The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-23-13SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 23, 2013 Wednesday 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of October 9, 2013. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes. 1. 667 and 679 Monterey Street. U 43-11: Review of a mixed -use project with 23 residential units and 24,100 square feet of commercial space including a 12-unit bed and breakfast inn and restaurant pad and review of Mitigated Negative Declaration; C-D-H zone; Michael Hodge, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal business hours. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 3. Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planner: Brian Leveille N The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. SUBJECT: Continued review of use permit to allow a mixed use project and enviroinn-iental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 667 & 679 Monterey Street BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner li p. (781-7166) bleveille slocity .or FILE NUMBER: U/ER 43-11 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director�o RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 11) which approves the use permit and recominends the Council grant final approval to the project, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. SITE DATA Applicant Michael Hodge, Shear Edge Development Representative Thom Jess, AIA Zoning C-D-S-H (Downtown -Commercial with Historic District and Special Considerations Overlay) General Plan General Retail Site Area .69 acres (30,033 sq. ft.) Environmental A Mitigated Negative Declaration Status of Environmental Impact is recommended for adoption. 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a mixed -use project with lower level commercial space, a restaurant pad, upper level residential units, and rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Contributing historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. The project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee (ARC and CHC Staff Reports, Attachments 7-9). The proposed project also requires use permit approval by the Plam-iing Commission, and final design approval by the City Council. For more background on previous review and more detail on the project site and project description, please reference the staff report which was prepared for the previous Planning Commission review of February 13, 2013, Attachment 5). U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 2 2.0 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission previously reviewed the project on February 13, 2013. Public comment primarily focused on concerns over parking impacts and the mass and height of the project. Some of the issues discussed by the Planning Commission included concerns over parking impacts, massing and height, architectural details, bike storage, and potential compatibility issues of the commercial components of the project with both the neighborhood and residential units proposed within the project (Attachment 2, PC Minutes, 2-13-13 & follow up letter). The Commission noted concerns with shading exhibits which were not correctly depicted on plans and that creek setbacks should be accurately dimensioned. The Commission discussed items for staff to address including conditions of approval in the use permit addressing hours of operation for restaurantibar hours, findings for retail uses over 2,000 square feet, and limitations on delivery times, idling trucks, and amplified music. On a 6:0 vote, the Commission continued the item with a number of directional items to be addressed when the project returned to the Planning Commission. 3.0 EVALUATION In the below evaluation, staff will discuss responses to directional items and the project's conformance with use permit requirements. Previous evaluation of the project's conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines is included in Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission Staff Reports (Attachments 7-9). Staff will also summarize the previous review during the meeting. 3.1 Planning Commission directional items l) Provide complete conditional use permit frudings for mixed -use projects Staff Analysis: Staff has included mandatory findings for approval for mixed -use projects in the draft resolution (Attachment 11). Mandatory findings for approval include consistency with the General Plan for mixed uses, compatibility of mixed uses with the neighborhood and within the project; and, that the project's design protects the public safety and welfare; and, that mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site. The proposed project is consistent with mandatory findings for approval since all proposed uses are consistent with Zoning Regulations for uses in the C-D zone. When the project site was rezoned from Office (0) to Downtown -Commercial (C-D) zoning in 2008, special requirements were placed on the project site which required use permit approval by the Planning Commission with design considerations and limitations on certain uses such as bar/tavern uses which were determined not to be compatible with the neighborhood. The project provides greater public benefits than single use development of the site since it is consistent with Housing Element and Land Use Element General Plan Policy for the Downtown. Housing Element policy encourages housing in the downtown core, particularly in mixed -use developments and states that incentives should be provided to encourage this type of development (HE Program 6.10). Housing U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 3 Element policy also encourages housing above ground -level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently (HE Policy 5.3). General Plan Land Use Element Policy encourages pedestrian features in the downtown which are included in the project including mid -block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls to invite exploration and provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting (LUE 4.5). As a mixed use project, the project also implements other General Plan Policies such as Land Use Element policies LUE 2.2.7 & LUE 4.16.2 which encourage new residential dwellings above the street level and mixed use projects where housing can be compatible with other businesses. It would not be possible for the project to fulfill these General Plan objectives for development in the downtown core without providing mixed uses. 2) Building D facing Monterey Street shall be evaluated for compatibility with the Monterey Street development pattern. Staff Analysis: Building "D" is located adjacent to the Children's museum and now includes a driveway entrance to below grade parking. The overall building height exceeds that of nearby development and is approximately 46 feet in overall height. The adjacent Children's Museum building is 35 feet high consistent with the maximum allowed height in the Public Facilities (PF) Zone. The Children's Museum building has zero foot setbacks along the corner of Monterey and Nipomo Streets. The Contributing Historic Leitcher Building is located within the project site to the east of Building "D" and is 37.5 feet in overall height. Across Monterey Street, at the northeast corner of Monterey and Nipomo Streets there are two City owned single story residences adjacent to Parking Lot #14. The Master List Hays/Lattimer Adobe is located approximately 150 feet from Building "D" to the northeast across Monterey Street. In staffs analysis, building "D" will be compatible with the Monterey Street development pattern based on building design, separation from nearby residential uses, and planned future development of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure. The building is now setback five feet at its closest point to Monterey Street and the upper floors are setback approximately 12 feet from the property line. The architectural design includes considerable horizontal and vertical articulation with a balcony, covered arcade, building offsets, and varying architectural details and finishes. The overall floor area of coverage of the fourth floor of building "D" is 1,775 square feet. Shading studies which have been corrected from the previous review demonstrate the Children's Museum and nearby residential uses will not be detrimentally affected. Buildings "B" and "C", are approximately 55 feet from the Monterey Street property line and Building "E" is approximately 90 feet from Monterey Street and approximately 160 feet from the nearest residence on Monterey Street (Hays/Lattimer Adobe property). The two City owned residential structures across Monterey Street are separated from Building "D" by approximately 90 feet and are setback approximately 40 feet from Monterey Street. Current plans for the development of the planned multi -level parking structure include demolition of these City owned residences. The proposed future Palm/Nipomo parking structure is planned for the area of the block U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 4 bounded by Palm Street on the north, Nipomo Street to the west and Monterey Street on the south. Conceptual plans anticipate a four level structure designed to accommodate approximately 400 vehicles. The proposed parking structure is currently pending initiation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 3) The northwest corner of Building D shall be setback an additional five feet from the property line. Staff Analysis: The building corner setback has been increased from the previously proposed zero foot setback to five feet (project plans sheet Al.I & PC response letter, Attachment 3). 4) Buildings B and E should include a design which could accommodate retail uses and use permit findings should include retail spaces greater than 2,000 square feet. Staff Anal Buildings B & E contain 3,446 square feet and 2,946 square feet of commercial floor area respectively. The designs of both buildings are able to accommodate retail uses. Administrative use permit approval for General Retail — more than 2,000 square feet will not be required based on Planning Commission use permit review. Staff has added a finding stating the Planning Commission finds that retail spaces greater than 2,000 square feet will be compatible with the neighborhood based on the project design and that such pedestrian serving uses should be encouraged in the project without the need for subsequent administrative use permit approval. 5) The roofline on the Bed and Breakfast (north section of Building B) shall be revised to complete the pitched roofline as seen from Monterey Street. The roof cut for the deck could remain on the creek side of the building. Staff Analysis: The gable roofline has been rotated 90 degrees from the previous design which eliminates the break in the pitched roofline (Figure 2, below & plan sheets, A3.0 & A3.5). U/E1Z 43-11., Monterey Place Page 5 6) Restaurant/Bar hours shall be limited toll porn. Staff Anal: Staff has added a condition of approval that the restaurant may not be open past 11:00 p.m, The current allowed uses in Ordinance No. 1514 allow the following uses as an accessory use to a hotel or restaurant: Night Club, Fitness Health Facility, Bar/Tavern. In order to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and residential units within the project, staff recommends modification to require administrative use permit approval for a bar/taveni use and night club if proposed as accessory uses to a hotel or restaurant. Bar/Taverns and Night Club uses would not be allowed in the project as a primary use. Alcohol service would only be allowed in coa�junction with a full service restaurant which could not be open past 11:00 p.m. U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 6 7) Revise the site plan to include greater setbacks for Buildings `B" and "E" from the south property line adjacent to the creek more similar to Building "C" and include greater step - backs on upper floors. Staff Analysis: The applicant has modified plans to include greater setbacks at the ground floor level and on upper level floors on buildings "B" and "E". The applicant's Planning Commission response letter includes comparative exhibits which show the revised setbacks in floor plan and sectional view (Attachment 3, PC Response letter). In addition to increasing the setbacks and upper level stepbacks, the architecture has been modified to have a more residential theme with the addition of gable elements and a warmer color scheme (plan sheets A2.1 &A 3.2). 8) The brick facade of the Bed and Breakfast shall be replaced with siding or another compatible material and the brick material eliminated. Staff Analysis: The brick portion of the bed and breakfast has been revised to siding (see plan sheets A3.0 & A3.5). 9) The paseo/walkway shall include an easement for public access. Staff Analysis: In the previous review, the Public Works Department included the following recommended condition of approval: "The pedestrian paseo connecting the public sidewalk on Monterey Street to the creekwalk and bridge shall maintain a clear width of 8-feet. Any temporary closures of the crosswalk, paseo, and/or access to the creekwalk and bridge after occupancy shall be properly noticed to the satisfaction of the City. " The Public Works Department has confirmed that this condition of approval is preferable to requiring a public access easement since it ensures public access yet preserves the property owner's ability to provide security and discourage loitering or any nuisance activities. This is similar to conditions of approval for projects such as Court Street, Downtown Center, and the recently approved Chinatown project. 10) The public art proposal shall be clarified and more detail provided and included in a condition of approvab Staff Analysis: The planned location of public art is located on the west elevation of Building "B" (see plan sheet A3.5 & A3.10). The final design for the public art has not been finalized and will require review by the Art Jury and Architectural Review Commission (Condition # 5, Attachment 11). The final review and installation of the art is required prior to final occupancy. The applicant has indicated interest in following the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee that the public art reflect the history of the site. U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 7 ll) Affordable housing requirements shall be set as a condition of approval. Staff Analysis: The applicant has identified Unit 206 as the proposed affordable unit to meet City affordable housing requirements. Unit 206 is a one -bedroom, one -bath unit that is 717 square feet in size. With the exception of one other 1-bedroom unit, the project consists of 2-bedroom, 2-bath units that range in size from 1,086 square feet to 1,775 square feet. General Plan Housing Element Policy HE 4.2 states that affordable units should be comparable in appearance and basic quality to market -rate units. Since the proposed unit to be designated as "affordable" is smaller than the balance of market rate units in the project, the Housing Programs Manager has recommended the unit be dedicated at the "low" income level instead of the proposed "moderate" level. Alternatively, the applicant could choose the option of dedicating one of the 2-bedroom, 2-bath units at the "moderate" income level. A one - bedroom unit at the "moderate" income level has a maximum sales price of $253,400 or a maximum monthly rent of $1,256. At the "low" income level, the unit would have a maximum sales price of $144, 750 or a maximum monthly rent of $905. Staff has included a recommended condition to set the affordable housing requirement as a condition of approval. The condition also requires that one of on - site parking spaces discussed below be reserved for the affordable unit (condition 6, Attachment 11). 12) Explore a parking plan for residential uses (at least l per residential unit and bed and breakfast). Staff Analysis: The project now includes 29 parking spaces provided in mechanical parking lifts under Building "D" which are accessed from Monterey Street. By providing 29 parking spaces on site, there are enough spaces for one space for each residential unit and several spaces are provided for use of the Bed and Breakfast. The parking is proposed in a three -level stacked mechanical lift system. The mechanical parking lift would only be reserved for residential units and for use of bed and breakfast staff. The applicant has provided specification sheets which indicate the system (Klaus, Trendvario 4300 Standard Model) is suitable for standard cars, station wagons, and vans (PC Response letter, Attachment 3). While the project is located in the Downtown Core area, and is not required to provide any on -site parking, the proposal to include on -site parking provides a functional solution for the residential units since at least one residential unit can be provided with guaranteed on -site parking. Since the project site is located in the Downtown Parking District, the applicant can satisfy the remaining parking requirement for the project with the payment of in -lieu fees. The applicant has indicated interest participating in the recently adopted program designed to accommodate residential parking in the downtown core. City regulations currently allow residents in the C-D zone to purchase monthly ten hour meter permits that allow them to park in the 842 Palm Street parking structure and City Parking Lot #14 located across Monterey Street from the project site. Lot #14 will not be available during the construction of the Palm Nipomo parking structure. Before deciding if the future structure should be designed to accommodate overnight parking, Council will need to consider the projected parking demand of daytime and nighttime users and the costs associated with providing overnight parking (i.e. lighting and security). U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 8 Mechanical Parking Lifts The City recently adopted regulations to allow for mechanical parking lifts. The regulations allow mechanical parking lifts to be established in commercial zones and multifamily developments based on conformance with standards and required findings for approval. The regulations are provided below followed by staff analysis: 17.16.060. Parking Space Requirements D. Mechanical Parking Lifts. In commercial zones and multifamily developments, by approving an administrative use permit, mechanical parking lifts may be used to satisfy all or a portion of vehicle parking requirements. Additional surface parking up to twenty-five percent of the required minimum amount of spaces may be required for lift systems unable to accommodate a range of vehicles including trucks, vans, SUVs, or large sedans. Application submittals shall include any information deemed necessary by the director to determine parking can adequately and feasibly be provided and that the following performance standards can be met and the following findings for approval can be made: 1. The use of mechanical lift parking results in superior design and implementation of city goals and policies for infill development. 2. In existing developments and established neighborhoods, mechanical lift parking will be adequately screened and compatible with the character of surrounding development, - and, in new developments, mechanical lift parking shall comply with community design guidelines and be compatible and appropriately considered with overall building and site design. 3. Mechanical lift parking systems shall comply with all development standards including but not limited to height and setback requirements, and parking and driveway standards with the exception of minimum parking stall sizes which are established by lift specifications. 4. There exists adequate agreement running with the land that mechanical parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of maintenance. 5. There are no circumstances of the site or development, or particular model or type of mechanical lift system, which could result in significant impacts to those living or working on the site or in the vicinity. Staff Analysis: The proposed parking lift system implements City goals and policies for infill development, mixed use projects, pedestrian access, and housing above ground floor uses. The parking lift proposal results in superior design since it provides an option for on -site residential parking without the need to provide surface parking. The mechanical parking system will be not be visible from the surrounding neighborhood since it is located underground and is compatible with the proposed project. The driveway ramp and parking area has been evaluated by the Public Works Department for conformance with Parking and Driveway Standards. The Public Works Department has included a recommended condition of approval requiring the driveway ramp width to be widened to 16-20 feet to accommodate two-way traffic. Staff has included a condition of approval included in use permit conditions requiring that the system must be U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 9 maintained in continual operation. The draft resolution includes findings for approval of the mechanical parking lift system. 13) The use permit shall include limitations on delivery times, idling trucks, and amplified music. Staff Analysis: Municipal code requirements for mixed use projects require that the commercial components of the project may not operate outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. unless a Director's approval is obtained to ensure the commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project. Staff has added conditions of approval to the use permit which prohibit deliveries outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and prohibit idling trucks at all times. Recommended conditions prohibit amplified music or entertainment which exceeds the "ambient" level as defined in Zoning Regulations (Attachment 11, Condition #4) unless a use permit is approved for a night club use permit for approved accessory bar/tavern or restaurant uses as discussed under directional item #6. 14) Revise the Hydrology section of the Initial Study (page 17) as appropriate for consistency with the State Storm Water Program. Staff Analysis: Staff has removed the previous discussion in the Hydrology analysis which erroneously referenced Storm Water Regulations which are no longer pending (pre and post impervious surface area). 3.2 Zoning Regulations The project complies with development standards for the C-D zone including height, setbacks, parking, coverage, and density. No exceptions or special incentives are requested. 3.2.1 Creek Setbacks & Shading Study The applicant has revised creek setback dimensions to accurately reflect the distance from various points of the proposed building to the edge of riparian vegetation as determined by the City Natural Resources Manager. The dimensioned setbacks at the basement level range from 21 feet from the corner of Building "E' at the closest point to 55 feet from building "E". The required minimum setback is 20 feet. Plan sheets A 7.5-A 7.9 show setbacks to the creek area for all floor levels in the project. Since the project steps back from the lower floor levels, the setbacks increase on the upper floors. