City’s Engineering
Standards Chapter 1010 Section 3.1.7. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the operation of the
project would not result in any significant or increased hazards due to a geometric design feature.
c) The project has been designed to comply with the City and State Fire Code, and the property frontage facing Chorro Street
would remain marked with a red curb for emergency vehicle access only. In addition, t he project would be subject to
review by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided . Therefore, potential impacts
related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
TR-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet
with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent
feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this
project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public
Works department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements:
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major t ruck trips and deliveries to
avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure
procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major
deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur.
• Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles.
• Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes
so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and correcte d by the project
applicant.
• Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
• Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
Item 2
Packet Page 228
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 56
• A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity.
• Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the
trucks can be identified and corrected.
• It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be d eveloped in the context of the City
Municipal Code Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations and the City of San Luis Obispo 2013
Construction & Fire Codes, which address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on
noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items.
Conclusion
The project would not result in a reduction in level of service on surrounding intersections and would be consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) regarding vehicle miles traveled. The project would be required to meet City Public
Works safety design standards and would maintain adequate emergency access. Mitigation measure TR-1 has been identified to
evaluate traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traf fic congestion and the effects of parking
demand by construction workers during construction of the project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with transportation
would be less than significant with mitigation.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated
under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of California Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these
criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American Tribe.
Item 2
Packet Page 229
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 57
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested
notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead
agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a
project. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of
tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project
alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to,
Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record search for the property,
upon further discussion with staff regarding the proposed mitigation measures CR -3 and CR-4 and providing additional
information on the limited amount of grading necessary for the project, The Northern Chumash Tribal Council confirmed that
they had no additional comments. No further comments or requests for information have been received.
a.i-ii) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 and
received one response for more information. Upon receiving additional information about the project site and proposed
mitigation measures, no further correspondence has been received. T he project site does not contain any known tribal
cultural resources that have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resource s,
or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1. Mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4
have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training, archaeological monitoring, and cessation of work area
if a discovery is made until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to
a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
No additional measures beyond CR-1 through CR-4.
Conclusion
With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4, the project would have a less than
significant impact to tribal cultural resources.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
55 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
41, 62 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 230
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 58
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
2, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
57, 58,
59 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
3, 58,
59 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled wa ter
to the community, and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City Wate r Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the County airport. The facility treats 4.5
million gallons of wastewater daily, 365 days a year. The most recent upgrade to the WRRF was completed to improve the
quality of water discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek (located downstream of the project site). The WRRF has very stringent
discharge requirements and now produces a high -quality effluent that surpasses drinking water standards for many constituents.
Plans to utilize a portion of this effluent to irrigate parks, median strips, landscape and other appropriate uses are
being implemented under the City’s Water Reuse Program.
a) The project would include the installation of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and
connections to City infrastructure. These components have been evaluated for their potential to result in adverse
environmental effects throughout this document. Mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, CR-1 through CR-4, GEO-1,
N-1, and N-2 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from installation and establishment of
new utility connections associated with air quality, cultural resources, and noise to less than significant. Therefore,
potential environmental impacts associated with construction or extension of existing utilities would be less than
significant with mitigation.
b) The project would result in the water demand of approximately 845,690 gallons per year for the interior uses and an
additional 5,324 gallons per year for landscape watering, for a total annual water use of 851,014 gallons (2.61 acre -feet).
It is expected that a portion of the water demand for landscaping will be met through the capture and redirection of
stormwater onsite, as further described in Section 10 – Hydrology and Water Quality.
The project would be serviced by the City water system, which has four primary water sources, including the Whale Rock
Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving as a
fifth supplemental source. The City of San Luis Obispo no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. The
project is not within the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan Area and therefore recycled water is not available for irrigation
use. As of February 2020, both the Salinas Reservoir and Whale Rock Reservoir are above 82% storage capacity, and
Nacimiento is at 52% storage capacity.
c) Per the General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City uses multiple water sources
to meet its water supply needs. The City has four primary water supply sources including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas
Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water. Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source, which was
suspended by the City from potable uses in April 2015. During water year 2019, the City’s total water demand was 4,762
acre-feet, and the total water availability for 2019 was 10,136-acre feet. Therefore, the City maintains a robust water supply
portfolio with greater than five years of water available.
At the time of submittal of development plans and application for a building permit, the applicant would be required to
pay a Water Impact fee to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s water resources. Therefore, based on the City’s
Item 2
Packet Page 231
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 59
current surplus of water supplies and payment of Water Impact Fees to offset use, potential impacts associated with having
sufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years would be less than significant.
d) The project would be served by the City’s sewer system and would include the installation of a new sewer lateral to connect
to existing City sewer infrastructure. The p roject would result in an incremental increase in wastewater demand on the
City’s wastewater treatment plant, the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). Impact fees are collected at the time
building permits are issued to accommodate the project’s contribution to the City’s WRRF capacity. Therefore, impacts
associated with the wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than
significant.
e) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recov ery (CalRecycle), the project would result in the
generation of approximately 932.5 pounds of solid waste per day (see Table 7 below).
Table 7. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Use Generation Rate Project Pounds Solid Waste Per
Day
Commercial Retail 0.046 lb/sf/day 11,049 sf 508.3
Office 0.006 lb/sf/day 26,442 sf 158.7
Multifamily Residential 5.31 lb/unit/day 50 units 265.5
Total 932.5
The proposed development includes a 612-square-foot room with space to accommodate three 4-cubic-yard garbage
receptacles, three 4-cubic-yard recycling receptacles, and several 32-gallon green waste receptacles that would be serviced
three times per week by San Luis Garbage company , which has provided a will-serve letter indicating their service can
accommodate the project’s solid waste needs. Project demolition and other construction solid waste materials would likely
be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. The Cold Canyon Landfill has approximately 1 4,500,000 cubic yards of
remaining capacity as of January of 2015 and is expected to reach capacity in 2040. Therefore, potential impacts would
be less than significant.
f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows tha t 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. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City’s
Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and the
City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services, recycling facilities have been accommodated into the project site
and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building
permit application. Therefore, the project would be in compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, CR-1 through CR-4, N-1, and N-2.
Conclusion
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, th e project’s potential impacts associated with the installation
of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and connections to City infrastructure would be less than
significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 232
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 60
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 1, 60 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
1, 6,
26, 61 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project is located in an urban area within the city of San Luis Obispo. Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and
spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities they contain. Additional factors are access, availabl e
water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters. Based on the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of
wildland fires is greatest near the City limits where development meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the
community is within one mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone which indicates significant risk to
wildland fire.
The City Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, included approvin g
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of Wildland fire hazard
severity zones as prescribed by CAL FIRE, prohibition of new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard
severity zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
a) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service would occur as a result of project
implementation. Proposed construction-related detours resulting from periodic closures of Marsh Street would be within
0.25 mile of the closure and would include proper signage and notification a nd would be short-term and limited in nature
and duration. Mitigation measure T-1 has been identified to require the preparation and approval of a transportation
management plan to require the implementation of traffic control measures, notification proced ures, and other measures
to significantly reduce the safety risks in and around the project site during construction activities and/or emergency event s.
During operation, the project would result in an increase in the number of residents within the downtow n area and therefore
would result in an increase in the number of evacuees traveling on evacuation routes such as U.S. Highway 101 and/or
U.S. Highway 1. This increase would be considered marginal and would not result in substantial impairment of the
applicable evacuation plans and/or routes; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The project is located within a developed site located within an urban area in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project
would not substantially change the existing topography of the project site. Based on the City Municipal Code, the project
is located within the Commercial Fire Zone and is therefore required to construct all interior walls, floors, ceilings, and
partitions with 5/8 “Type X” gypsum wallboard or install an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the building to
Item 2
Packet Page 233
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 61
increase the structure’s overall fire resistance. A Fire Sprinkler Pre-Design Evaluation was conducted for the project by
Alpha Fire Unlimited and provided recommended design components for the proposed automatic fire sprinkler system.