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has completed an initial study to assess the potential environmental effects of the project. Minor updates to reflect project modifications since the previous Planning Commission review have been incorporated. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment U/ER 43-11, Monterey Place Page 10 10). Mitigation measures are recommended in the areas of air quality and cultural resources to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures potential environmental impacts as a result of the project will be less than significant. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. 2-13-13 Planning Commission minutes and follow up letter 3. Planning Commission response letter 4. Correspondence received (in order of receipt) 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 13, 2013 (without attachments) 6. Reduced scale plans 7. ARC conceptual review report, dated April 16, 2012 8. CHC report, July 23, 2012 9. ARC final review report, dated October 1, 2012 10. Initial Study— Mitigated Negative Declaration 11. Draft Resolution approving use permit Enclosed in packets: 11x17 plans in color =mmn rzz \lri SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson, Vice -Chairperson Eric Meyer, and Chairperson Michael Draze Absent: Commissioner Airlin Singewald Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Dawn Rudder ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of January 9, 2013, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 667 and679 _Monterey Street. U 43-11: Use permit review of a mixed -use project with 23 residential units and 24,100 square feet of commercial space including a 12- unit bed and breakfast inn and restaurant pad; C-D-H zone; Michael Hodge, applicant. (Brian Leveille) Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, and recommended the Commission adopt the resolution approving the use permit and recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Commr. Multari questioned if the use permit is in fact a final approval or a recommendation. Mr. Leveille stated that the use permit is the final action by the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Meyer expressed concern with vehicle parking and the proposed bike storage in the basement level. Thom Jess, applicant representative, made a presentation on the project and answered several specific questions from the Commission including discussion on hours of operation from uses such as a bar/restaurant and pool hours for the rooftop facility in the bed and breakfast building. Commr. Multari questioned whether the Paseo walkway access included a public easement. Mr. Jess stated that it was included in the conditions. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 2 In response to questions from several Commissioners, Mike Hodge, applicant, indicated the parking across the street in Parking Lot #14 is where a plan for overnight residential parking would need to be finalized with staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS: David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, noted several concerns with the project including its scale, design, and density. He indicated a physical model should be presented by the applicant. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with the scale of buildings, and that he felt the height of the buildings was not consistent with the vision of the Downtown Concept Plan. Linda Groover, San Luis Obispo, pointed out that the buildings are too high. She also voiced disappointment that there was not a scale model provided as requested. Dave Hannings, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition against the project stating the project is too large. He also expressed concern regarding the parking issue and the loading and unloading near the project. Dixie Cliff, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition against the project stating the five -story buildings are too high and should not be used for office space. She appreciates the renovation of the Leitcher building and the separate buildings. Mark Johnson, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern that each commission looks at a specific aspect of the project and not at the whole picture. He urged the commission to seek a specific parking plan and he also voiced concern about the noise from the restaurant and the loading and unloading areas. Ursula Bishop, San Luis Obispo, also urged the commission to seek a specific parking plan but also to set stipulations on delivery times, double parking, amplified music, hours for restaurant, before the project is approved. Elisabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, concurred with what others from the public have said. She expressed concern with the creek walk. She voiced disappointment that a physical model was requested at several meetings and it still has not been presented. She also stated that a five -story building is too high and a three-story building would be sufficient. Joseph Abraham, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern with the 50-foot height of the buildings and the effect it would have on the creek walk. Sandra Lakeman, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern over the dark brick, the color and the scale of the buildings, and the inaccurate setbacks to the creek shown on plans. Bill Walter, San Luis Obispo, voiced support of the mixed -use project and noted that he felt it has struck a good balance for the site. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 3 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice -Chair Meyer expressed concern with creek setbacks and parking. He also stated that access to bike parking should be more convenient for users. Commr. Larson pointed out that the compatibility of the project should also include across the street. He expressed concern with the loading and unloading areas, the pedestrian bridges, and the creek setbacks. Mr. Jess pointed out that there was a designated spot for loading and there will be alternate areas at certain times of the day designated for loading and unloading. He also stated that the pedestrian bridges were created to provide a sense of community to the residents. Commr. Larson discussed that, although the Commission is concerned with parking for the residential uses, the relevant policies of the General Plan encourage flexibility in meeting parking standards for this type of development. Commr. Fowler voiced concern with the parking issue and the building mass. He indicated his support of the Leitcher Building rehabilitation. Commr. Multari pointed out that the findings to approve the use permit will need to be added before the Commission can take action. He expressed concern with the setback to the creek and questioned whether there was enough open space along the creek. He also voiced concern with the brick fagade on the B&B building which does not work with the siding. He also commented that the roof line of the B&B building, which is cut off for the roof deck, should be revised. Commr. Stevenson concurred with all comments. He stated that incorporating setbacks on upper floors can help with the massing of the buildings, and he noted the colors appeared dark. Chairperson Draze voiced concern with the parking and the mass of the pedestrian bridges on the upper levels. He asked for clarification on which phase the Affordable Housing units will be included. He stated the affordable unit should be included in Phase 1 and described in the conditions of approval. Commr. Stevenson questioned if the creek setbacks on the plan are accurate. Mr. Leveille stated that the dimensions shown on plans were to approximate locations of the creek's top of bank since the project did not require any setback exceptions and the Natural Resources Manager had indicated the project was in compliance with creek setback regulations. Commr. Larson emphasized that the project having no on -site parking is consistent with the policies for the downtown. He also noted that the project needs improvement in how it interfaces with the creek and that mixed -use findings need to be provided. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 4 Commr. Multari discussed some of the background of C-D zoning and parking in -lieu fees. He noted that residential uses pose a dilemma and that the required parking for 23 residential units would have an impact on the street. Commr. Meyer noted that he was most concerned about Building "E" and the small deck sizes. Commr. Fowler stated that intensity is the issue since there may be too many units that results in the large massing. Commr. Draze noted that the number of residential units should be kept high, but that a parking plan needs to be established so the units can feasibly be marketed. He also noted concern with the creek setback in relation to Building "E." Commr. Larson noted he would like to see a higher degree of certainty that parking will be addressed. Commr. Multari pointed out that some positive aspects of the project should be recognized. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, motion to continue project to a date to be determined by staff with the following issues addressed: • Provide complete conditional use permit findings for mixed -use projects. • Building D facing Monterey Street shall be evaluated for compatibility with the Monterey Street development pattern. • The northwest corner of Building D shall be setback an additional five feet from the property line. • Buildings B and E should include a design which could accommodate retail uses and use permit findings should include retail greater than 2,000 square feet. • The roofline on the Bed and Breakfast (north section of Building B) shall be revised to complete the pitched roofline as seen from Monterey Street. The roof cut for the deck could remain on the creek side of the building. • Restaurant/Bar hours shall be limited to 11 p.m. • Revise the site plan to include greater setbacks for Buildings "B" and "E" from the south property line adjacent to the creek more similar to Building "C" and include greater step -backs on upper floors. • The brick fagade of the Bed and Breakfast shall be replaced with siding or another compatible material and the brick material eliminated. • The paseo/walkway shall include an easement for public access. • The public art proposal shall be clarified and more detail provided and included in a condition of approval. • Affordable housing requirements shall be set as a condition of approval. • Explore a parking plan for residential uses (at least 1 per residential unit and bed and breakfast). Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 5 • The use permit shall include limitations on delivery times, idling trucks, and amplified music. • Revise the Hydrology section of the Initial Study (page 17) as appropriate for consistency with the State Storm Water Program. AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Multari, Stevenson, Meyer, and Draze NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Singewald The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. Commr. Stevenson pointed out on page 17 of the initial study checklist, he is concerned with the statement "Does not exceed pre -development runoff' and he indicated it should be removed. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast Doug Davidson presented the agenda forecast for upcoming meetings. 3. Commission Commr. Fowler will be out of town for the meeting on the 27th ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Dawn Rudder Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on March 27, 2013. Sup�*ising Administrative Assistant 7D city of SAn Luis OBISPO Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Michael Hodge 351 San Miguel Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: U 43-11: 667 and 679 Monterey Street Use permit review of a mixed -use project with 23 residential units and 24,100 square feet of commercial space including a 12-unit bed and breakfast inn and restaurant pad Dear Mr. Hodge: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 13, 2013, continued consideration of the above -listed project to a date uncertain with the following issues to be addressed: 1. Provide complete conditional use permit findings for mixed -use projects. 2. Building D facing Monterey Street shall be evaluated for compatibility with the Monterey Street development pattern. 3. The northwest corner of Building D shall be setback an additional five feet from the property line. 4. Buildings B and E should include a design which could accommodate retail uses and use permit findings should include retail greater than 2,000 square feet. 5. The roofline on the Bed and Breakfast (north section of Building B) shall be revised to complete the pitched roofline as seen from Monterey Street. The roof cut for the deck could remain on the creek side of the building. 6. Restaurant/Bar hours shall be limited to 11 p.m. 7. Revise the site plan to include greater setbacks for Buildings "B" and "E" from the south property line adjacent to the creek more similar to Building "C" and include greater step -backs on upper floors. 8. The brick fagade of the Bed and Breakfast shall be replaced with siding or another compatible material and the brick material eliminated. 9. The paseo/walkway shall include an easement for public access. 10. The public art proposal shall be clarified and more detail provided and included in a condition of approval. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. U 43-11 (667 and 679 Monterey Street) Page 2 11. Affordable housing requirements shall be set as a condition of approval. 12. Explore a parking plan for residential uses (at least 1 per residential unit and bed and breakfast). 13. The use permit shall include limitations on delivery times, idling trucks, and amplified music. 14. Revise the Hydrology section of the Initial Study (page 17) as appropriate for consistency with the State Storm Water Program. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Leveille at (805) 781-7166. Sincerely, y Doug Davidson, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Attachment 3 T U D l 0 ARCHITECTS October 7, 2013 Brian Leveille, AICP Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Re: Monterey Place Application ARC/ER/U 43-1 1 Planning Commission Response Letter Dear Brian: This letter outlines changes that were made to the plans in response to the planning commission directional items list that were prepared for this project following the Planning Commission hearing. Directional Item: Building D facing Monterey Street shall be evaluated for compatibility with the Monterey Street development pattern. Response: The building D elevation includes large setbacks, a covered porch, a gable roof, brick, siding and stucco elements along with grouped residential style windows. All of these elements are consistent with the neighborhood pattern and incorporate architectural cues from the Leitcher Apartment building. The specific brick that is being proposed is now a lighter colored brick than what was previously proposed. Directional Item: The northwest corner of Building D shall be setback 5 feet from the property line. Response: The building corner is now 5' from the property line. Please see A1.1. Directional Item: The Roofline on the Bed and Breakfast (north section of Building B) shall be revised to complete the pitched roofline. Response: The roofline of this building has been revised so that the gable roof element is rotated 90 degrees from the previous configuration. This eliminates the broken gable look of the previous design. Please see A3.0 & A3.5. Directional Item: Revise the site plan to include greater setbacks for Buildings "B" and "E" from the south property line adjacent to the creek more similar to Building "C" and include greater step - backs on upper floors. The brick fapade of the Bed and Breakfast shall be replaced with siding or another compatible material and the brick material eliminated. Response: Both buildings B & E have been reconfigured to increase the distance from the creek. The ground floor has been moved back and greater step backs have been implemented on the upper floors. In addition, the look and feel of buildings B & E has been made more residential with the addition of gable roof elements and a warmer color scheme. The minimum deck depth is now 6'. Please see sheets A1.0 - A1.4, A3.2, and A4.0. The brick portion of the bed & breakfast has been revised to siding. Please see A3.5. In addition, 1306 Johnson Avenue F! SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 M P: 805/547.2240 im! F: 805/547.2241 THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608 several comparative plan and section exhibits have been created and are found at the end of this letter. Directional Item: The public art proposal shall be clarified and more detail provided. Response: The location of the public art is shown on the building elevation as well as an enlarged detail. The CHC dictated that the art be related to the history of the site or area. Although the specific art has not been selected, it will comply with these requirements. Please see sheets A3.5 & A3.10 Directional Item: Explore a parking plan for residential uses (at least 1 per residential unit and bed and breakfast). Response: 29 parking spaces have been added to the project. The parking is located under building D and utilized mechanical stacked parking. This exceeds the recommendation for one parking space per dwelling unit. Please see the attached exhibit showing the configuration of the garage as well as a cut sheet illustrating the specifics of the proposed parking lifts. Directional Item: The use permit shall include limitations on delivery times, idling trucks and amplified music. Response: This is acceptable. In addition to changes made in response to the directional items other revisions made the plans in response to less formal feedback include: Reduced the overall building area by 3,859 SF and added 29 parking spaces. - Reconfigured the bike parking in the basement storage area under building C. The idea is to simplify the process of residents getting bikes in and out of the storage area. We also added a curb along the edge of the stairs up to the paseo so that people can wheel their bike up and down the stairs. An exhibit illustrating the reconfigured space has been attached to this letter for your reference. - Revised the Monterey Street elevation of building E, behind the Bello residence, to make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Please see Perspective #4 on A2.1. - Revised the creek setback exhibits to identify the top of bank and top of riparian vegetation. We also identified the 20' setback from the top of the riparian vegetation and added dimensions from the top of the riparian vegetation to the edge of the building. The top of the riparian vegetation was identified by the natural resource manager and located by a surveyor to assure that it is accurately illustrated on the plans. Please see sheets A7.5 — A7.9. - The shading study has been corrected to fix a previous drafting error. Please see sheets A8.0 & A8.1. Thank you for all you efforts reviewing this project and please do not hesitate to let me know if we can provide any additional information that would be helpful. Sinc rely, Thom Jess, A 1306 Johnson Avenue im SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 9, P: 805/547.2240 s� F: 805/547.2241 THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608 k I G w c o I 00 az I Li �O J I . w �IfI1I N 11ll LtL L r-I Llf.Ll 4 ui J a r r I W I 1 ¢ J IrrI Q 1 I Z I I I I I o v I , ❑ W u_� W V' II W LL O I QC7 L� Ivll--J .0- S W W LU LLA q� 18 3 il", _ ZF' i ' -- � - 4 q These floor areas need to be horizontal and on J equafTevc[ across the fiiiTNri�th cii'Tlie pit �� Ct7WACT 006 N `CES If height H is larger. vehicles with the maximwn height as applicable far the GF can be parked on the UF, or the extra space can be used for pipes ?& ducts. ,,,,= Standard is 1u' 18`-11" ava[iable i ; Standard is 4400 11s; 5720 lbs is available Product Data TRENDVARIO 4300 UMBER OF PARKING SPACES non. 5 to max. 23 vehicles lmmms: All space requirements are minimum finished dimensions. Tolerances for space requirements plus Y" minus o SUITABLE FOR' Standard passenger car, station wagon/ van. Height and length according to Contour, Immimummm gg a 114' V-11" S-i" 4'11" t g 12'-4" 4.11,E ¢ „T' Vt11" Oil # ,q max.4400/5720LOS STANDARD PAsmrr:R CAR I� STANDARD STATION WAGON/VAN/5UV** 4: 8,4, Standard passenger cars are 'vehicles without ally sports options such as spoilers, low -profile tires etc. = &tcke, sure to obseme and dimensionst The Klaus "TrendVario r€3oo provides independent access to all cars parked r.,n the system. Each Individual parking bay must be. acessbile, from the drive aisle. The drive aisle shall comply with local regulations, but is typically 2 ' wide. Tne parking spaces are arranged on three levels. The upper and totver level parking spaces move vertically. The middle parking spaces move borizontally(left and right) to allow upper or tower level cars to come up or dovvr€ to driveway level and be driven off the plaffmrr€s. The middle level of the machine includes one ies s car than k"e upper and lower level to enable the lower cars to move Left and right to create the vacant space, f y€ .z s€ a �7vt-'£.:•�:,, t t € :`fire€i¢s£ r .:- £ £ r¢i €'9 r €k £ t - <� �_ �w.(1nu3r� ., € f . so,r __[ . I, This parking system is suitable forself parking by owners, rente-s, regular employees or anyone that can be. trained on the system. -1 he public may not park on this system without a valet. Environmental conditions for the systems: Temperature ran=e W to io4T. The system crust be installed Indoors. If tiWng cr lowering times are specified, they refer to an environmental temperature of 7a.` 1: and with system set: up directly next to the hydraulic unit. At tower temperatures or with longer hydraulic lines, these times hlcrease. ra, .€ dank€Ikta t2� '° rF€r Ea€.r€.Erb a [t 0-M,=��, The machine comes standard with manual doors and z keys fobs per parking space. The key fobs are inserted into a user control box centrally placed on the system. Electric doers arr, available infrared control t-ansm€tters are available. i€E „ zti . i €i.s T 41 E € EM i Standard space numbering is left to right with the empty space located in the first bay on the left. The empty space can be moved to another bay or even outside the normal machine if needed. The numbering sequence ptannecl will he shown on the shop drawings and approved bythe client. €: :E. Mr.s EEM".:(i The spriulders may be mounted at the front and rear of earh level if needed. See Sprinkler Details Drawin- p ,£ L aE: t'i- € ,.: 6 E7 E ^ir 3 - fit E?4 sg, tk IA_,&a <ic .nn,�,a:u, .