The project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention within the California Building Code and
California Fire Code. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire , and potential impacts would be less than
significant.
c) The project would include the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas
infrastructure and connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur within
existing developed land and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire
Code regulations; therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk from installation of new
infrastructure would be less than significant.
d) The project site is generally flat and would not be located near a hillslope or in an area subject to downstream flooding or
landslides. The project does not include any design elements that would expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measure T-1.
Conclusion
The project would not expose people or structures to new or e xacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development
of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Mitigation measure T-1 has been identified to require
the preparation and approval of a transportation management pla n to require the implementation of traffic control measures,
notification procedures, and other measures to significantly reduce the safety risks in and around the project site during
construction activities and/or emergency events. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire would be less than
significant with mitigation.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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?
N/A ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Based on the location, nature, and scale of proposed development, the project does not have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula tion to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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 h istory or
prehistory. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 234
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 62
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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 past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project includes the proposed application of a PD Overlay Zone to the property located at the project parcel (1144 Chorro
Street; APN 022-427-012), the existing Downtown Centre property (APN 002-427-016, -014, and -015), two parcels located on
the east side of Morro Street (APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022 -425-
011). This PD overlay zone would allow for the potential future development on the parcels on Morro and Higuera Streets to
accommodate 51.26 additional density units that were allowed but not utilized in the other four parcels. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65915, the project applicant may also negotiate a density bonus in exchange for provision of housing
affordable to households with low or moderate income, as defined in the Government Code, and as stipulated in Chapter 17.90
of the City Zoning Regulations.
The proposed PD Overlay Zone would result in the redistribution of unutilized density units within the proposed PD Overlay
Zone to provide for potential future residential development on the Morro Street and Higuera Street parcels. The potential future
development of additional dwelling units on these parcels would be subject to all applicable City architectural review and de sign
standards, as well as environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed PD Overlay Zone
would also align directly with Policy 6.8 of the City Housing Element, which states, “consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate
higher density infill where appropriate in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning
Regulations that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.”
When project impacts are considered in combination with other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s potential
cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project -related
impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on potential future development of surrounding parcels being subject to
discretionary review, and implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures, the cumulative effects of the
proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality , biological resources, cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems that could result
in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to
less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures, preparation of a geologic
investigation for asbestos containing materials, and implementation of best management controls for construction noise. With
incorporation of mitigation identified in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not direct ly or
indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 235
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019 63
22. 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.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
23. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Marsh & Chorro Development at Downtown Center Entitlements Package, October 29, 2019
2. Waste and Water Usage – Marsh and Chorro, August 2019
3. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651>.
4. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104>.
5.
California Scenic Highways, February 2017. Available at:
<https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a
>.
6. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019. Available at: <https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code>.
7. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2016 . Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/>.
8. City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, January 2015 . Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3e0adee3aabd4805bd13f0d4705a4193 >.
9. California Air Resources Board Area Designatio n Maps / State and National, December 2018. Available at:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>.
10.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool, 2017. Available
at:
<https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.3649868053 637
56%2C-120.52563349999997&z=10>.
11.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012 . Available at:
<https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_LinkedwithMemo.pd
f>.
12. San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, December 2001. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf>.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=3785>.
Item 2
Packet Page 236
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 64
14. 1144 Chorro Street Mixed Use Parking Demand Reduction and Management Plan, July 2019
15.
Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, November 2017. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf >.
16. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations,
California Air Resources Board, 2015. Available at: < https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm>.
17. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019. Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917da8bbc7 >.
18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html>.
19. Architectural Evaluation for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, 20 20
20. Historic Preservation Report for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2018
21. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861>.
22. County of San Luis Obispo cultural resource maps, 2019 .
23.
City of San Luis Obispo Website Community Choice Energy; Accessed November 18, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choice-
energy>.
24. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) website, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.usgbc.org/leed>.
25. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2398>.
26. California Building Code, 2019. Available at: < https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018>.
27. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 . Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/>.
28. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645>.
29. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, USGS, Accessed September 2019. Available at:
<https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html>.
30. NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2019. Available at: <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx >.
31. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004 . Available at: <
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71738.htm >.
32. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the California Flats Solar Project, Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties, California, 2013. Available at: <https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=48222>.
33. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed August 21, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>.
34. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed August 21, 2019 . Available at:
<https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/>.
35. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources Accessed August 21, 2019 . Available at:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>
36. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005. Available at: <https://www.sloairport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf>.
37. SLO Watershed Project, San Luis Obispo Creek Description, 2014. Available at:
<http://slowatershedproject.org/watersheds/san-luis-obispo-creek/>.
38. City of San Luis Obispo Flood Preparedness Map, 2019 . Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=e790e7eb2923499b9ddc91126d6376e0 >.
39. SGMA Groundwater Management, California Department of Water Resources Webpage, 2019 . Available at:
<https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management>.
Item 2
Packet Page 237
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 65
40.
San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Lu is Obispo Webpage, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater-
Management-Act-(SGMA)/San-Luis-Obispo-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx>.
41. Water Sources, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Webpage, Accessed November 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/water/water-sources>.
42. Preliminary Project Drainage Report for Marsh & Chorro Mixed Use, 2019
43. Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle,
2009. Available at: <https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo>.
44.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/amendment/dr aft_resol_
attch_a_basin_plan_edits_only.pdf >.
45. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643>.
46.
Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway
Administration, September 2017. Available at:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cfm >.
47.
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. United States Department of Transportation, Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). September 2018. Available at:
<https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research -innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-
impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>.
48. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). September 2013. Available at: <http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf>.
49. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2018. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=22768>.
50. City of San Luis Obispo 2014-2019 General Plan Housing Element, January 2015. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5204>.
51. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20198>.
52. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, 20 01. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6647>.
53. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412>
54. 1144 Chorro Mixed-Use Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study, March 2019
55. Marsh and Chorro Mixed Use Project Utility Plan, 2019
56.
Wastewater Treatment, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Webpage, Accessed November 2019 .
Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment>.
57. San Luis Obispo Garbage Company 1144 Chorro Street Will-Serve Letter, 2019
58.
SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,
Accessed September 16th, 2019. Available at: <https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-AA-
0004/Detail/>.
59.
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(CalRecycle), accessed November 2019. Available at:
<https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates>.
60. Diablo Canyon Emergency Planning Zone Map, accessed November 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1203/ML120380327.pdf >.
61. Fire Sprinkler Pre-design Evaluation, April 2019.
62. 2019 Water Resources Status Report, City of San Luis Obispo Water Division, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=25195>.
63. Personal Communication with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, Fire Inspector’s Office, February 7,
2020
Item 2
Packet Page 238
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 66
64. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
Attachments
1. Proposed Project Plans
2. Architectural Evaluation for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Cal ifornia
3. Historic Preservation Report for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California
Item 2
Packet Page 239
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 67
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor
vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that
drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except
as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or
any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than
5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection
(d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of t he 5-minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter
control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans:
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site
and from exceeding APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and
cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water is to be
used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activit ies.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as po ssible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders or soil binders are
used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
Item 2
Packet Page 240
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 68
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads.
k. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to
sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
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, reduce visible
emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no 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 .
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a
geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance
with California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the
City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project
would not have the potential to disturb asbestos containing materials (ACM), the applicant must file an Asbestos
ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If asbestos containing materials (ACM) are determined to be present onsite, proposed earthwork, demolition, and
construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding ACM,
including the ARB Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and,
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified ACM.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce
the risk associated with disturbance of ACM and lead-coated materials that may be present within the existing structure
onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structure shall comply with the procedures required by the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos
emissions during demolition activities. SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement
the Federal Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be notified, per
NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that SLOAPCD has been notified prior to
demolition activities to the City Community Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structure, paint is separated from the const ruction materials (e.g.,
chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a
qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be
handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. According to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition
(and is not chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non-hazardous construction debris. The
landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint materials. If required, all lead work
plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least 10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall
submit proof that paint waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials inspector and handled
according to their recommendation to the City Community Development Department.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon
completion. The applicant shall submit proof of written notification to SLOAPCD as desc ribed in measures AQ-4 and AQ-5
to the City Community Development Department.