¢ s�. ,,,€ t..r 1_ :,:.r�., pi-'� � .r u„>�. ».3�Ri B. L sal ..a., msPs The hydraulic power unit is normally installed :against the back waft on a meta( bracket with rubber sound insulationu it consists of an electric motor, hydraulic motor and hydraulic oil reservoir in one unit. The hydraulic oil is biodegradable and environmentally friendly. The motor is 3 phase, 208 volt, G.o KVJ. It is possible to use singte phase power if needed. The power unit has a pressure gauue and pressure relief valve. The platforms are galvanized and the steel framing memebers are powder coated. The platforms should be cleaned annually to maximize their life. z afi t € a € t s -rt s 1 ..,aa..€ iUl;� 2Imm To maintain safe and :reliable operation of the machine, it must be serviced twice per yea r. fir';"?QM , .KIER € e ¢' t € € i .ieMt.6 I „ E., .; E rl To machine has a complete one year parts and labor warranty. Klaus provides extended warranties. s�_ f fa € ¢€€ l€li;,3¢r€ €i°r,a.€Putr HI`t Numerous sound control features are standard. The hydraulic power unit is mounted on rubber pads. Steel hydraulic tines are mounted with rubber pipe supports. A rubber hose isolates the ponder unit from the steel hydraulic lines. Sound tests at the front of the machine show about 6; dB to 6gdB (A vreighting) noise teveis (speech at z foot is 68db). In m iltifamily podium construction, normai'y no special construction for sound is performed. For residential or good frame construction, placement of the power unit is critical. Klaus des€;ners will assist with power unit placement and other sound -sups, jhiia€ t(I f rMUNNE! Lrt`eat i_St�t... W� _ 3URI!b�*�r¢� xia>t€last>..,.Y14.:IF.'i Is The machine has steel framing and is anchor bolted to the concrete garage slab with wedge anchors. The frarnevrorl< consists of steel columns and beams on a grid pattern, The machines steel columns are connected to the building at the rear wall and to a steel tube at the front of the machine. The tube steel is typically io" x io" and also provides seismic bracing as well as support for the gates. This tube steel and associated concrete columns are supplier] and installed by the customer. Please refer to the'ltendvarie 4300 3racing Details drawing and Mer!de engineering report for dciai's. The platforms for the upper and lower cars consist of steel platforms that ride up and down the steel columns. The platforms for the cars at the driveway tevel run left -right on steei rails. The upper and lower ptatfornis are constructed with b,°ao sleet side members, three steel cross members, ribbed steel platform material which runs from side member to side member and one wheel stop. The platform is solid and does not allow oil or waterto drip onto the lower cars - The, tilting mechanism fortha upper and lower platforms consists of a hydraulic cylinder wrhlch raises the rear of the: ptaifurrn. The front of the platform is raised via a chain which runs on chain sprockets. There are safety switches that stop the machine in the event ,he chain goes loose for any reason. The platforms are suspended at the q corners and are guided along tirc front support columns. The middle platforms are moved via an electric motor located on each platform. The motor drives a sprocket that runs atone a chain at grade level. The platform runs on steel guide rails and can be moved manually without power by releasing Vie braise on the electric motor. The machine includes several safety devices which include chain ;nonitoring systems, and safety locks for the upper platforms. When a user's inside the machine all platforms are mechanically projected against lowering. € 7£€ ,1 @ ! € E k R t 3 t € € E -y2 _.�._ e,d.,s.,. s. The pit and surrounding walls, columns and beams to provide support forthe machine are provided by the c.us! caner. z. All pit drainage is provided by the customer. 3. General lighting in the garage is provided by the customer. Klaus will supply lighting Within the machine- The lighting will be connected to the machine control box and will be activated when the doors are open. 4, Klaus will supply design assistance and will confirm in writting that the proposed machine will fit in the the space provided. 5. luaus will prepare shop drawings showing the location of all components. b. The c.uston-€er must cto.se oft the left and right sides of the machine with a wall or fence. The fence must be 8' high and the tower 5 fee` must have no openings greater than 1(2" inch. /. The customer must provide a 3o amp 3 phase 208V circuit and fused disconnect for each machine and power must be available before installation begins. 8. Klaus provides all controlwinng and conduit. T 3 .I€ - I b f Yf 3P i€ € k + £ vo la E € r € rjFib 3 € € tP_I I �` i € fi M,-EpE?. 9 „ a eE£i€.. «>,.r5,r f ur,E..,. For example, to retrieve platform No. 3: Check first that all doors are closed, then select No. 8 on riser control. For driving the vehicle off platfomr No. 8 the ground floor parking platforms sue shifted to the left. The empty space is now below the vehicle Tire vehicle on platform No. 8 which shall be driven off the platform, can. now he driven offthe platform. The platform No, 3 will be towered. I I I I I I I F I I I e, B F I i I o m i I I Sn Oln;ad ------------ — µNaann� I j .0-z1 I I o ZQp i I I I I I i o�aw I a _j Z 0zZ 0 0 p � SnOln3ad I oL-.a1 I i 11N3aJnO I I� I 1 ndad 7 iN3aarn� I I I 1 I Isnolnaad 3aan� I m 1 .e-at C9 1 O I m 1 � n U 1J w� -- F F U C] c < z - -- an Oln38d —� _ I ,01-,ZI I � SnOlnaad o m SOb[Aadd I @ 11N3a21n0 I w'— a z4 I I .c-.z I o' o 1Naanp I I ra I pp I I I I I <z E I I I I I I n101naad i I � I 6r.yl snolnaad _ I o ,_.tl I I I iNaaan� I I::o ,� g o 0 IooN o,oa I p ', < O11. I z I I I zp3w t9 I I I I I °>ow o f snolnaad I .plst `o u I I !rGdaan� �zO � I I �oL m _ S'1O1n92d Oa J :.. 9 SnOlA3Jd I I ,0�1-L-.- z 'z I I iNdaano I s° O c.L Im I' I I snolnaad nolnaad .J 1N3aNn7 1N3;J21n7 LU ��::Z-:tZ a..-.....,y 1 LU snolnaad 6!J ° 11 ndad o J 1 ,:S-.6 m l „ss zao 1 W 1N3?1" O 1 .,S-z I Zpz p 1 I r I 3z ....... LL r N. I f o O cl 1 U snolnaad O O to S'IOIn3Yd o�<w W I „01-SI Ohzz f Na do p> o w 1 N aanD g 1 Q ro r LIJ m 1 0 l snolnaad uj SnOlndad , „6-,L 1N3ddn i ®® I 1NaaanO 1 6-.a I n 1 I Q II I Q I I r 936 1 ® JI u I I 7 snolndad I 1N3aanO 8- 96 I I I SnOln3ad I ,•01-,41 I IiNdaanO 9-.Zz I I I I I I I I rJ I I I o I snoln3ad z � o I 1NaaanO o o a w I Coxw 7 = w I I I _J I� I � srolndad � I. I 1 iNdaanO .Z-. I Z I zQo 1 boo 1 00= II oQzz I Iwo I I 1 1 I snOin3ad 1 5-51 I 1 iN3aanJ z-.61 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I LU LU —I im O J LL— Z F O 1 Z Q`1 a w he LIM J U..I Q U Q Q Q � w Z Z Z 0 in © © Q O U � � OL r o ry n o N N N O per. z U V) W OC CL iu G �r- w w CU � C� OJ w d Q ` w w co U i i Q Q Q z z z w w w LU N N w w w x Off x w U U- O J Q i— w Cal Q z w 0 LU w Q z w Q LO w Q z w Q w w U LL- Q w 0-1 A z b O w � 11 — J %� W U LL LL O J Q W z _® V LU N LU H Q Q O u o0 O W U w N � � J J J Q Q Q Z Z Z � 0 0 v7 uj LU w w w 0L' nK nK FFt w "' ° -1 ��z s o�) O0� z 30 LU V Q O tm LU se J LU 4AJ J Z LLJ IJ.1 VJ Attachment 4 1336 Sweetbay Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 March 13, 2013 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Re: Continued Hearing: U43-11 Monterey Place Your Commission's review of this project on February 13, 2013 gave the impression that design, not land use, was the central concern; yet everyone seemed to be hampered by a lack of adequate visualization tools to understand the project's potential impacts. Commissioners also seemed to be hesitant to even discuss design, perhaps due to the previous design approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). It would be extremely helpful for all concerned to review a 3-D model and a simulated walk-through prior to the next public hearing. Public comments should then be allowed from the advantage of this new information. Central to staff and the Commission should be the following concerns: Monterey Street is an old residential environment in this project's location. It has little to do with the intense commercial character of Higuera or Marsh Streets downtown, and a project here should be presented in scale with this historic neighborhood. Pedestrian views of the project from both sides of Monterey should be presented in models, which can depict the height and scale of the project with respect to adjacent buildings and nearby residences. Urban design speaks to the creation of compatible scale and massing within a built environment. Good urban design guidelines for downtown are adopted in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines starting on page 45. The unique character of the Monterey Street residential environment is exactly on point with these guidelines, due to its low heights and scale: • The guidelines suggest that "generally" all buildings should "not exceed three stories... to `enclose' the street..." And, "different height and scale of new structures should complement existing adjacent buildings and provide human scale and proportion." This guidance seems particularly important in the Monterey Street environment, yet it was not followed by the ARC or CHC. • The guidelines speak to scale by suggesting that "New structures should not be significantly taller or shorter than adjacent structures unless the proposed structure can provide a visual transition from the height of adjacent structures to its higher portions." The term "significantly" should mean that more than minor differences would not be advisable; usually significance is detected if more than a 10 to 15 percent difference is present. • Most importantly, the guidelines on page 46 state that "New buildings should fit in with the existing vertical scale." And, "where necessary to protect... street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories and a maximum height of 35 feet." This guideline is for the entire downtown; where else than Monterey Street would it be more fitting? The Museum of Art and the Children's Museum book -end this block of Monterey Street. These are "landmark" buildings as important civic structures, which in urban design practice should be taller and more unique than surrounding ones. However, they will ultimately be at a three-story scale. Their uniqueness should be respected by scaling the proposed project at or below this scale. The project is not a landmark building, but the developer assumes that the project deserves the full 50-foot height limit. It would be beneficial to view the height limit as just that, and follow the guidelines and rational thinking to scale the project height at a lower level at this location. If staff and the Commission do not want to view a scale model or 3-D tour, the City should err on the side of caution and follow the guidelines as closely as possible, as suggested in the following comments about the project as it was illustrated in the February 13, 2013 staff report. 1. Building D, next to the Leitcher Apartments building on Monterey Street, is too tall and massive. It also over -shadows the Children's Museum. This is a classic case where the project should be no more than two stories at 30 feet in height in accordance with the City guidelines. Low -pitch mansard roofs should be tried instead of parapet walls. 2. Building B, C and E should be no more than three stories (with the basement added), at 35 - 40 feet, to reduce their scale over the creekwalk and to be in perspective scale with the Leitcher Apartment building and other existing buildings. Views of the project from across Monterey Street should also be respected and kept in perspective scale. These modifications would probably reduce the heights of rooflines within this perspective. 3. Other design issues are a concern, in particular, the modernist approach with the new buildings. Every effort should be made to blend with the existing built environment, and let the civic buildings carry the modernist standard. If not, at least do not have the "metal awnings" be the signature feature of the facades. These are dated and quite kitschy. 4. Restaurant and Bar uses create huge parking demand and will disrupt all other uses in the vicinity. Parking should be obtained before this project is built, and a garage is not a sure thing at this time and cannot be relied on. 5. Noise from these proposed uses will also create continuing headaches to contain, mitigate and reduce conflicts with the creek environment, upstairs residents and the existing neighborhood. The best approach is to avoid these impacts and prohibit any "bar," but allowing drinks to be served with meals in restaurants. Or, require any bar to operate as part of a restaurant and have it close at the same time for the sake of nearby residents. 6. A creek bank setback should be established before Commission approval, with any necessary adjustments to the site design completed before approval. It is remarkable that the Concept Plan, City staff and the commissions did not anticipate a broader public way along the creek in this setting, which could have been obtained through a plan line and project dedication. The public is really going to be squeezed in what will be a built canyon. 2 It has been unnoticed that the Leitcher project at Nipomo and Dana Streets provides the example of successful urban design. It successfully converted a residence property to offices with buildings in keeping with the historic creekside Livery building. The scale, roofs and materials of these buildings should be the touchstone for this project. Time and again, City guidelines are being set aside or misinterpreted in favor of a project applicant. Perhaps the staff, Commission members and City Council would like to consider how to strengthen the guidelines and rule out more permissive allowances except in the most compelling situations. Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Jamie Lopes Dear Sir/Madam The proposed project at 667 Monterey should be supported and approved. The project is well designed and would be a great addition to lower Monterey. This site has been in blight in this beautiful part of town for years and I look forward to a vibrant development on this site. I support this project and hope it will be approved. ex Mi 192Sa San Luis Obispo, CA Brian Leveille, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Brian, I am writing to support the Monterey Place project. The project was well conceived and addresses the needs of this stretch of town. With the restoration of the Leitcher House, the developer is preserving an important piece of our history while revitalizing a prominent infill site. The proposed project provides connectivity between Monterey, Higuera and the future parking structure between Monterey and Palm. It provides a mix of residential and commercial uses that integrates well with the neighborhood and enhances Monterey Street. Developments such as Monterey Place are what the city should encourage I hope to see this approved. Respectfully, J Chad Van Til Leveille, Brian From: melodie.lhbassoc@gmail.com on behalf of Melodie Rivas <melodie@lhbassoc.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 2:16 PM To: Leveille, Brian Subject: Monterey Place Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mr. Leveille, We understand that the Monterey Place project is coming before the Planning Commission, and we wanted to voice our support. We both work in downtown San Luis Obispo, so it is nice to see the revitalization that has been happening to the downtown area. We feel that Monterey Place is a part of that positive movement. This project would not only bring more life to the downtown area, but it would restore a property that has fallen into disuse and disrepair. The Leitcher House is disintegrating. It's much better that this historic building be incorporated and made part of downtown SLO once again. In addition to make the property itself more beautiful, Monterey Place would bolster our local economy. Local restaurants, businesses, and museums would be just steps away for residents of this newly created downtown housing. As local business owners, we think this is a good thing. Thank you, JR & Melodie Beard LHB & Associates, Ltd. Mueller & Mueller, LLP rr Steven Puglisi ARCHITECTS 1NC.. October 15, 2013 Mr. Brian Leville San Luis Obispo City Planning Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: MONTEREY PLACE Dear Mr. Leville, I am writing in support of the Monterey Place project in San Luis Obispo. I am a forty year resident of the Central Coast having spent the first 15 years living and working in San Luis Obispo. My office, on Dana Street off Nipomo is one block from the site. I walk Monterey almost daily on my trips downtown. I have studied the design of this project and find it well conceived and attractive. A mixed use development in the core of the city and on the creek, including restaurant, shops, office and residences. This is exactly what urban infill is supposed to be. High density yes it is and just where it should be, close to infrastructure and city services. Urban design at its best. The developer and Architect should be commended for this effort and I urge the Planning Commission to approve this worthy project. Respectfully, Steven Puglisi Principal Steven Puglisi ARCHITECTS, Inc. 583 Dana Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone 805.595.1962 fax 805.595.1980 NK BUILDERS I N C O R P O R A T E D General Contractors • Construction Management October 15th, 2013 Mr. Brian Leveille City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 667 Monterey Street- Development Dear Mr. Leveille, I am writing this letter in support of the proposed development located at 667 Monterey St. As a resident and business owner of the City of San Luis Obispo, I feel this project would be a positive asset to our community. The project is a great fit for the proposed location. It will meet many of the City needs and goals, including housing in the downtown core, restoration of an existing historical structure, and the infill of what is now an under-utilized vacant lot. Additionally, it will add a positive element to the creek path, making it more attractive to both residents and visitors. I urge the City of San Luis Obispo to work with, and support this Development. Regards, rmraz+Ka#v Tim Tillman President NK Builders, Incorporated 697 Higuera St Suite G San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • Phone (805) 544-4457 Fax (805) 888-3697 GC License 4 772045 lfflarft CIYV OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DEPORT ITEM # I BY- Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (781-7166) V/- MEETING DATE- February 13, 2013 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development FILE NUMBER: ARC, U, ER 43-11 PROJECT ADDRESS: 667 & 679 Monterey Street SUBJECT- Use permit request for a mixed use project and environmental review, RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the use permit and recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Figure 1. Proposed Monterey Street elevation I1M.Tv:( ► 1. Situation The project proposal is a mixed -use development with lower level commercial space, a restaurant pad, upper level residential units, and adaptive reuse of the Contributing historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. Project features include a pedestrian paseo through the project from Monterey Street to the creek walk and pedestrian bridge south of the project site. The project has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. The proposed project also requires use permit approval by the Planning Commission, and final project approval by the City Council. 1 U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 2 Previous Review General Plan Amendment and Rezone Special processing requirements were applied to the site when the Council approved its rezoning from Office to Downtown -Commercial zoning through Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series). The Planning Commission use permit review was a requirement of the rezoning to assure that new structures and modifications to existing structures are compatible with and complement structures on adjacent properties (Attachment 4, Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series). The Ordinance approving the rezone also required the project to return to the Council for final approval. Conceptual ARC Review On April 16, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a conceptual review of the project (Attachment 5, ARC Staff Report). The purpose of the conceptual review was for the applicant to receive feedback from the ARC prior to finalizing plans and proceeding with the final design review process and submitting plans to the Planning Commission and City Council for final project approval. Public comment focused on concerns with the overall height of the project and massing adjacent to the creek walk. Commission comments included discussion of the need to create more variety between buildings and that rooftops should be revised to be more consistent with the downtown. The Commission also discussed the need for more information for final review including architectural details and more information to evaluate the project's massing, scale, and architecture in comparison with surroundings to include a site model or visual simulation (Attachment 6, ARC follow up letter and minutes). ARC direction also included revisions to the paseo entrance at Monterey Street to enhance its visibility from the public right-of-way and Parking Lot #14 (future designated location of Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure). CHC Review The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the proposed project on July 23, 2012. The CHC evaluated the project for conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for modification to the Historic Leitcher Building, and evaluated the project for conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines for new construction in the Downtown -Commercial Historic District. The CHC also reviewed recommended mitigation measures for potential impacts to archaeological resources for consistency with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 7, CHC Report). The CHC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project based on the final project design's conformance with previous direction from the ARC (Attachment 8, CHC Minutes & resolution). U 43-11 (Monterey place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 3 Final ARC Review On October 1, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the revised project for final architectural review approval. The ARC evaluated the applicant's modified plans for consistency with ARC direction (Attachment 9, October 1, 2012, ARC Report). The majority of the Commission found that the applicant had adequately responded to direction from the April 16, 2012, conceptual review. Public comment voiced concerns over the mass of the project adjacent to the creek area (Attachment 10, meeting minutes and resolution recommending final approval). On a 4-2 vote, the ARC recommended that the City Council approve the revised project design (Commissioners Ehdaie and Curtis voting no). Data Suinnaar� Address: 667 & 679 Monterey Street Applicant: Michael Dodge Representative: Thom Jess, AIA Zoning: C-D-S-H (Downtown -Commercial with Historic