Item 2
Packet Page 241
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 69
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Site preparation, ground-disturbing, and construction activities should be conducted outside of the migratory bird
breeding season when feasible. If such activities are required during this period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
nesting bird survey and verify that migratory birds are not nesting in the impact zone. If nesting activity is detected,
the following measures shall be implemented:
a. The project shall be modified via the use of protective buffers, delaying construction activities, or other methods
designated by the qualified biologist to avoid direct take of identified nests, eggs, and/or young protected under
the MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code;
b. The Environmental Monitor shall document all active nests and submit a letter report to City Planning staff and
the City’s Sustainability Officer documenting project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game
Code, and applicable project mitigation measures.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the improvement plans
and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consu ltation with the Community
Development Director, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and
provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resource awareness training for all
construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact h uman
burials and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 A qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during all project related construction activities that result in
disturbance of native soil that may contain archaeological resources.
CR-3 In the event that historical or archaeological remains are discovered during earth disturbing activities associated with
the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified.
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if
necessary. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Chumash representative
shall monitor any mitigation excavation associated with Na tive American materials. The conditions for treatment of
discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans. The City shall review and approve the selected
archaeologist, if needed, to ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification sta ndards, consistent with the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
CR-4 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an
immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the Community Development Director shall be notified. State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin
and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native
American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and
approve the selected archaeologist monitor, to ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification standards, consistent
with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Item 2
Packet Page 242
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 70
Noise
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall
be shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed -air exhaust shall be
used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatemen t methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise Best Management Practices
(BMPs), and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to i ssuance of
grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior
to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All construction
workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where BMP
measures are to be implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not ex ceed 80
dBA for multi-family residential and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial uses, restaurants, and meeting places.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate
sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways
adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project of
proposed construction timelines and noise compliant procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to
construction noise. Signs shall be in place prior to and throughout grading and construction activities informing the
public that noise-related complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community
Development Department.
N-6 All noise-generating rooftop building equipment, such as air conditioners and kitchen ventilation systems, shall be
installed away from existing noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) or be placed behind adequate noise barriers.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and
approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections.
Transportation
Item 2
Packet Page 243
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 71
TR-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet
with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent
feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this
project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the
Public Works department. The plan shall include at least th e following items and requirements:
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to
avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure
procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major
deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur.
• Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles.
• Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface stree ts used for haul routes
so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project
applicant.
• Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
• Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
• A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity.
• Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to
the trucks can be identified and corrected.
• It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of the
City Municipal Code Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations and the City of San Luis Obispo 2013
Construction & Fire Codes, which address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on
noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items.
Monitoring Program: Prior to building permit issuance the Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City
Community Development Department and Public Works Department for review.
Item 2
Packet Page 244
Item #2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
1144 Chorro Street (PR-0060-2018)
Review of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 30,000
square feet of commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, within the
Downtown Historic District. The project includes a rezone to provide a Planned
Development Overlay and a request to allow a maximum building height of 75-
feet, where 50-feet is normally allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone,
including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA)
Staff Presentation By:
Associate Planner, Kyle Bell
Applicant: Mark Rawson, Copeland Properties
5
Recommendation
Provide comments regarding consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines and recommend
direction on the projects design to the Planning
Commission.
Project Description
6
The mixed-use project consists of a six-story structure
comprised of;
◼Ground floor commercial (4,806 sq.ft.)
◼2nd &3rd floor office (25,251 sq.ft.)
◼4th –6th floor residential (50 units)
The project includes a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay,and a request to establish a max height of 75-
feet,where normally limited to 50-feet.
Project Features and Community Benefits
7
PD-Overlay –Three Mandatory Project Features;
◼25%affordable housing (moderate-income)
◼LEED Silver rating for Energy Efficiency
◼Dedication of Downtown Centre as Public Plaza
Maximum Height -Three Community Benefits;
◼Affordable and Workforce Housing
◼Pedestrian Amenities
◼Mode Split
Previous Conceptual Review and Initiation
8
On November 26,2018,the CHC reviewed the project and
provided eight directional items to the applicant to address,
with a vote of 7:0.
On December 3,2018,the ARC reviewed the project and
provided six directional items to the applicant to address,
with a vote of 6:0.
On September 17,2019,the City Council reviewed the
project for initiation of the PD Overlay and associated
mandatory project features and community benefit policies
for consideration of a building height of 50 feet,with a vote of
5:0.
Rendering –View from Marsh & Chorro
9
CHC Directional Items
10
1.Requested a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity.
2.A shading study to identify the specific shadow of the proposed
structure
3.The Historic Preservation Report shall be revised to address the
existing structure’s potential historic eligibility
4.The scale and mass of the structure above fourth story,is considered
incompatible with the Historic District.
5.The architectural style is considered too “institutional”
6.The proposed design should include more architectural details and
features
7.The proposed fenestration is considered monotonous and should
provide greater variety and articulation.
8.The project design should provide more articulation and variety along
the storefront elevations.
ARC Directional Items
11
1.The project should respond to the Cultural Heritage Committee directional items with
emphasis on providing a higher degree of articulation to relieve building mass and
provide a greater variety of fenestration,the project should consider a variety in relief of
roof lines.
2.The project should consider and respond to the planning principles and goals identified in
the Downtown Concept Plan.
3.The architectural style should be distinctive as a gateway feature to downtown through
design excellence justifying the requested height above 50 feet,given the project
prominence along the intersection,the design should be of its own time while compatible
with adjacent historic structures.
4.The project should provide greater step backs on the upper levels and/or consider a
height reduction with sensitivity to adjacent historic resources,the design and mass
should reinforce the horizontal lines of adjacent facades.
5.The design should focus on pedestrian scale,consider opportunity to revitalize the corner
of Marsh and Chorro as a design feature combined with greater sidewalk widths and
additional relief of storefronts to provide for patio dining.Consider tying into the
pedestrian experience of the Downtown Center.
6.Materials should be high quality and selected carefully to be compatible with the historic
buildings,without replicating design features,the second story windows should be
reduced in height to reflect traditional transom window designs.
12
Recommendation
Provide comments regarding consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines and recommend
direction on the projects design to the Planning
Commission.
Applicant Presentation By:
Mark Rawson, Copeland Properties
Jim Duffy, Ten Over Studio
Item #2 (continued)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
1144 Chorro Street (PR-0060-2018)
EX.8
VIEW OF MARSH AND CHORRO CORNER
539 Marsh
Street San Luis
Obispo,CA
MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.c
om
revisedpreviousARC/CHC DIRECTION
-REVITALIZE CORNER OF MARSH AND CHORRO AS DESIGN FEATURE
-PROVIDE GREATER SIDEWALK WIDTH AND AREAS FOR PATIO DINING
-REVISE SCALE AND MASS ABOVE 4TH STORY
-ANGLED CORNER WITH WIDENED SIDEWALKS AND PATIO DINING OPPORTUNITIES
-INCREASED SETBACK AT GROUND FLOOR AND AT UPPER STORIES
-INTRODUCED ROOF GARDEN TERRACES ABOVE 3RD LEVEL ALONG FACADES
EX.7
VIEW LOOKING DOWN MARSH STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SANLUISOBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
revisedpreviousARC/CHC DIRECTION