District and Special Considerations Overlay) General Plan: General Retail Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for adoption (Attachment 12). Figure 2. Project site and vicinity U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 4 Site Description The project site is .69 acres in size (30,033 sq. ft.) and is located at 667 & 679 Monterey Street in the Downtown -Commercial Zone with Historic District and Special Considerations Overlay (C-D-S-H). The project site is on the south side of Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets (Figure 2, above). The site is within one block of Mission Plaza and adjoins the City creek walk and San Luis Creek bridge crossing to the south. The Children's Museum is located to the west of the site. City Parking Lot #14 and the future site of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure is located across Monterey Street to the north. The site is developed on the eastern portion of the lot with the Leitcher building, which is on the City's historic resources list as a Contributing historic resource. The westerly portion of the lot has been used as a temporary parking lot and is surfaced with deteriorating AC paving. The site topography slopes gently downward to the rear of the lot towards the creek area. Project Description Summary Description and Statistics The proposed project includes several components with upper level residential units, commercial floor space with restaurant pad, and restoration and adaptive reuse of the Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. There are five buildings proposed for site development (Buildings A-E). Including both phases, there are 23 residential units proposed which average 1,350 square feet in size. 20 units are 2-bedrooms and three units are 1-bedroom units including one unit designated "affordable". The total square footage of floor area in the project for residential units is 30,069 square feet. Proposed commercial floor area in the project consists of the bed and breakfast (Leitcher building — Bldg A), restaurant (Bldg C), and the lower level office/retail spaces and basement level spaces of Buildings B, D, & E. Building E at the southeast portion of the site is a mixed use building that would be developed as part of Phase 2 of the project. Total commercial floor area in the project including the bed and breakfast is 23,793 square feet. Note — a complete breakdown of uses and square footage by phase and building is shown under "project data" on plan sheet AO.3. Site Design The project layout is designed around the paseo which will provide a link through the site between Monterey Street, the creek and Higuera Street. The proposed paseo links directly with the pedestrian bridge and the crosswalk at Monterey Street which currently connects with City Parking Lot #14, and is designated as a future location for a parking structure (plan sheet ALL). U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 5 The paseo is landscaped (plan sheet L-1, Landscape plan), includes brick inlay paving, and slopes down from Monterey Street to the creek area. The buildings on the site have are designed to have a presence on the paseo (Project statement, Attachment 2). The Leitcher building will continue to face Monterey Street and the reconstructed porch will be located along the paseo. The buildings and outdoor spaces are also oriented to face onto the creek area. The restaurant is designed with large windows and an outdoor patio area is designed to orient toward the creek view. The basement level office/retail spaces open to the creek with outdoor spaces and link into the creek walk area (plan sheet A l . 1). Architectural Design The design incorporates components of surrounding building architecture and is designed to be compatible with the contributing Historic Leitcher building. The bed and breakfast building architecture reflects elements of the Leitcher building with horizontal siding and a steeply pitched roofline. The mixed use buildings have a variety of exterior finish materials with brick finishes, smooth plaster, wood trellis elements, and horizontal siding. The project architecture is a blend and includes material elements and architectural features from several styles in use in the vicinity and downtown area with low pitched rooflines, parapet rooflines, and horizontal siding which is in use in the Leitcher building and the Soda Works building on Nipomo Street. The stucco and brick elements are used commonly in the downtown area and the arched windows reflect window features of the nearby Carnegie library at Monterey and Broad Streets, and the JP Andrews building at Osos and Monterey Street. A number of balconies and offsets are provided in the project which together with materials variation and color changes helps to break up the mass of the project. The applicant has made a number of modifications from the initial proposal to respond to ARC and CHC direction (Attachment 9, October 1, 2012, ARC Staff Report, and Attachment 11, Applicant response letter). EVALUATION Planning Commission review for the project is required because special review requirements were placed on the project when the property was rezoned from Office to Downtown - Commercial Zoning (Attachment 4, Ordinance No. 1514). The specific requirements for Planning Commission review are discussed below: 1. Ordinance No. 1514: 1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shall be required for all new structures or substantial remodels and additions to existing structures. Staff _Analysis: The proposed project is being forward to the Planning Commission for use permit review consistent with this requirement of Ordinance No. 1514. U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 6 2. In reviewing the use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the design of the structures shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties. Complementing the design of historic structures shall take precedent over complementing design of other existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials, roof treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures. Staff Analysis: The project was designed to reflect materials and architectural themes from the architecture of historic buildings in the vicinity and the downtown area. The rooflines of the structures have been redesigned consistent with ARC direction to reflect parapet rooflines typical of buildings in the downtown area. Material use such as horizontal siding is consistent with the Leitcher Building, Soda Water Works building on Nipomo Street, and Hays/Lattimer Adobe across Monterey Street. The use of stucco and brick elements is consistent with materials used in the downtown and the arched window elements reflect features of the Carnegie library at Monterey and Broad Streets, and the JP Andrews building at Osos and Monterey Streets. Consistent with Community Design Guidelines, the finish materials proposed such as plaster, horizontal siding, clear glass windows, and brick facing are appropriate for buildings within the downtown area, and are high quality and authentic. The Architectural Review Commission found the project consistent with Community Design Guidelines and the Cultural Heritage Committee found the project consistent with the Downtown Historic District and complementary with the architectural character of surrounding buildings, and consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. In order to address potential compatibility issues with the San Luis Obispo Children's Museum, the applicant has agreed to make several modifications to the project. A solid wall will be constructed along the west property line to provide additional privacy and separation between the project site of the proposed project, and the outdoor activity areas of the museum. The wall will be constructed in the early phases of construction to provide additional buffer from construction operations. In addition to constructing the solid wall, the wash area shown on plans for the restaurant will be relocated back away from the outdoor activity areas of the Children's Museum. The applicant will also be required to provide notice to tenants and owners in the project of the existing Children's Museum use and intermittent noise levels that can occur from the museum's outdoor activity areas in order to limit any potential future complaints. The residential uses and Children's Museum should remain compatible since only three of the residential units in the proposed project are located immediately adjacent to the outdoor activity area and the Children's museum is normally closed by 5:00 p.m. 3. The following land uses shall be prohibited unless approved as an accessory use to a hotel or restaurant: Night Club Fitness/Health Facility Bar/Tavern U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Paae 7 4. Due to traffic, noise generation, and development character along the street, the following land uses shall be prohibited facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets: Medical Services Fitness/Health facility (when allowed as an accessory use) Night club (when allowed as an accessory use) Bar/Tavern (when allowed as an accessory use) Banks and financial services (when allowed as an accessory use) 5. The following uses may be allowed with approval of an administrative use permit: General Retail -more than 2, 000 square feet Staff Analysis (3-5 above): The attached resolution includes land use restrictions as specified above and adopted by the City Council when the project site was rezoned consistent with Ordinance No. 1514. All proposed uses on the project site will have to remain consistent with these provisions. Any proposed bar/tavern or nightclub in the project would be prohibited and would require an administrative use permit if proposed as an accessory use to a restaurant or the bed and breakfast proposed in the project. In August, 2012, the City Council adopted Zoning Regulations amendments which included the category: "Restaurant with late hour alcohol service". Based on current regulations, any restaurant proposing to serve alcohol after 11:00 p.m. would require approval of an administrative use permit. In addition to the restrictions of use restrictions in Ordinance No. 1514, any proposed uses will be subject to current Zoning Regulations at the time they are requesting approval through building permit, business license, or other applicable City approvals. 6. Maximum Building Height shall not exceed 50 feet as measured from average natural grade. Staff Anal The project is in compliance with this requirement and does not exceed 50 feet from average natural grade. 7. Final design plans for the Art Center at 1010 Broad Street and the redevelopment of the Leitcher Apartment site at 667 Monterey Street shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. Staff Anal The proposal will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration of final project approval consistent with this requirement. 2. General Plan The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable General Plan Policies. General Plan Policy is in italics followed by staff s response. U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 9 Land Use Element and Housing Element Policies L U 4.5: Walking Environment Downtown should provide safe, exciting places for walking and pleasant places for sitting. To invite exploration, mid -block walkways, courtyards, and interior malls should be integrated with new and remodeled buildings, while preserving continuous building faces on most blocks. LU2.2. 7. Housing and Businesses Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed -use projects should be encouraged. LUE 4.10: Parking There should be a diversity of parking opportunities. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside the core, and professional office developments, may have on -site parking for customers and clients. L UE 4.15: Sense of Place To keep the commercial core's sense of place and appeal for walking, it should remain compact and be the City's most intensely developed area. LUE 4.16.2: Upper Floor Dwellings Existing residential uses shall be preserved and new ones encouraged above the street level. Staff Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element policies for "Walking Environment" and "Sense of Place" in the downtown core, since it provides a mid -block pedestrian connection to the creek walk area and bridge which leads to Higuera Street. The benefits of this connection will be realized to a greater extent over time once the Palm/Nipomo Parking structure is constructed across Monterey Street from the project site. The project provides a substantial housing component which is consistent with policies for residential uses above the street level and by providing housing where it can be found compatible with offices or other businesses. LUE 4.19: Implementing the Downtown Concept Plan The City will consider including features of "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, " as appropriate, in its Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines, engineering standards, and capital improvement program. Staff Analysis: The Downtown Concept Plan identifies a new pedestrian connection to the creek. U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 9 The proposed redevelopment project includes a pedestrian path linking to the creek walk which will provide an important pedestrian connection through the site. The Downtown Concept Plan calls for increased pedestrian access and new pedestrian access routes, as well as reduction of surface parking and mixed uses, which the proposed project is consistent with. HE Policy 5.3 Encourage the development of housing above ground -level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently. Program HE 6.9. Amend the Zoning Regulations and Parking Access and Management Plan to allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or who provide proof of reserved, off -site parking. Program HE 6.10: Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), particularly in mixed -use developments. Incentives may include flexible density, use, height, or parking provisions, fee reductions, and streamlined development review and permit processing. Staff Anal: The proposed project is consistent with the above Housing Element policies of the General Plan since it provides above ground level residential units and housing in the Downtown Core. 3. Zoning Regulations The project complies with all development standards for the Downtown -Commercial zone in regards to lot coverage, height, density, and setbacks. Zoning Regulation requirements for parking will be satisfied through payment of in -lieu fees. Payment of in -lieu fees for development in the Downtown -Commercial district is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.10, which states in part: "Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core. " In addition to the payment of in -lieu fees to satisfy Zoning Regulation requirements for increased parking demand resulting from the project, the applicant has indicated an interest in participating in the recently adopted pilot program designed to accommodate residential parking demand in the downtown core. The recently adopted pilot program allows subject to a monthly fee, parking for residential uses to be provided in City parking lots and structures which do not interfere with necessary parking for downtown customers and employees or do not encroach into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Parking Lot #14 has 79 parking stalls and is located across Monterey Street and is underutilized. U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Paue 10 Creek Setbacks Concern from several public speakers has been raised in prior CHC and ARC review hearings that the project may impact the creek habitat and creek walk area. The applicant has provided detailed plans with dimensioned setbacks to the creek from each floor level (Attachment 3, project plans, sheets A7.5-A7.9). The exhibits show setbacks for the lower floors that range from 32 feet to 68 feet to the edge of the creek. For the top floors of buildings, the setbacks range from 46 feet to 84 feet to the creek bank. The plans also include shading studies which show the creek will not be adversely affected by the development because of existing vegetation and the distances of the proposed buildings from the creek (Attachment 3, sheets A8.0 & A8.1). The setbacks to the creek bank area are significantly greater than existing development on the other side of the creek. No creek setback exceptions are proposed or required as a result of the proposed development. 4. Environmental Review Staff has completed an initial study to assess the potential environmental effects of the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 12). Mitigation measures are recommended in the areas of air quality and cultural resources to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures potential environmental impacts as a result of the project will be less than significant. CONCLUSION The proposed project implements various Housing Element and Land Use Element policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed -use infill development in the downtown core. The project also provides an important mid -block pedestrian link to the creek walk area and pedestrian bridge leading to the heart of downtown. The pedestrian access will become increasingly important over time when the Parking Lot #14 is developed with the parking structure across Monterey Street from the proposed project. The project has been designed in response to ARC and CHC feedback, and is consistent with the rezoning of the property in 2008, which Council approved in order to stimulate redevelopment of underutilized properties in the downtown core. The project design, and use permit conditions of approval should ensure the project development and ongoing uses will remain compatible with surrounding properties. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. U 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Paire 11 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Applicant project statement Attachment 3: Reduced Scale Project plans Attachment 4: Ordinance No. 1514 (Council approved rezoning) Attachment 5: ARC conceptual review report, dated April 16, 2012 Attachment 6: ARC conceptual review follow up letter and minutes, April 16, 2012 Attachment 7: CHC Report, July 23, 2012 Attachment 8: CHC resolution and minutes, July 23, 2012 Attachment 9: ARC final review report, dated October 1, 2012 Attachment 10: ARC resolution and minutes, October 1, 2012 Attachment 11: Applicant Response letter, dated August 29, 2012 Attachment 12: Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 13: Draft resolution approving use permit Enclosed in packets: 11x17 plans in color e �, N N LH 3-I o C'd m e a, nd wOO-.9>f2� m0 O W f 3 i n. �J I w _ ° V OU oU o p w J a Q a 47 O w�oa�0°�3 �uy a� wLL�o❑w� wwo=o `r o0. 000000d'ow°ao NH �w"3o �w::10 °oO u° - �o�-oLL Ji v u �i 55�35a - ----- .,zzz �^ g'�� ---___ w=o❑fig ,fm° uo ` � `- Z �`dM0000000wwwwwwN��' a>f��a wuuWWWxw ,LLB.. < Q w Q a Q� as¢<`g aaawwwwwww000000 w �ouuuu��uu�oaaaaa-M ��oQ `guuuuGu''sEf'sf''zfFuuuuuo°°❑°UUa,�pQ �El 6=etc-w�ooc0000iEzaiE 2� u uc�EEiwSws�uuz„�w'NmwwzZ"'�.z� VOW E� iu"��o`o`000^ooyuu��aaaaaNyNuuu000��wwwO��u��i��6Nao u°❑> aaaaaaaaaaaada wwww as �_mmu0uu�� u _ _ asaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa¢aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<a¢¢<¢¢¢¢¢¢�¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢�¢¢�u " six p woe za Jo W ❑ �.w� z a zw 500� mzN <- N k ¢0 6 Wa �i?Fm Y iu+z J O »w�J �aZ2?A <5� zU 3.w.,� "'zulu Z <w ow OGVHlOOaFCCJ r��ow�wawow�dwourcuw=-3'zomomau¢�53�3°F`aJo°a0t�oOcmp0r? SUoo~`Oa¢5mU�omzi 32oud„��ua°Qo�¢°0z.�p_omom.>w�-wwpmzzaU="-aaWa<aauQ°u°zO =d�wQzIX❑5Wuwi❑a� �,;S,�Zs...�❑prQw3" u3 �#zz��io'zy�wuowNax�pYzQ��azY;OoOn�z.��4oaaV��a,,^,Wrcop,a,, 6do�z_ao`woSurcaxu"rOm`ZauLL�ziW��ozu�ECOwSM^pFu�u❑¢0ia�QUmrw=°wiroz lu6 3�O"��a,,.,w�wworc=oQz`roQ=Oi�mz`iwtW�aLLm3,°zw��z �wuUzaxi3�y¢�obuuU=�3°a' QunV��oO, ¢�i'Oa'�aV��w<Wu7aQxoo�>�ov�ua�'pu3wrv"Ju�izg dO�a"puz-0bpL' o I a-�F ov—2 "^3o�alo- �u— -oOw �LL°az�3wu< wwnj�zLj'LL>OSf�z0IL <w-mooQx "— s p0oou-mO M=2-- irca� z»� i ffi oo DC, o1MUT �Yz¢szo-aW3Jauu�w��'z�LL�rS�z°ww�Z-ww�oO,-n" uwQ�wVi�z-�rcJuOzHo3a¢ �3p�❑iI�uUiWwwz�iz¢i,oiao.xz��LL�uozaOEE f3�ow�zmw'xwFaw°aoJ�zaa °F�ww¢rawuo., o .00u ° =a3TT u�w o iauVo 03r= suo0 xiOKidd— �UOx z zwOOOn Ug W zz0 to ol - im mmO0.0zaz�mQ�0 a<pFmz0 '.m uf�s 0 <OQZww Z¢ni§°°Ooo°oa °o° ?Iaolbi°z m w? wwum�� p�wgaU�i ��p u� xo^-,oyU< wa °o QOo >wum3z64rflox>n<,�o za �oipu�a�° o-O=F Um - a=¢ io O oF-U 'oVzinwwa�zm.2, F Y 0 O W p w a w o s ce a o d a < xL� i u o W �o dQN �W V o'^rm _ _ o ae N�2 - < �mw LLI _ O .. ,o.,au.�.,=:;_ �j�QHu°U �� -u''u>za V �s^uwO3❑��U°�O 5 �zr0 Uou omo i,:,�sa u5�R2¢wo Qo K �QSm Z5<U w NU H =JaJ¢w.. WFpJ¢w VwU¢ Z= o ¢ uz a a w �3 a o`<au'UowQa❑a Qo o��wuo°� w.o>owuQ°� Oa<3�omp��a�3 6T�N3J3NU-wa-OF°0. c�Z a-w 0 oF �O h s° °6-2 °T o 0 II z<�OaU 2M-w3ww d°` �O <W m Zop �� NQc ��❑ Qo J$z€wuxwuz-_Y Wo°-aay W�po�_�^��°.i�opa uwwzW a^SoQoN�m�u- <¢�IQY w<'oauQuoaozzFe -ozooaz oow° ��o5VpHH.-¢zu oz¢g-'O^awa.u °oAab,u�Qoz o❑3,� z oo W l!037-2 o u �w o ❑<�ffLLy�f uwmouiQz�� o�wli ww��_a°iOs ❑oZ '^oiFf a- a B Z �ua <aw z�a °dOoQuO2 Oa Fw0°�,owfQ"a'o=Q° mjaasi o bmh az 'o�JW �oUmoWr�Qg==oo� 000 z� Qi� =�i�sa �u �w < zo�w� wz i�F ❑pQ x�oSa9F0 fo�u�om� 2999-oo�M ozQu u„ z .—�..a3o'�z° <`€Gw�g,°4 �=auO€0 �° ��E❑Owa�U°°-u<z�?eWf�oo°Eo� qG u"�zO�mo_pmo¢sfo 2200axiz�m�<oF �z a°wJ`0�-3LL'3�a- �_o-o2€'w °°❑O103N0 '� z n°"=amoa auEza�aOi^�u-EzgzQo°siu�ow^ ooEo o¢°� °om coLLoU oa�mOy °az-°_zo - a z ZUEoQo'HoIg?a „„E>,�m Q�=T2z3 � 1uz>¢O 2n W. olOR u�<o�&az ��o��,��- �� s»o S 0 aoou2oz EQw. uo ul joo ELa° 3 0 V o V LL¢.. a w 0 3 ¢ S a W a w c9 um J ° c7 o'x° i°u `�n� a° 5wu �C o U 0 0 0 0 x I O (7 z U O a a '� ? m m m „ °U n - m U a 2 u ouuou 3w au uuu u,u uu-Qu u uuW,u u u G Udab o u uuu aaaa aaa a aaa d 2aa'a d a d a i° a y a d add zee J = 8 n'n g' Fn uw mO0 m` —u�j y uV� = ' wJ uu uy ma GAS z a N ..„wc W i -a w z Q �; Vu-w a�da� "' °� mo 7 VWw a a f �= s � „" ¢� aF rcUvi nLL o nz do; oz F 00 Zo w iw Q¢ i w12 O gp o iOz i O a�� u0 „ j�a2 O rcw°<E Y4uZ)o u d F, uu 2ao c -oI Wo lim7 �oaa wtow Giw L c�;a aoo'�o 00000 °Ooo� n a a a a s 0 0 0 0 H t3 t2 8 m OIL v v v v y m aaw Nil ogo 000 000 Z a Q 3 m p25o8 r8o,8 88 8 O u -doa § 8 = e� I.," -- MM M o Q p ap c o o u u s o Z o m> m} pNzruuu Nz;:uu'u �m�W =LL LL �LL LL cLL `.w a J o a wa"Q<< Waua a D,zz- u ti o�d6= ova ¢ o=� u_8 S8 m u' �"u uuuu „uuuuu w a��'� 0 w po u000 �ou000 „aa o a wd�,�r wd��r� ; as°`a=_ ua° �i° uia uQ° uaa° uia° 3 W z o aW LL�io 3 u V o a s a u a o ° o a u o o a o w o u u a o w „ o O z z ¢ ¢ H o 0 0 0 0 /Z U °n000 oaoOc polo polo o p a i w 0000 i00 m Oo _ mmery e@e�'o w r woo t7 HH S8 -S S _ _ �z o Q w�owowo'o„? z w Q N "" �� Q <n�a o8�a n� a 00000_ O o �; saJ o„o oA� U z w < o..3_z O ciii - - - uuu Z V�Hm dmr� �� -L z o „=xxasr�i LLwW zzyZMZ o �zii a ouou so s a0000000000 u000�o Fcc co pm w - p 1. i wO�rr - -w PRIAM LlUElIEl❑ N v - R - f A- gg o� F 7 hip S ---- -_ gpq a I I o € c �,€ s €ILI ❑ r _�. is - -- - -- - III � yM 1 w l o - O�W I jj I I=` I 1 I I _ I T py 1 1 ,E 1 - - - _9a _ _ _. C �� -�' -� � T� '� 9-�� ^� _ _ ul 'a�Xl �� _ I'� WI t�Jr I L� i � I —� f J ' -w O z�� I I L I C �@ L .. _� � 1 G u� �:--^ _ � +_. ... ..L-�_ 1 � i � `" it �— � I a- � o o m � � 2 a � � ' � � �;, � � ii I��, � u- m " � �_ _ �= �� i _ . ..,�,� i o o _ '� � ' �, C�� ' i i � � - � m') � � I � I !' I ! i i ' i - — _ � ... II II :' ti 'I �, "I � � � � �� .�._�._..AI-.>I II ---Ykk�t � f� L �1 � jP� H � N� ::. � I i 1 yI i � _._7 U i� 0 � �3 � � � � G z / l � �� / I L � � r —'-- d / - I .a�.o� I � 1 � � � � � ��r �' _.. �� , � / � ' s � M ❑❑❑❑❑ Kv , I I 1 1 I I I ow I I I ' I I I w4 I I ' ' I �I I I I T I I I I I I j I i tf I 1 1 I = I I I I I 1 s �l ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I _....�� I I y I I I IZ I � fi_n I I .I I I I I � � I z0 I a L zw I r l l I ______ __-___ r r - I I I I '� I t➢ II II I - I - I za � I LLz _1 I I , I , o �Iz f N� I w f` at3 L it i = ^W^�� 6d J E is GWz)dIN W_ ..�, t �'. yT� iM � tl is OVC q -.... {{ :Ty E':EE %E I ! r € I }> .. 'W iq W vWn V Is ONcdIN W r � I it f rLU i W LU LU 15 JWOdl�u W_ :, 154V(,r3 11 y U fl O � �Ut LU v - w Ob 11 I,iii J 15 OWOdIN W E H Z z0 0 H z Q O LU ¢V 0 V Ln z 0 h a 0 W p N to LU W W c LU N N a a cz go co in o a a W W LU W W z' z W W 0 0 0 0 H H W W V) W W � H Z Z d' W W W W_ y y u y z 133b15 J,3b31N04v ='E � �€ � `' �srli„,E;C. € � z E iE' a NUz'' E @ W � E s H E z Ulm lll� d t P n. f € ff p 1UH. ' i O w h�€ €� R S, €u� € fa f7E f€sE s��as� n1 p �, a ; agAl RDA,[ ; € i t tag Lii Hf f�a�fft ' O ill, � Z R€ [ E E EtfiP } jil � iJ w a LEli l� uj f€ ➢ M E ip ;.¢, 1 W pE jwm II ( 7 q- E 9 Eas�b 3E E• H€ h ��# E-. f r �.a 4 I� a a co tl € a €€f y 1 (D Z z Z a ✓r a S ,. RNA!, V. y;u - W I 11 1 _ MrITEREY STREET / �� l� - z do o� _ W _ _ y U H a LU v od a a� y u _ ct — G C. � mw w� e77' . .. ... --� - ------------- U � t. O _ dfl €rat .� A f a X I p f(f f a z z O Q —� O € $ H a. U 17 g�Tmafii qg Im o w og��' . . ........€ r € ; F k€ i€ UP,3 Q O O F N4 =� Q O l7LU lP �tJ`3 i0 0 gall .i€ r € p a. s.i w t Z W WLU W RnONTERE� STRcET a 5. T. L) @ 0 z o 0= LU ag u. co u w 0 LU 04LU LU 0 ta LU �H ne NO M, X U LU Mail 11, TRE ME ff Ram J M tll�I,N 111p TIM "M laws UZI liJ Hh L 1 H uXa t € � � QJ k€eegEtECI a E9B3 LU 0HM, ua $ r — ?' �a it €4 4 a€tea _E n € � �31�i v� - r`-�-�`�-i •7 I Ee E t I n € i' ?.':1 E EE E E ,,3 raaP.I I n r € a3f k�� . a r ��A Es c ✓ po QY 3 ��,ll ) E € € €€: 1E r� 'OP I ? ZZGv17 (7y a � y, iN aE I EE C, € f 41tt I € a � z � lkE�RPII C V�,'` `'� �� 5y� I � IE✓x4 d 3 IE € t ti { „g o a o '. .� w t 'e:W o f li F JR e g € I \ f L3' o, I d 0 0 0� M €9. J o a - sL J E O z a w W O � N a a _ W IdJ Nm a n i ru E C J € s € u r �t o 0 - s _W an, F- LU w v� w z 0 L w V) Q r- LL- j el I I I d Q — LLs _ I 1 a -- --------- ®© Tr I 1 - I 1 I i I � I i � I I i I I ra 1 � 1 p I I J I W Wiz W 'zb 003 �"—,f3d V 3�¢zu3'>° '>za��J3 ztz F 21H?.zzo�_ szOzzzzz O o n: I �1 'tH, 3' 9t!s t D 7 ®r' k � S v�g " a E z '+i3 }iff E r ERI ,xa t � 4 �E4 ' .... q ...... .. , da LU Z H Q Z U Q P.. 4 � F W 3 s > � a a LU V f W a i z u zz 0 j u O In o O O � Z - m U ®0 O? gm O l9 - z xz 0Y Ha .�QoW��o» n rrn Nro nN ry nw .-.- .-Nn - V1 _zwww'o� 'dW 'ee piapow jO �= n�3g z 00 zm_ z-.. ¢60o m000exm uonoaxm po600z w�000z t�s u'z ,w„Ow Op l� ?N fw p fw ° fw Urn fu Ur ¢ fw ifo�z0�6 mm0 Ohs All �._: I d f I B d------------- w U U O w 9 Y g� R. al N y — V 1�4 �g € k 3k i t .._.�::�€ €€[sEft _. ,. T 1' � � � �` � i � ❑® Q I - I I i 10 Z4 N \ \ | I i .. . . �� / 0 2� r �� ry r r, o r � o / r I 12 GQw 1. � w � ----- -----� d J Za IN v - U - :] V Zu' Ua ffil E41: AIR 7 7 i t E € �Y Jg��kr�� E t £ P € L_7 — n�£E Tl EUL 73� t41 TE a .. £ t IL € € €; € d H •t � � 5€3 A pll SE 1 L a u€ a I s € E ...... a€1I€ IEf P' s IT MI .. ... F Y -€€ y E � � fig{{'� : a� t EcH 1t E R $ aEa x( �EJ ]REp EAU gsf= ] €R EE i E :I LIU E EE" €(I € .. 'R A.,.E� E UIP fa- u R a € 3 g € E€N'NMi 1 ......... 4 0 �€ a° € �a E E ✓� i' ' r H a EE w LU �E Q t � E E w V H a � Q I F- I it 1 I e— z w h Q m z Q CL w V) V) h w r� C9 w I r a I _.._ ........ _..__._ m A CL LU a � a8 S §' r LLJ y _ U' .. j -- ------ \I U ' -____ -------- , I m ' I { 3 xii ix fl3 '4r a Ir .. € ty ❑® .i �� Eel - - - - - - --- -- - - -- ------� , � I ' � e o� 40a ; r� I I I ' --- ------- x ' -m , IL -1 90...,-1. F- i� o o J �T. Q 1 J u I =Fl.I- - Y �ILJ7��--/JIff l v — - - _ iq IIf l �y � IJI n A w I I � o r � � III ; � x � o � Y� ) ❑�I� ICI ,�kb�--„ I I�I J17 W w 1 � I .d I o m n/ N I I V � / OC I T o 0 I , --------------------------- -------------.�'j w H ?� Imo..- Ce7SLJ� ®fin I l_. e W W Z 0 lu V) vi ul A!V -- - eu 0 0 a x z a a LU V) V3 V3 LU fix W Ali — [❑0 ®�I _ � I 1 I I 1 1 u � � w ❑ e I e 1 _ I e v � 1 I i -- 1 A 1 I - - — 1 - - - z .AJr 1 L❑Ll--lamFEn — m 1 A m ✓ e 1 _Y =d v jn� I I 8 O ! [ I - I 1 II ' 1q I, a --- e �e I �� i w f�I�G��~� —�e �❑ �� LU oCcl [> x uo ° - J W - H e) _ gin WLU 9. k m U JLAW Z p I I I Ij W. I I U I I -- W:� I r� i L II II �1 lI I o LL z U Q 2 ICI a W L V ne C O III O �._. U LU ....p..D.„ 3 X7aii i .3k m e( 7 �00 Z x 3 wzq °ti w LU S U O O U m Z 00 m v, Zwa 0 C9 Q �c 0, o ?� u Q QI`J ❑'� Qu m� �Up Zw W nip Az' od! § a V Y€ a m E � �Aw �gilVII h I� w pgl- C� ZE I # Z w cn Uji sf I srt O z a1 i €;' o s30 no _ afF1 11 3 it ik € amo €lkti uaod a pq e� utk w€ B S- �- F k "A� y U O xa 9� h P 33 3gt 6n�ry _ W t7 .rl LU LU 4VUG Z a�Om q�q O `V U LU � U E V O iU pz �� Q f�= S im tYaUm Z Z hY 3G O OVO -� Sp T > UJ �16dLU aQ O U VO O 7 WU 3� QO&a �a L � f CSo� �� via y �6 o,z°'¢U �� O< w:to U <os Sli dlCi v�im¢m Qr�i y.� LLi� amp, N L I II II II I II I II _��61E z c o o a c> u 6 O� H v 3 5 �i E a Gl ® el I g'.® r i', O 0 ,n ca O ' y 1 I E/_G-9105 erjCjG �QG�; d ....... ru w s - 2 o a 0 U E4 I L 3 E u Z - N E3 0 `35 w HM Z� N do Yk� 4 2"p5 N - I ------------ ----------- -- - .. ....... .. ---------------------- ------- 50� ------------ Et I A I I �Rlrr Ic II El - - - - -- -- - - - - - Rl"'M H-ZIT €zi .. . ..... ....... — .......... . ..... . ..... - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - I O .... ........ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # A BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (781-7166) MEETING DATE: April 16, 2012 FROM: Pam Ricci; Senior Planner � .PILE NUMBER: ARC 43-11 PROJECT ADDRESS: 667 & 679 Monterey Street SUBJECT: Conceptual review of mixed use project containing 24,185 square feet of commercial space, including a .12-unit bed and breakfast inn, and 23 residential units on an approximately 30,000 square -foot site in the Downtown -Commercial Zone (C-D) on the south side of Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets. Figure 1. Monterey Street Elevation SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to a date uncertain with direction on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final architectural review. BACKGROUND: Situation The proposed project is a mixed -use development with lower level commercial space, restaurant pad, upper level residential units, and adaptive reuse of the Contributing historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. The project provides a pedestrian pasco through the project from Monterey Street to the creek walk and pedestrian bridge south of the project site. The applicant is requesting conceptual feedback from the ARC to see if the project is headed in the right direction prior to proceeding through the final design review process. The project will require review by the Cultural Heritage Committee because of its location in the Downtown Historical District and to review modifications to the Leitcher building, which is a Contributing historic structure. In addition, the Planning Cominission, and City Council are required to review ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) ]Page 2 project plans. Special processing requirements were applied to the site when the Council approved its rezoning from Office to Downtown -Commercial zoning through Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series). The Planning Commission will review a use permit to assure that new structures and modifications to existing structures are compatible with and complement structures on adjacent properties. The final design of the project is required to return to the Council for approval. Staff is also in the process of conducting environmental review of the project. With this conceptual review, the ARC should concentrate on the appropriateness of the mixed use project design in the context of its setting and its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The ARC has requested that large, complex projects be scheduled early in the review process to allow for Commission design input before final decisions on entitlements have been made. Conceptual review gives the ARC the opportunity to provide feedback to the applicant on additional features and/or revisions that should be made prior to final review. Data Summary Address: 667 & 679 Monterey Street Applicant: Michael Hodge Representative: Thorn Jess, A1A Zoning: C-D-H (Downtown -Commercial with Historic Overlay) General Plan: General Retail Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental impact has not yet been prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the project. Figure 2. Project site and ticinity a ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 3 Site Description The project site is .69 acres in size (30,033 sq. ft.) and is located at 667 & 679 Monterey Street in the Downtown -Commercial Zone with Historic District Overlay (C-D-H). The project site is on the south side of Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets (Figure 2, above). The site is within one block of Mission Plaza and adjoins the City creek walk and San Luis Creek bridge crossing to the south. The Children's Museum is located to the west of the site. City Parking Lot #14 and the future site of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure is located across Monterey Street to the North. The site is developed on the eastern portion of the lot with the Leitcher building, which is on the City's historic resources list as a Contributing historic resource. The westerly portion of the lot has been used as a temporary parking lot and is surfaced with deteriorating AC paving. The site topography slopes gently downward to the rear of the lot towards the creek area. Project Description Summary Description and Statistics The proposed project includes several components with upper level residential units, commercial floor space with restaurant pad, and restoration and adaptive reuse of the Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. There are five buildings proposed for site development (Buildings A-E). Building E at the southeast portion of the site is a mixed use building that would be developed as part of Phase 2 of the project. Including both phases, there are 23 residential units proposed which average 1,350 square feet in size. 20 units are 2-bedrooms and three units are 1-bedroom units including one unit designated "affordable". The total square footage of floor area in the project for residential units is 31,165 square feet. Proposed commercial floor area in the project consists of the bed and breakfast (Leitcher building -- Bldg A), restaurant (Bldg C), and the lower level office/retail spaces and basement level spaces of Buildings B, D, & E. Total commercial floor area in the project including the bed and breakfast is 24,185 square feet. Note — a complete breakdown of uses and square footage by phase and building is shown under "project data" on plan sheet AO.3. A more detailed description of each building is provided below: Building "A"- Leitcher building (Plan Sheets A6.0-A6.2) The Leitcher Building was originally constructed in the mid 1880's timeframe and is on the City's list of Contributing Historic Resources. The proposed project includes the removal of later additions from the 1930's, and a recreation of the late 19th Century configuration by reconstructing the wrap around porch and restoring exterior materials and windows. A small portion of the original porch remains on the east side of the building which, together with historical photos, can be used to model the porch recreation. The foundation of the structure needs to be replaced and the building is proposed to be relocated four feet closer to Monterey Street and six feet closer to the east property 'line. Plans indicate that ARC 43 -11 667 Momerey Street (Conceptual ARC Revie-w) I -age 4 the interior of the structure will be completely remodeled to create a manager's quarters and bed and breakfast lobby an the first floor and two guest rooms on the second floor. Staff wKI be requiring submittal of a report from a qualified architectural historian evaluating planned modifications of the f,eitcher Building for conformance with Secretaxy of Interior Standards and City Historic Preservation Ordinance. The overall project and proposed modifications of the Leitcher Building will be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Commbittee. Figure 3. Perspective view from Alonterep ,Street, Leitcher.Building Building "B" — Mixed use building and bed and breakfast The bed and breakfast portion of building "B" is located directly behind the L,eitcher building and includes three levels with three guest rooms on each level (9 units total) with a roof deck and small fitness center. The mixed use building contains lower level office space at the basement level (3,500 sq. ft.) and first floor retail,'office space (3,776 sq. ft.) on the ground level (section, sheet A4.0, and floor plans, sheets A1.O-Al.4). Floors 2-4 also include walkways with bridges that connect to the upper floors of other buildings on the site. The overall building height of the structure is 50 feet. The design of the bed and breakfast portion of building " 13" is intended to provide complementary architecture and finish materials with the L,eitcher building (Figure 4, below). Figure 4. View of Building "B" roin pasoo looking east ARC 43 -11 — - 667 Monterey Street (Conceptaal ARC Review) Page 5 Building "C" — Mixed use building with restaurant Building "C" is located at the southwest comer of the project site. Building 6 C" is four levels with basement space for storage and long tern, bicycle parking for the residential units in the project. The first floor level includes the restaurant space (3,3C5 sq. ft.) and lobby for residential units. 'mere also is an outdoor patio dining area along the creek walk area.. On floors 2-4, there are six total residential units with two residential units located on each floor. Figure S. Vie►v to north from creek area Building C D" — Mixed use building Building 6 D" is located along Monterey Street to the west of the Leitcher building on the west side of the paseo. Building "D" is four levels with lower floor commercial/office floor area (1,937 sq. ft.). The lower floor includes a covered entry feature fronting Monterey Street, and the trash and recycling storage area for the project is at the back of the building screened from Monterey Street and the project site. On floors 2-4, there are 5 residential units. Figure 6. Perspective view to the southwese from Monterey Street - -7 ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 6 Buildina "E" — Mixed use building (Phase 2) Building "E" is proposed as part of Phase 2 of the project review and is located at the southeast corner of the project site at the rear portion of 669 Monterey Street. Building "E" is a mixed use building with basement (3,500 sq. ft.) and first floor office/retail space (3,288 sq. ft.). There are six residential units located on floors 2-4. Site Design The project layout is designed around the paseo which will provide a link through the site between Monterey Street, the creek and Higuera Street. The proposed paseo links directly with the pedestrian bridge and the crosswalk at Monterey Street which currently connects with City Parking Lot 914, and is designated as a future location for a parking structure (plan sheet ALL). The paseo is landscaped (plan sheet L-1, Landscape plan), includes brick inlay paving, and slopes down from Monterey Street to the creek area. The buildings on the site have are designed to have a presence on the paseo (Project statement, Attachment 3). The Leitcher building will continue to face Monterey Street and will have the porch which provides a presence on the paseo. The buildings and outdoor spaces are also oriented to face onto the creek area. The restaurant is designed with large windows and an outdoor patio area is designed to orient toward the creek view. The basement level office/retail spaces open to the creek with outdoor spaces and link into the creek walk area (plan sheet A l . 1). Architectural Design The design incorporates components of surrounding building architecture and is designed to be compatible with the Leitcher building (Project statement, Attachment 3). The bed and breakfast building architecture reflects elements of the Leitcher building with horizontal siding and a steeply pitched roofline. The mixed use buildings have a variety of exterior finish materials with brick finishes, smooth plaster, wood trellis elements, and horizontal siding. The project architecture is a blend and includes material elements and architectural features from several styles in use in the vicinity and downtown area with low pitched rooflines and wood bracing which is reminiscent of craftsman bungalow architecture, horizontal siding which is in use in the Leitcher building and the Soda Works building on Nipomo Street. The stucco and brick elements are used commonly in the downtown area and the arched windows reflect window features of the nearby Carnegie library at Monterey and Broad Streets, and the JP Andrews building at Osos and Monterey Street. A number of balconies and offsets are provided in the project which together with materials variation and color changes helps to break up the mass of the project. EVALUATION The purpose of conceptual review before the ARC is to offer feedback to the applicant as to whether the project design is headed in the right direction before plans are further refined for ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 7 formal review. The project would return to the ARC for a comprehensive analysis at a later date, following more detailed review from City Departments and upon completion of environmental review and other required entitlements. With the ARC's review of the proposed mixed -use project, staff is primarily looking for feedback on the massing, architectural style, and detailing of the new building and its appropriateness in the context of its setting in the downtown core. At the conclusion of the report, staff has provided draft directional items as a starting point for discussion of the project. The majority of the following evaluation highlights relevant guidelines to assist the ARC in determining the project's consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 1. Community Design Guidelines Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) focuses on the downtown and describes it as "the heart of the community". The CDG reinforce that nowhere else in the City is design more important and contain guidelines that are targeted to maintain its character and vitality. The property development standards for the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone enable some of the more intensively developed sites within the City with buildings heights of 50 feet allowed by right and taller buildings possible under certain circumstances, as well as 100% building coverage. Consistent with the CDG, Land Use Element goals, and C-D zone development standards, the proposed Monterey Place is an ambitious and intensive project with buildings that contain floor spaces on up to five levels with a maximum height of 50 feet. The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable excerpts from the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Guidelines are in italics followed by staff s response. 4.2 B. Height, scale. Multi -story buildings are desirable because they can provide opportunities for upper floor offices and residential units, and can increase the numbers of potential customers for ground floor retail uses, which assists in maintaining their viability. Multi -story buildings should be set back above the second or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development, maintaining the general similarity of building heights at the sidewalk edge. 4.2B.I.d. The project provides upper story setbacks from the front building fagade along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Staffs Analysis: The multi -storied buildings within the project provide for a sizeable number of residential units (23). As called for in the cited guidelines, the buildings along the street frontage are lower in scale, such as the retention of the Leitcher house, or step back in height from the street. 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. ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 8 Staff s Analysis:- While the creek elevation on Sheet A3.2 appears somewhat visually imposing, the Section on A4.0 shows that the building will also step back at the upper levels from the creek setback. The perspective views on Sheet A2.0 help to illustrate the modulation of the wall planes along the elevation. Although it might be argued that this guideline is not directly applicable to this project because it is not immediately adjacent to one of the cited gathering places, it does back up to the public trail that is considered an extension of Mission Plaza. The elevated pedestrian bridges between buildings provide for visual openings within the project. Staff is recommending Directional Item No. 1 that the railings and finishes for the pedestrian bridges be designed to appear as transparent as possible to further enhance views through the site. 4.2.B.l.c. 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. Staffs .Analysis:_ The proposed project retains and enhances the existing Contributing historic resource on the site known as the Leitcher building. Visual space is provided around the existing house in the form of the main project paseo. New construction at the back of the existing house is differentiated from it, but also complements it in terms of colors, materials and roof pitch. I.4.A. Goals for Design Quality and Character. 1. Maintain high quality craftsmanship in development through use of authentic building styles, design elements, and materials. 2. Integrate local cultural and historical themes into building and site design where appropriate. 4. Design with consideration of the site context in terms of the best nearby examples of massing, scale, and land uses when the site is located in a notable area of the city (for example, the downtown, Old Town), 6. Require design excellence for infill redevelopment sites, especially in the downtown area. 4.7.D.I. Finish Materials ........ 