-PROVIDE GREATER STEP BACKS / OR CONSIDER HEIGHT REDUCTION
-PROVIDE GREATER VARIETY IN ARTICULATION
-REVISE SCALE AND MASS ABOVE 4TH STORY
-REDUCED HEIGHT,AND MASS ABOVE 4TH STORY
-INTRODUCED MORE VARIETY AND GREATER ARTICULATION OF MASS
-INCREASED STEP BACK AT UPPER LEVELS
EX.6
VIEW FROM CHORRO STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
revisedpreviousARC/CHC DIRECTION
-REINFORCE HORIZONTAL LINES OF ADJACENT STRUCTURES
-REDUCE MASS AND SCALE ABOVE 4TH STORY
-REDUCED SCALE, HEIGHT,AND MASS ABOVE 4TH STORY
-INCREASED SETBACK AT UPPER LEVELS
EX.9
VIEW FROM DOWNTOWN CENTER PASEO
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SANLUISOBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
revisedpreviousARC/CHC DIRECTION
-PROVIDE LESS INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN CHARACTER
-PROVIDE GREATER VARIETY IN ARTICULATION
-REVISE SCALE AND MASS ABOVE 4TH STORY
-REVISED WINDOW FENESTRATION -REDUCED LARGE OPENINGS -LESS 'INSTITUTIONAL'
-INTRODUCED MORE VARIETY IN ARTICULATION WITH STEP INS AT CORNERS
-REMOVED 4TH LEVEL MASSING AND PROVIDED TERRACES
EX.5
chc &arc directional items
chc directional items
•P r o vide heigh t analysi s o f building s i n vicint y
•Distinguis h p r oject s shadow s f r o m other s
•Revie w existin g structu r e potentia l histori c eligibilt y
•Revis e scal e and mas s o f abov e fou r t h stor y
•P r o vide les s “institutional ”styl e
•Ad d a r chitectura l detail s consisten t wit h histori c distric t
•P r o vide g r eate r variet y i n a r ticulatio n
•Ad d variet y alon g sto r efr ont elevation s
arc directional items
•Reliev e buildin g mass ,p r ovid e variet y o f fenestration ,and r oof line s
•F ollo w plannin g principle s o f the Downtow n Concep t Pla n
•B e distinctiv e a s a gatewa y featu r e .The desig n shoul d b e o f its own time ,
but compatibl e wit h adjacen t histori c structu r e s
•P r o vide g r eate r ste p backs /o r conside r a heigh t r e duction .Desig n shoul d
r e info r c e the horizonta l line s o f adjacen t structu r es.
•F ocus o n pedestria n scale ,r e vitaliz e corne r o f Mars h &Chor r o ,p r ovid e
g r eate r sidewal k width s for pati o dining .PROVIDE AREAS FOR PATIO DINING AND FOCUS ON
PEDESTRIAN SCALE
REVITALIZE CORNER OF MARSH &CHORRO AND BE
DISTINCTIVE AS A GATEWAY FEATURE.
PROVIDE GREATER VARIETY IN ARTICULATION AND
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA
MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
EX.12
ROOF GARDEN
12.5’/22’setback from
property line on marsh
21’setback from the
property line on chorro
CHORRO ST.
P.L. 140.07'P.L. 119.30'(E) 10' ALLEY
MARSH ST.STREET LEVEL
12'-6" BUILDING SETBACK FROM
PROPERTY LINE ON MARSH STREET
9'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM
PROPERTY LINE ON CHORRO STREET
UPPER LEVEL
22'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM
PROPERTY LINE ON MARSH STREET
21'-0" BUILDING SETBACK FROM
PROPERTY LINE ON CHORRO STREET
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
EX.13
75’
1 2 3 4 5
1.CITY OF SLO PARKING GARAGE -MORRO ELEVATION 75’at STREET /80’OVERALL
2.ANDERSON HOTEL -MONTEREY ELEVATION 75’at STREET /80’OVERALL
3.AT&T BUILDING -MORRO ELEVATION 65’at STREET /75’OVERALL
4.MARSH &CHORRO MIXED USE -CHORRO ELEVATION 42’-6”at STREET /80’OVERALL
5.MARSH ST PARKING GARAGE -CHORRO ELEVATION 52’at STREET /62’OVERALL
HEIGHT COMPARISON
MARSH AND CHORRO PARKING
STRUCTURE
MORRO ST.ELEVATION
ANDERSON
HOTEL ATT
BUILDING 1144
CHORRO
MARSH AND CHORRO PARKING
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA MARSH &CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CADATE:09/17/2019805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
STRUCTURE
CHORRO ST.ELEVATION