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 - Glass Block (transom) Clear glass windows Staffs Analysis: As discussed in the above project description. The project incorporates historical themes of San Luis Obispo with the use of materials and architectural forms of the Leitcher building and other structures in the downtown area. The bed and breakfast building provides for a transition to the architecture of the mixed use buildings in the project and incorporates the ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 9 architectural theme of the Leftcher building and the Bello House which is the historic building on the adjacent property at 679 Monterey Street. The proposed finish materials are appropriate for use in the downtown and include plaster, horizontal siding, clear glass windows, and brick facing. Staff has included Directional Item No. 2, to ensure the windows and exterior finish materials used are high quality and authentic. 1.4.B. Design to create and maintain pedestrian scale where ever appropriate. 1. Emphasize pedestrian oriented buildings and site planning (for example, commercial storefront at the back of sidewalk, pedestrian plazas, and front porches on dwellings). 4.2 Downtown Design and Development Guidelines A. Street orientation. Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of sidewalk unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyards, or outdoor eating areas. Staff Analysis: The project is designed around the paseo, which is main pedestrian element of the project. The paseo provides direct access from Monterey Street and the parking lot to the creek crossing and creek walk area. The proposed porch of the Leitcher building will have presence on the paseo and along Monterey Street and the covered patio area and storefronts of Building D face Monterey Street. Buildings B, C, and D open to the Creek walk area and provide direct pedestrian access to the creek walk and paseo. The proposed brick inlay patterning provides an attractive surfacing to the paseo. 4.2.B.4.c. Downtown Design Guidelines 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; Staff s Analysis: The windows styles at the ground level provide suitable transparency and transition in the upper floors to window patterns reflective of traditional downtown commercial upper floor windows and are more residential in character. The project's materials and architectural character extend around all sides of the buildings. 2. Sign Program The applicant has provided a sign program (plan sheets, A10.0-A10.3). The proposed sign locations are on the lower floors of the building with the exception of two vertical banner signs along the creekside elevation, The sign types consist of a variety of blade signs, wall signage vertical banners, hanging signs, and a free standing sign at the paseo entrance along Monterey Street. The proposed sign program provides for internally illuminated channel letters and exterior lighting (general notes, plan sheet A10.0). Staff s Analysis: The sign locations and proportion of signs shown conceptually appear appropriate for the size and architectural style of the building. Staff is concerned that the use of internally illuminated channel letters would compromise the architectural quality of the proposed P ARC 43-11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 10 project and be incompatible at this location. Staff has recommended Directional Item No. 3 that internally illuminated channel letters are not included in the sign proposal. 3. Zonine Regulations Staff has found the project complies with development standards of the C-D Zone in terms of height, coverage, density, etc. The project is located within the parking district and parking requirements are proposed to be met via payment of in -lieu fees. Staff will provide a detailed breakdown of the project's conformance with development standards with the ARC's final review of project plans. SUMMARY The project is implements a number of Housing Element and Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed -use infill development project in the downtown core. The project is consistent with design principles for development in the downtown (LUE 4.16) by providing for street level activity, upper floor dwellings, continuous storefront, and sidewalk appeal. The project provides an important link through the project site from the creek crossing to Monterey Street and Parking Lot #14, which is also designed as the site for a future parking structure. While providing the intensity and scale of a downtown development project, the proposal also appears to effectively balance the need to preserve historically significant buildings, and remain compatible with the character of the downtown and surrounding development. The proposed project has the potential to achieve City policy objectives of historic preservation, compatible infill development in the downtown, and creation of additional public spaces and pedestrian access to a major activity center of the City. The project's success as a quality and authentic inEll project will be dependent on the inclusion of appropriate exterior materials and colors, appropriate signage, and properly executed architectural detail construction. RECOMMENDATION Continue the item to a date uncertain with direction to incorporate the following items into the proj ect: 1. The railings and finishes for the pedestrian bridges shall be designed to appear as transparent as possible to further enhance views through the site. 2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for final ARC review to ensure all materials, windows, and finishes are authentic and of a high quality suitable for development in the downtown area. 3. Plans submitted for final review shall include a revised sign program which prohibits internally illuminated channel letters or cabinet signs. ARC 43 -11 667 Monterey Street (Conceptual ARC Review) Page 11 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Project Statement Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Enclosed: 11x17 plans in color A color and materials board will be provided at the meeting. GACD-PLAN\BLeveill\ARC\ARC, U, ER 43-11 (Monterey Place, 667 Monterey Street).doc\Conceptual review report\ARC 43-11 (Monterey Place) Conceptual Report.docx CITY OF SAN L S OBITS G CULTURAL HERITAGE CONDYFITTEE STAFF PORT ITEM # 1 BY,° Brian L eveille, Associate Planner MEETING DATE, .7uly 23, 2012 FROM- Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long -Range planning Wt PROJECT ADDRESS- 667 & 679 Monterey Street SUBJECT: Review of proposed adaptive reuse of the Contributing 11-istoric Leitcher Apartment building and mixed use project in the Downntown-Cornrnercial 11istoric Overlay District (C-D-H). Recommend the Architectural Review Conunissiorn (ARC) approve the proposed nixed use project which includes rehabilitation of the historic Leitcher Apartment Building. .�r cxurcri� FhN'rLi PA9C. WAIF. i'flk�zYl Figure 1. Monterey ,street elevation Situation The proposed project is a mixed -use, development with lower level commercial space, restaurant pad, upper level residential units, and adaptive reuse of the Contributing historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. The project provides a pedestrian paseo through the project from Monterey Street to the creek walk and pedestrian bridge south of the project site° Where are three main components of the project which rewire review by the CHC: () Evaluation of conformance with Historic -Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of fniterior Standards for modifications to the historic Lzitcher Building; (2) Evaluation of conformance with Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines for new corNstructiorn in historic districts; and, Q) Evaluation of n-nitigation for potemtial impacts to archaeological resources for consistency with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program? Guidelines. CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 2 Previous Rcview On April 16, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission provided conceptual review of the -proposed project to provide early feedback to the applicant prior to the request of final entitlemcnts. The ARC concentrated on the appropriateness of the mixed use design in context of Rs setting and consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The ARC provided eight eirectionai items to be incorporated into the project for final review (ARC Minutes and follow up letter, Attachment 4). The ARC provided direction for the applicant to modify the proposal to achieve consistent architectural treatment on all four sides of buildings; to include more variation/distinction for each building; reduce upper floor massing; and to provide more authentic downtown, roofline treatments. In response to ARC direction from the conceptual review, the applicant has made initial modifications included for CHC review, with further ,refinements that will be completed prior to final ARC review. The applicant will be revising plans to eliminate the roofing over upper level walkways, add variety to the color schemes of each building, eliminate sloped residential style rooflines in favor of a parapet design more reflective of the downtown, and eliminate the enclosed stair on the northeast corner of :wilding "E" to reduce the mass of the cornier of the building (plan sheet A3.0 shows preliminary changes, Attachment 3). bPElc:r,� Figare 2. Project Site and 117ci ity rJtYlttt9_ lot At CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 3 Site Description and Context The project site is .69 acres in size (30,033 sq. ft.) and is located at 667 & 679 Monterey Street in the Downtown -Commercial Zone with Historic District Overlay (C-D-H). The project site is on the south side of Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets (Figure 2, above). The site is within one block of Mission Plaza and adjoins the City creek walk and San Luis Creek bridge crossing to the south. The Children's Museum is located to the west of the site. City Parking Lot #14 and the future site of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure is located across Monterey Street to the North. The site is developed on the eastern portion of the lot with the Leitcher building, which is on the City's historic resources list as a Contributing historic resource. The westerly portion of the lot has been used as a temporary parking lot and is surfaced with deteriorating AC paving. The site topography slopes gently downward to the rear of the lot towards the creek area. Leitcher Building The Leitcher Apartments Building is located within the Downtown Historic District and was added to the Contributing properties list in 1983. Previous evaluation of the Leitcher Apartment Building by Bertrando and Bertrando Consultants, confirmed the buildings significance because of its important association with community Development and its role in housing local workers. The Leitcher Apartment Building shows up on Sanborn maps from 1886 as "board and lodge". In the mid 1920's Edward J. and Charlotte Leitcher became the owners of the Leitcher building. Many occupations were listed in directories for the Leitcher building including a lineman, preacher, student, shoe maker, bookkeeper, clerk, and constable.' The architectural style of the building is categorized in the Applied Earthworks Report (Attachment 5) as Folk Victorian Style during the period of significance in the 1880's timeframe. Character defining features of the building include two story rectangular massing, steeply pitched gable roof, first story wrap around porch, symmetrical fenestration, double hung wood sash windows, broad shiplap exterior, and simple and unadorned exterior walls. Gaxiola Adobe Early Sanborn maps up to 1903 show the Gaxiola Adobe built in the 1850's by Felipe Gaxiola. The Gaxiola Adobe was situated about 20 meters west of the Leitcher House. The Gaxiola Adobe does not appear on the 1909 edition of Sanborn maps. The Sanborn maps show the adobe was very small and located close to the street in the area now used for parking to the west of the Leitcher building. Phase II archaeological testing (subsurface) has found the remains of the Gaxiola Adobe represent a historic resource under CEQA (See Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines discussion below and Attachment 6.) 1. Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation, Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants, June 2005 f CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Summary Description and Statistics The proposed project includes several components with upper level residential units, commercial floor space with restaurant pad, and restoration and adaptive reuse of the Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. There are five buildings proposed for site development (Buildings A-E). Building E at the southeast portion of the site is a mixed use building that would be developed as part of Phase 2 of the project. Including both phases, there are 23 residential units proposed which average 1,350 square feet in size. 20 units are 2-bedrooms and three units are I -bedroom units including one unit designated "affordable". Proposed commercial floor area in the project consists of the bed and breakfast (Leitcher building), restaurant and the lower level office/retail spaces and basement level spaces. Total commercial floor area in the project including the bed and breakfast is 24,185 square feet. (Project plans, Attachment 3) Site Design The project layout is designed around a paseo which will provide a link through the site between Monterey Street, the pedestrian path along San Luis creek and I iguera Street. The proposed paseo links directly with the pedestrian bridge and the crosswalk at Monterey Street which currently connects with City Parking Lot #14, and is designated as a future location for a parking structure (plan sheet A L I ). The paseo landscaping (plan sheet L-1, Landscape plan) includes brick inlay paving, and slopes down from Monterey Street to the creek area. The buildings on the site are designed to have a presence on the paseo (Design Intent, Attachment 2). The Leitcher building will continue to face Monterey Street and will have the porch which provides a presence on the paseo. The Leitcher building is proposed to be relocated three feet closer to Monterey Street and nine feet closer to the east property line. The buildings and outdoor spaces are also oriented to face onto the creek area. The restaurant is designed with large windows and an outdoor patio area is designed to orient toward the creek view. The basement level office/retail spaces open to the creek with outdoor spaces and link into the creek walk area. Architectural Design The design of the new buildings incorporates components of surrounding building architecture and is designed to be compatible with the Leitcher building (Design Intent, Attachment 2). The bed and breakfast building reflects elements of the Leitcher building with horizontal siding and a steeply pitched roofline. The mixed use buildings have a variety of exterior finish materials with brick finishes, smooth plaster, wood trellis elements, and horizontal siding. The project architecture includes a blend of material elements and architectural features from several styles in use in the vicinity and downtown area with parapet rooflines, horizontal siding, stucco and brick. CFTC Agcrda report, 667 & 679 Monterey StretA ARC 43-11 Page 5 fetcher Building rehabilitation and relocation The Ditcher building is proposed for rehabilitation and a minor relocation on site. The modifications involve the removal of non -historic additions and relocation to a new concrete foundation 3 feet toward the front property line and 9 feet toward the east property line. The Leitcher building is proposed to house the bed and breakfast lobby and manager's unit on the first floor. The second floor would contain two guest rooms. .exterior alterations include the removal of non -historic additions including; first -story addition on west side, rear additions, covered main entry porch element, squared bay window on east facade, and east side entry addition. (Project plans, Attachment 3, sheets A6.0-6.2). A portion of the original porch remains on the east side of the building. The design of the original porch will be recreated on all four sides of the building to reflect its original configuration during its period of significance. The porch will provide access to the rear of the Ditcher building to a new bed and breakfast building with additional guest rooms. The new bed and breakfast building contains three levels with 9 guest rooms, a roof deck, and fitness center. The design of the bed and breakfast building behind the historic structure provides architecture and finish materials that complement the Ditcher Building through use of a steeply pitched roofline, horizontal siding, and similar window configuration. EVALUATION The first issue for CHC review includes review of proposed modifications to the Historic Leltcher building and evaluation of compliance with Secretary of interior Stand-urds for Building Rehabilitation and 11astoric Preservation Guidelines. CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-1 t Page 6 Secretary of Interior Standards An evaluation of the proposed alterations and relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building was performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. The report, prepared by Ms. Victoria D. Smith, M.A., provides recommendations to ensure rehabilitation and relocation plans are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines (Applied Earthworks Report, Attachment 5). The Applied Earthworks report finds that the most appropriate treatment is best characterized as "rehabilitation" under the SOI Standards of Treatment since a compatible use is proposed (bed and breakfast) and the project involves retention and repair of historical materials and alterations to the building to prepare the property for the bed and breakfast use. Staff will be including all recommendations of the Applied Earthworks report as conditions of approval. The recommendations contained in the Applied Earthworks report include modifications of proposed porch deck extensions and stairs to and various measures that detail the proper removal of non -historic features and proper treatment of remaining historic materials and features. The Applied Earthworks report finds that the proposed plans for the Leitcher Building are consistent with 8 of 10 standards for rehabilitation, but that the proposed project does not comply with Standards 6 & 9 (see Section 4.2, Applied Earthworks report, Attachment 5). The proposed project was found consistent with Standard 5 subject to clarification of the project description. SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Staff Analysis: The applicant's plans state that the original porch will be removed and rebuilt ("reuse material and/or rebuild in kind"). The remaining decorative porch supports and covered porch features on the east elevation are character defining features of the building. The Applied Earthworks report notes that if there is a compelling need to remove and rebuild the porch on the east side of the building that all removed materials that can be reused should be integrated into the rebuilt porch in its original configuration consistent with Standards for Rehabilitation. It is staff's understanding based on a site visit with the applicant, that the decorative brackets, porch supports, and any other original materials will be reused and that rebuilding the covered porch is necessary to remove non -historic portions of the railings and so deteriorated features can be replaced in kind and integrated with the replaced porch sections that will be constructed around the building to restore the portions of the wrap -around porch removed circa 1945-1950. Staff has added conditions of approval to ensure that remaining historic materials are reintegrated into the rebuilt porch in its original configuration consistent with Standards for Rehabilitation (Condition # 1). SOI Rehabilitation Standard #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. CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 7 SOI Rehabiliation Standard #9. New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall 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. Staff Analysis: The proposed plans show the porch deck extending beyond the original porch and roofline along portions of the north, west, and rear sections of the building. The Applied Earthworks report finds that, as proposed, the deck extensions affect the symmetry of the porch as viewed from the street (primary view) and the footprint deviates from the original porch footprint on the west side (secondary view) of the structure (Figure 4, below). The porch extensions are also not found to be sufficiently differentiated from the old. The new set of porch stairs leading up to the west side of the building is acceptable in placement since it does not impact the primary view of the building, but the design does not sufficiently distinguish the stairs from the original porch configuration which did not have stairs on this side of the building. MONTEREY STkEE7 I Deck extensions f _-= ,r�� o ' NOT �I �i I�� m�■�nn�u.r�irn.�w�wni...w....n.:rrw.rr.■ r` r�wr�■�■�w�' �mmwiouna■� �-W KX .` r r i '■�� rrrr Proposed �5 stairs MILEs�' ..■. �■ _._.------------- ZY foil 41 1 rol o a fa Figure 4. Leitcher Building deck plan In order to be consistent with SOI Standards and City Guidelines, the report makes three recommendations for changes to proposed plans. In summary, the recommendations include revisions of porch plans to remove the deck extensions past the historic roofline limit on the north and west elevations, and to include sufficient differentiation on the rear deck and west side porch steps with compatible but differentiated design treatment and/or materials. Staff is CHC Agenda Report, 667 &r 679 Monterey Stueei -A-C 43-11 Page 8 supportive of allowing increased deck area adjacent to the original deck and porch line provided there can be sufficient differentiation from the original and that the syrnmetry of primary and secondary views are not affected (C-ondition #21. The project architect will be prepared to discuss options to achieve these objectives at the meeting. One possible option to rnainta.in additional deck space without affecting the symmetry and character of the original deck railings, and rooflines would be to have the new additional deck area at a lower grade with use of different railing materials such as wrought iron. Applied Earthworks recomrnendations are incorporated as project conditions of approval and staff has clarified that deck extensions could be allowed subject to retaining synametry and addressing proper differentiation between original and new features, Figure 5. Remaining porch support and decorative brackets along east elevation S®I Rehabilitation Standard #2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The rennaoval of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and Spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. ,Staff Analysis: The proposed relocation would move the building three feet toward the north property line (Monterey Street) and nine feet towards the side yard property line to the east. Relocating historic structures has the potential to affect the spatial relationship of the property. Moving the structure 3 feet closer to the Monterey Street property line will have a n-inirnal effect on the front yard setback pattern established on this property and in the district. The proposed new position of the 'wilding will still allow for unobstructed views of the structure and front yard space between the sidewalk and the building will continue to exist. The Applied Ear&works report finds that the historic setback patterns for the block have already been affected by road CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 9 widening, sidewalk installation, and reduced setbacks for new construction, so there will not be an impact on the front yard setback pattern of the district by reducing the current 19 foot setback to 16 feet. The Children's museum on the adjacent property to the west has a zero foot setback and the Bello House located immediately to the east of the Leitcher building has an 18-foot setback from Monterey Street. Other residential properties that remain in the immediate vicinity have greater setbacks, but are interspersed with parking lots. The Applied Earthworks report also finds that the proposed new position of the building will still allow unobstructed views of the building from primary and secondary views established in the study (north and west fagade). The proposed relocation was found consistent with the above standard. With inclusion of recommendations from the Applied Earthworks report discussed above, the proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the Leitcher Apartment Building is found consistent with relevant Historic Preservation Guidelines (Section 4.3, Attachment 5). Historic Preservation Guidelines The second issue for CHC review includes evaluation of the project in its entirely with respect to its location within a historic district. The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide information and guidance to ensure new development is compatible with the historic fabric of the identified districts. The below staff analysis focuses on the project's compatibility within the Downtown - Historic District. 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district's prevailing historic architecture as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the districts historic structures as described in Figures 2 & 3. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. Staff _analysis: The proposed project includes a blend of project architecture with material elements and architectural features from several styles in use in the vicinity and downtown area. The project will include parapet rooflines typical of commercial construction in the downtown and horizontal siding is also used which reflects the Leitcher Building and nearby Soda Works building on Nipomo Street. The project's use of stucco and brick elements are also commonly used in the downtown area and the arched window elements reflect features of the nearby Carnegie library at Monterey and Broad Streets, and the JP Andrews building at Osos and Monterey Street. Balconies and offsets are provided which together with the materials and color variation helps to break up the mass of the project. Project modifications responding to ARC direction will further reduce the apparent scale and add more articulation. The Leitcher Apartment Building is separated from new construction and the proposed bed and breakfast building behind the Leitcher building provides a transition in scale, roof form, and materials to the rest of the project. CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 10 Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines The last item for CHC review involves evaluation of the project's consistency with the Archaeological Resource Guidelines. A Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SARE) was prepared by Mr. Clay A. Singer, Anthropologist, to evaluate potential impacts to archaeological resources (Attachment 6). The testing strategy was designed to find privies and refuse deposits behind the Leitcher Building and evidence of the foundation of the Gaxiola Adobe. Six trenches were dug with the expectation of finding evidence of the Gaxiola Adobe and features behind the Leitcher Building. The Gaxiola Adobe was located 20 meters west of the Leitcher building which is believed to have been built in the 1850's by Philipe Gaxiola. The Gaxiola adobe is shown on 1886 Sanborn maps, but does not appear on 1909 or later additions. Six trenches were excavated, examined, and backfilled. The results of Phase II testing are found to suggest the remains of the Gaxiola Adobe and the grounds under and around the Leitcher House have the potential to contribute new information to the California historical record and are significant historic resources based on the California Public Resources Code (CPRC). Staff is currently in the process of preparing an initial study to assess the portential environmental impacts of the project and anticipates a mitigated negative declaration (MND) will be recommended for adoption by the City Council. Phase III Impact Mitigation Plans are recommended for both the Leitcher Building and the Gaxiola Adobe. The Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines recognize Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE) as a method to recover important archaeological information and mitigate project -related adverse impacts. Staff has included a condition of approval implementing Leitcher Building and Gaxiola Adobe mitigation measures outlined in the Singer SARE report during the initial phase of redevelopment when earthmoving activities begin on the project site (Condition #4). All recommendations of the SARE report will be incorporated as final conditions of approval and evidence of compliance with all Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE, Phase III) measures of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines shall be verified prior to issuance of building permit for new construction. Summary The proposed rehabilitation of the Leitcher building will provide for the long term preservation and adaptive reuse of a currently dilapidated and vacant structure that is threatened. The proposed rehabilitation to a bed and breakfast is similar to its original use as a boarding and lodging house and will require minimal alterations when compared to other possible adaptive reuse land uses such as retail, office, or restaurant use. The removal of non -historic additions and construction to restore the wrap around porch which is a character defining feature will enhance the historic character of the property and add to the importance of the building as part of the Downtown Historic District. The overall project implements Housing Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, and Land Use Element policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed -use infill development project in the downtown core that includes rehabilitation of an historic structure. The project is consistent with design principles for development in the downtown by providing for street level i CHC Agenda Report, 667 & 679 Monterey Street ARC 43-11 Page 11 activity, upper floor dwellings, continuous storefront, and sidewalk appeal. The project provides an important link through the project site from the creek crossing to Monterey Street and Parking Lot #14, which is also designed as the site for a future parking structure. While providing the intensity and scale of a downtown development project, the proposal also appears to effectively balance the need to preserve historically significant buildings, and remain compatible with the character of the downtown and surrounding development. Recommendation Recommend to the Architectural Review Commission that the project be approved, based on findings, and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards. 2. Continue the item to a date certain with specific direction for additional discussion or research. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Design Intent Attachment 3: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 4: April 16, 2012, ARC Minutes & follow up letter Attachment 5: Applied Earthworks Report, April 2012 Attachment 6: Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation, July 15, 2011 Attachment 7: Draft Resolution Enclosed: full color 11x17 reductions 7',I CITY OF SAN LU S OBISPO ARCHITECTUWJ L REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT # i Y� B-,;an iLeveille, Associate player MEETING DATE. October 1, 2012 FROM- Pain Ricci, Senior fanner PKI FILE NUMBER-. ARC 43-11 PROJECT ADDRESS- 667 & 679 Monterey Street SUBJECT: Final architectural review of development plans for a Axed -use project with 23 residential units, 24,100 square feet of commercial space, including a 12-unit bed and breakfast inn and restaurant on an approximately 30,000 square -:foot site in the Downtown -Commercial Zone (Cali) on the south side of Monterey Street between Nipomo and goad Streets. Figure 1. Monterey Street elevation ra ` "f. ► ►l � =1, � Well Adopt the Draft resolution (Attachment 7), which recommends to the City Council that the revised project design be approved, based on findings, and subject to conditions. Situation/Previous ARC review Can April 16, 2012, the ARC conceptually reviewed the proposed mixed -use project. The ARC continued action to a date uncertain with specific directional items. This report focuses on the odified plans and evaluates their consistency with ARC direction. The more detailed ARC report prepared for the April 16, 2012 conceptual ARC review is attached for its background information and analysis (Attaohment 6). The applicant has modified plans in response to ARC direction and recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee (Attachment 4, ARC directional items and minutes). The AFC's purview with the review of the project will be deter -mine if the revised plans have adequately ARC 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 2 responded to prior directional items. The ARC's action in this case will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council. When the project site was rezoned from Office to Downtown -Commercial in 2008, special processing requirements were applied to the site when the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1514. The Planning Commission will review a use permit to evaluate compatibility of the project with surrounding development. The final design of the project is also required to return to the Council for approval. Staff is currently in the process of conducting environmental review for the project. The initial study will be included for review with Planning Commission Use Permit review and the environmental determination will be adopted by the Council with final approval of the project. CHC Review On July 23, 2012, the proposed project was reviewed by the CHC. The CHC evaluated the project for conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for modification to the Historic Leitcher Building, and evaluated the project for conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines for new construction in the Downtown -Commercial Historic District. The CHC also reviewed recommended mitigation measures for potential impacts to archaeological resources for consistency with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The CHC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project based on the final project design's conformance with previous direction from the ARC (CHC Minutes & resolution, Attachment 5). Data Summary Address: 667 & 679 Monterey Street Applicant: Michael Hodge, PE Representative: Thom Jess, AIA Zoning: C-D-H (Downtown -Commercial with Historic Overlay) General Plan: General Retail Environmental Status: An initial study is currently being prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts of the project. The environmental determination and analysis will be available for review and considered for adoption when the City Council considers final project approval. EVALUATION When the ARC previously discussed the project on April 16, 2012, the Commission provided direction to the applicant and staff (Attachment 4). In staff s analysis, the applicant has adequately responded to all of the Architectural Review Commission's directional items and the recommendations of the CHC. The applicant's responses to ARC direction is highlighted in the following paragraphs: Commission Direction # 1: The railings and finishes for the pedestrian bridges shall be designed to reduce massing on upper floors with a more delicate design. ARC 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 3 Staffs Analysis: To lighten the appearance of upper floor pedestrian bridges, the roof over the fourth floor walkway has been eliminated. In addition, a dark painted steel 42-inch railing is used as a safety barrier along the walkway on the top floor. This more open railing design on the fourth floor is differentiated from the lower floors which use a lower plaster wall with 18-inch metal railing (Attachment 3, Revised project plans, see Sheet A3.9, Walkways and Exterior Stairs, and elevations, plan sheets A3.1-A3.5). • Commission Direction # 2: More variation/distinction shall be provided for each building, and all buildings shall have a consistent architectural treatment on all sides. Staffs Analysis: The previous design received some ARC feedback that the monotony of the buildings was an issue; especially as viewed from the creek. The revised building designs include variation in window design, rooflines, and railing details. Distinct color schemes have also been added to each building. The buildings now appear distinctive from one another architecturally and provide more visual interest, but also are complementary to each other as a cohesive project. • Commission Direction # 3: Reduce the appearance of overall mass by providing more vertical articulation, especially at the edges of buildings. Staff s Analysis: The revised building design includes increased step backs on the upper levels of the buildings facing the creek. The step backs are primarily at the edges of the buildings which have resulted in a reduced building area of 1,488 square feet. The modifications to pedestrian bridges and added architectural variation discussed above along with the removal of trellises from Buildings `B" and "B" help to minimize the overall apparent building mass within the project. • Commission Direction # 4: Explore cornice treatments for roof forms. The roof forms shall be authentic and consistent with multi -story buildings in the downtown. Staffs Analysis: The sloped mansard roofs have been replaced with cornice treatments and parapets. The cornice treatments include simple stepped elements at the main body of the building and include more detailed cornices with bracket treatments. Sloped roofs remain in several areas and are intended to add interest along the roof line of the buildings. The revised rooflines appear more consistent with roof forms for multi -story buildings in the downtown. The proposed pitched roofs with exposed rafters appear appropriate given the proportion of residential units in the project and the transitional character of the site. • Commission Direction # 5: Create a more inviting entrance to the site at Monterey Street to clearly show the pedestrian paseo leading into the site with landscaping or surfacing treatments up to Monterey or across the right-of-way. Staffs Analysis: The paseo paving pattern has been extended across the sidewalk to directly connect the paseo with the new crosswalk. The trees have also been spread out in the area so there is a wider, more visible opening to the paseo from the other side of the street. The revisions highlight an important link to the downtown from the parking lot and future location of the Palm/Nipomo parking structure. ARC 43-11 (Monterey Place) -- 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 4 Commission Direction # 6: Plans submitted for final review shall include more detail of the project's massing, scale, and architecture in comparison with surroundings. A physical model is recommended; or, an enhanced 3-D site model or visual simulation. Staffs Analysis: The applicant has provided before and after visual simulations which are based on the City provided Sketch -up model of the downtown area along with photos taken from various points around the project site (Attachment 3, plan sheets A2.0-A2.8). The photo simulations show that because of existing vegetation around the creek areas much of the project will be substantially screened from view from several vantage points around the project. The applicant will also be providing a "fly through" 3-D video simulation at the meeting which will provide additional context around the site for comparison with surroundings. Commission Direction # 7: Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for final ARC review to ensure all materials, windows, and finishes are authentic and of a high quality suitable for development in the downtown area. Staffs Analysis: Enlarged details have been provided in revised plans sets which detail building components. There appears to be sufficient detail for the Commission to evaluate finish materials (Attachment 3, Enlarged detail sheets, A3.6-A3.10). The detail sheets provide call outs on window types, insets, cornices, sills, lintels, and trellises. Detail sheets also include descriptions of finishes for pedestrian bridges, walkways, exterior stairs, and paving. Commission Direction # 8: Plans submitted for final review shall include a revised sign program which prohibits internally -illuminated channel letters or cabinet signs. Staffs Analysis: The sign program has now been amended to eliminate internally illuminated channel letters and cabinet signs. The proposed sign locations and proportions of signs appear in keeping with the architectural style of the project and are appropriate in size, number, location, and variety (Attachment 3, sheets A10.1-A10.3). Building "E" Modifications: In the April 16, 2012, conceptual ARC review staff discussed needed revisions to building "B" which is part of Phase 2. In the presentation, staff presented the following added directional item which erroneously was not included in the follow up letter to the applicant. Staff recommended Directional Item:. The false window details shall be revised to be consistent in appearance with functional windows in the project; or, these sections of the buildings shall be redesigned to be authentic and consistent with finish materials and architectural details of the overall project. Staffs Analysis: The applicant's revised plans now include revisions which respond to this directional item. The enclosed staircase has been removed and the walkway is now an open design with the steel railings. The roofline also has been modified to a parapet style. The modifications address the directional item and also reduce the apparent mass of the structure. (Perspective view, sheet A2.1 and figure 2, below.) ARC 4 3-t 1 (Monterey P llace� 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 5 Zoning Regulations The project complies with all development standards for the Downtown -Commercial zone in regards to lot coverage, height, density, and setbacks. parking requirements will be satisfied through payment of in -lieu fees, Payment of in -lieu fees for development in the Downtown - Commercial district is consistent with General flan Land Use Element Policy 4.10, which states in part: "Any major increments in parking supply should take the forma of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, sa people will walk rather than drive between points within the care. ' The applicant has indicated an interest in pursuing a lease agreement with the City to utilize parking spaces located in the underutilized City Parking Lot #14 located across Monterey Street from the project site. Creep Setbacks Concern from several public speakers was raised at the April 16, 2012 conceptual review bearing, and in the duly 23, 2012 CHIC meeting, that the project may impact the creek area. The applicant has provided detailed plans with dimensioned setbacks to the creek from each floor level (Attachment 3, sheets A7.5-A7.9). The exhibits shove setbacks for the lower floors that range from 40 feet to 78 feet to the centerline of the creek. For the top floors of buildings, the setbacks range from 50 feet to 91 feet to the centerline of the creek. The plans also include shading studies which show the creek wd11 not be adversely affected by the development because ARC 43-11 (Monterey Place) 667 & 679 Monterey Street Page 6 of existing vegetation and the distances of the proposed buildings from the creek (Attachment 3, sheets A8.0 & A8.1). No creek setback exceptions are required with the proposed development. Low Impact Development The project incorporates use of porous pavers and vegetated swales throughout the site to allow filtering of storm water prior to entering the storm drain system and reduction of impervious surfaces. Summary The proposed project would implement various Housing Element and Land Use Element policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed -use infill development in the downtown core. The project provides an important link through the project site from the creek crossing to Monterey Street and Parking Lot #14, which is also designated as the site for a future parking structure that will accommodate approximately 400 cars. The project is consistent with design principles for the development in the downtown (LUE 4.16) since it provides street level activity, upper floor dwellings, continuous storefront, and sidewalk appeal. The rehabilitation of the Leitcher building will provide for the long term preservation and adaptive reuse of a currently dilapidated and vacant historic structure that is threatened. The proposed rehabilitation will provide authenticity to the project; and will enhance the historic character of the property and add to the importance of the building as part of the Downtown Historic District. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant response letter 3. Revised project plans, August 29, 2012 4. ARC directional items and minutes from April 16, 2012 5. CHC Minutes, July 23, 2012, & resolution 6. April 16, 2012, ARC Staff Report 7. Resolution of approval Enclosed in packets: full size plans & colored 11" x 17" plans I 2 3 4. 5. 6. 0 Attachment 10 cl-L)i or SM) hJIS OBISPO Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 43-11 Project Title: Monterey Place Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact Person and Phone Number: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner bleveille@slocity.org (805) 781-7166 Project Location: 667 & 679 Monterey Street (APN 002-421-021, 023, 025, 027) Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Representative Thom Jess, AIA 1540 Marsh Street, Suite 150 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant Mike Hodge 351 San Miguel Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 General Plan Designation: General Retail Zoning: Downtown -Commercial with Historic District and Special Considerations Overlay (C-D-S-H) CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CfiECKLIST 2013 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project includes several components with upper level residential units, commercial floor space with a restaurant pad, the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Contributing historic Leitcher building into a bed and breakfast. There are five buildings proposed for site development (Buildings A-E). Building E at the southeast portion of the site is a mixed use building that would be developed as part of Phase 2 of the project. Including both phases, there are 23 residential units proposed which average 1,350 square feet in size. 20 units are 2-bedrooms and three units are 1-bedroom units including one unit designated "affordable". Proposed commercial floor area in the project consists of the bed and breakfast (existing Contributing Historic Leitcher building) and guest room building, restaurant, and lower level office/retail spaces and basement level spaces. Total commercial floor area in the project including the bed and breakfast is approximately 24,000 square feet. (Project plans, Attachment 2). A lower level basement parking area accessed from Monterey Street with mechanical parking lifts for 29 vehicle parking spaces are proposed under building "D" for the use of residential units and bed and breakfast operations. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is .69 acres in size (30,033 sq. ft.) and is located at 667 & 679 Monterey Street in the Downtown -Commercial Zone with Special Considerations and Historic District Overlay (C-D-S-H). The project site is on the south side of Monterey Street between Nipomo and Broad Streets (Figure 1, below). The site is within one block of Mission Plaza and adjoins the City creek walk and San Luis Creek bridge crossing to the south. The Children's Museum is located to the west of the site. City Parking Lot #14 and the future site of the Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure is located across Monterey Street to the North. Leitcher building J Figure T. Project Site and Vicinity CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 The site is developed on the eastern p3i ion of the lot with time Leitcher building, which is on the City's historic resources list as a Contributing historic resource. The, westerly portion of the lot has been used as a temporary parking lot and is surfaced with deteriorating AC paving. The site topography slopes gently downward to the rear of the lot towards the creek area. Surrounding lamb uses and Zoning are as follows: West. Children's Museum zoned public Facilities with Historic Overlay (PF-H). North. City larking Lot #14 and residential development zoned Office with Historic Overlay (O-H). Eastm Office uses within a contributing historic structure zoned Downtown -Commercial District with Historic and Special Considerations Overlay (C-D-S-H). South© San Luis Obispo creek walk open space zoned Public Facilities with Historic Overlay. C1 It OF Slaty Luis OE.9SPC 3 NMAL STUDY EWPONMENTAL CHECKLCS3 2013 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant's proposed project requires architectural review approval from the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), use permit approval from the Planning Commission, and final project approval from the City Council. The proposed three dimensional vesting tentative parcel map requires minor subdivision approval. The use permit requirement and final approval by City Council are requirements of Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series) which the Council adopted when the property was rezoned from Office to Downtown -Commercial Zoning. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a no effect determination from Fish and Game. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required. 1 Signature Doug Davidson, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development tO (Z I17 Date For: Derek Johnson Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 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 analysis in each section. 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," 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) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 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. 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 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 address site -specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. AESTHETICS. Would the nroiect: I 1.6 X 1, 6, 12 1 X 17,20 1 ! 1 X M Evaluation a) The project site is not in the vicinity of any scenic vistas as identified in the Circulation Element of The General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with development standards for the Downtown -Commercial District for height, coverage, setbacks, etc. Views of nearby hillsides would not be impacted as a result of the proposed project since views through the project site from the creek walk area are already limited with mature vegetation and downtown development along the creek area. Views from the downtown area around the site are not affected due to existing development in the downtown area where the historical development pattern includes multi -story buildings located at the back edge of sidewalk (zero yard setbacks). Less than significant impact. b) The project site is not located along or near a designated local or state scenic highway. No Impact. c) The existing historic Leitcher Building is in a dilapidated condition and is a threatened structure. The rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Leitcher building will restore character defining features of the structure, provide for its long term preservation, and will not degrade the visual character of the site or surroundings. The Leitcher Building rehabilitation and adaptive reuse to a bed and breakfast and new proposed mixed use buildings have been reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and found consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and City Historic Preservation Guidelines for development within historic districts. The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and found the project consistent with relevant design guidelines for compatible development and design in the downtown area. The project is also subject to additional requirements which are conditions of approval from when the property was rezoned in 2008. The project will also be required to undergo additional review by the Planning Commission to ensure compatibility with surrounding development through review and approval of a use permit. The project also requires final review and approval by the City Council to evaluate compatibility with surrounding uses. Less than significant impact. d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of light or glare. The proposed development has been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and found compatible at this location. The project is also subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. All future proposed development will be required to conform to standards of the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. The applicant has provided conceptual lighting locations and fixture details which demonstrate consistency with the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. The project does not have the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact ... CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-1 1, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a� 'onuex G Prune F mod, Tlnigttt ¢tid, 'tar A1,14 rsdixIr'pp anlant �?� ori�� e,X p ao 0- APi t1ia�, �ing antic �11rittai iin``raii of e e Cara �ours'ency, to non artd ttlrura used b). COri7G x kith, eeylStlrigiiiltnor rtaltu, a}tS� RY a X �h3[1 p''-'lV�ktl4 VI gi 3 c) Txivalvtatktroaiafg`ita�'exrtinsnenthh�dkte;t E � ifii( flti �i EEE ti � �3 � �etr loatto or3natrltllfUR dTtft�oner5ta�p�d, X A nod agmlturat,, .., Evaluation a) b) c) The site is a series of small developed parcels surrounded by developed properties and public streets within the urban core. No agricultural uses exist on site or on surrounding properties. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designate this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a}, GoniltCtritl or`ribstt'uct tinplementattoti of the applica�Ale. air 2 X quality an, b) Violate,auy, air quality staliciatd,or eantribute.substanttally to an 2 X existing or projected att quart vtolattanry C)', Result Jii a cumplatwely,; considerable net, Increase of any' 2 criteria palliztant l'ox w�lzch the project region Is tiori attatrrtezit under an applzeable federal br state antbtent air. quahty:standard. X (tnclicling : rleastng eirtissions wclztch exceed qualitative thresholds for azane precurears)9 d) EX 3 canci*ntra�totis t } 3 e)` Create ob�c#iortabl odxs,. afecttng a, sitl7stattital nuinler df X people`s F,, E CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-1 1 , 667 & 679 Monterey Street significant Significant significant Impact Monterey Place Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) b) c) San Luis Obispo County is a non -attainment area for the State PMto (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) and Ozone air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non -attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Conservation & Open Space Element Program 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMto. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP because it will provide infill development within the City's Urban Reserve Line and the project site is located in the City's urban center with convenient access to commercial services and transit routes, reducing the need for occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs. According to the APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter (PM 10), or 50 lbs/per day or more of carbon monoxide (CO) have the potential to affect air quality significantly. According to Table 1-1 of this document the proposed project would be of a size that is below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate significant operational air quality impacts. In evaluating construction related impacts, the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states the threshold level of grading activity to generate required mitigation measures is 9,100 cubic yards/day for reactive organic gases (ROG) and 2,000 cubic yards/day for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Projects involving grading of an area greater than 4.0 acres require PM10 mitigations. The proposed project grading scope is well below these thresholds since the project site is .69 acres in size and grading will not exceed 2,000 cubic yards/day. The APCD does not require consultation for potential asbestos dust related impacts unless the project site is over 1.0 acre in size. Despite the relatively small size of the project in terms of construction impact thresholds, there still will be short-term impacts from increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment. Therefore, mitigation is included to help mitigate these short-term construction impacts. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure No. 1: 1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track -out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. d) e) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project and no pollutants will be created which could affect sensitive receptors. No Impact. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting InfcrPi ation Sources sources Potentially Potentially less Than No ER #r 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street significant significant significant tinpact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Dicogporated 1 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project; I 1, 12 Evaluation IN X X X X ON a) b) c) The project site does not contain any habitat for species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species as identified by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project site is located along San Luis Creek which does have special status species such as the Southwestern Pond Turtle and California Red Legged Frog. The City's Creek Setback Ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations) formally adopted setbacks for new development along designated City creeks. At this location, a minimum of a 20-foot setback for buildings and other improvements from the top of the creek bank, or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, must be maintained. This setback was determined to be efficient to allow for substantial tree planting between the creek banks and adjacent structures, and minimizes the need for future creek improvements for flood management and protection of structures. The project complies with City Creek Setback requirements and exceeds of minimum setback requirements. Less than significant impact. d) e) f) The project site is not situated in the area of a wildlife corridor, The movement of wildlife would not be affected by the project proposal. The project will not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or tree preservation policy since there is no wildlife habitat, sensitive communities, or riparian habitat on the project site. There are no Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site which could be affected by the proposed project. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsAo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Mforli atlon Sources Sources Potentially Potentially 1L,ess'Man No Eli # 4-3-1 1, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation hwor orated 1 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the orolect: I 1, 12, I 1 X 15 M M Evaluation a) The Contributing historic Leitcher Apartments Building is located on the property. The Leitcher Apartments Building was constructed in the 1880's timeframe and was used as a "board and lodge". Previous evaluation of the Leitcher Apartment Building by Bertrando and Bertrando Consultants, confirmed the buildings significance because of its important association with community development and its role in housing local workers. The Leitcher Apartment Building shows up on Sanborn maps from 1886 as "board and lodge". In the mid 1920's Edward J. and Charlotte Leitcher became the owners of the Leitcher building. Many occupations were listed in directories for the Leitcher building including a lineman, preacher, student, shoe maker, bookkeeper, clerk, and constable.I The architectural style of the building is categorized in the Applied Earthworks Report (Attachment 3) as Folk Victorian Style during the period of significance in the 1880's timeframe. Character defining features of the building include two story rectangular massing, steeply pitched gable roof, first story wrap around porch, symmetrical fenestration, double hung wood sash windows, broad shiplap exterior, and simple and unadorned exterior walls. The Leitcher building is proposed for rehabilitation and a minor relocation on site. The modifications involve the removal of non -historic additions and relocation to a new concrete foundation 3 feet toward the front property line and 9 feet toward the east property line. The Leitcher building is proposed to house the bed and breakfast lobby and manager's unit on the first floor. The second floor would contain two guest rooms. Exterior alterations include the removal of non -historic additions including: first -story addition on west side, rear additions, covered main entry porch element, squared bay window on east fagade, and east side entry addition. (Project Plans, Attachment 2, sheets A6.0-6.2). A portion of the original porch remains on the east side of the building. The design of the original porch will be recreated on all four sides of the building to reflect its original configuration during its period of significance. The porch will provide access to the rear of the Leitcher building to a new bed and breakfast building with additional guest rooms. The new bed and breakfast building contains three levels with 9 guest rooms, a roof deck, and fitness center. The design of the bed and breakfast building behind the historic structure provides architecture and finish materials that complement the Leitcher Building through use of a steeply pitched roofline, horizontal siding, and similar window configuration. An evaluation of the proposed alterations and relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building was performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. The report, prepared by Ms. Victoria D. Smith, M.A., provides recommendations to ensure rehabilitation and relocation plans are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines (Applied Earthworks Report; Attachment 3). The Applied Earthworks report finds that the most appropriate treatment is best characterized as "rehabilitation" under the SOI Standards of Treatment since a compatible use is proposed (bed and breakfast) and the project involves retention and repair of historical materials and alterations to the building to prepare the property for the bed and breakfast use. Staff will be including all recommendations of the Applied Earthworks report as conditions of approval. The recommendations contained in the Applied Earthworks report include modifications of proposed porch deck extensions and stairs to and various measures that detail the proper removal of non -historic features and proper treatment of remaining historic materials and features. On July 23, 2012, The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project and found the proposed relocation of the Leitcher Building and rehabilitation consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and City Historic Preservation Guidelines for development in a historic district. 1. Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation, Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants, June 2005 ,.. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially ]Less Than No ER # 43-1 1 , 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant SigaBifcant Siguifacant Impact Monterey Place Issues Unless Iinpact ]Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. To emure that work is carried out consistent with recommendations of the historic Evaluation and Secretary of Interior Standards, the following mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measures No. 2: Plans submitted for relocation and rehabilitation work on the Leitcher Building, shall include all details and information required to verify compliance with all recommendations contained in the Applied Earthworks Report prepared by Ms. Victoria Smith, dated April 2012. Plans submitted for construction and relocation shall be fully consistent with amended plans reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on October 1, 2012, which reflect revisions needed for consistency with recommendations of the report. b) A Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SARE) was prepared by Mr. Clay A. Singer, Anthropologist, to evaluate potential impacts to archaeological resources (Attachment 4). The testing strategy was designed to find privies and refuse deposits behind the Leitcher Building and evidence of the foundation of the Gaxiola Adobe. Six trenches were dug with the expectation of finding evidence of the Gaxiola Adobe and features behind the Leitcher Building. The Gaxiola Adobe was located 20 meters west of the Leitcher building which is believed to have been built in the 1850's by Philipe Gaxiola. The Gaxiola adobe is shown on 1886 Sanborn maps, but does not appear on 1909 or later additions. Six trenches were excavated, examined, and backfilled. The results of Phase II testing are found to suggest the remains of the Gaxiola Adobe and the grounds under and around the Leitcher house have the potential to contribute new information to the California historical record and are significant historic resources based on the California Public Resources Code (CPRC). Phase III Impact Mitigation Plans are recommended for both the Leitcher Building and the Gaxiola Adobe. The Archaeological Resource Presenvation Program Guidelines recognize Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE) as a method to recover important archaeological information and mitigate project -related adverse impacts. Staff has included a condition of approval implementing Leitcher Building and Gaxiola Adobe mitigation measures outlined in the Singer SARE report during the initial phase of redevelopment when earthmoving activities begin on the project site (Condition #4). All recommendations of the SARE report will be incorporated as final conditions of approval and evidence of compliance with all Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE, Phase III) measures of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines shall be verified prior to issuance of building permit for new construction. If any resources are encountered during construction activities which may be outside the area of the ADRE, then mitigation measure #4 will be applicable. Conclusion: Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure No. 3: Prior to issuance of construction plans all recommendations from the July 15, 2011, Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SARE.) prepared by Singer Associates, shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Phase III mitigation plan shall be in full conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Prior to occupancy of any structures a report shall be provided to the Cultural heritage Committee which summarizes the results of the Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE). b) d) Evidence of buried remains or paleontological resources were not found during phase 2 testing. There is the potential that grading operations or subsurface disturbance could result in impacts to cultural resources. The following measure is required to mitigate any potential archaeological or cultural impacts to a level of insignificance. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure No. 4: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 issues, Discussion and Supporting Mformation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-1 1, 667 & 679 Monterey Strut Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated :, CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant hnpact Monterey Place Issues Unless Mitigation hnpact Incorporated 'sues, Discussion and Supporting IB-V3o V' ation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially ]Less Than No ER # 43-1 1 , 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Pia ce; Issues Unless Impact Mitigation vicob prated .. CITY OF SAN LUIS OB13PO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issuers, Discussion and Supporting �nformatlon Sources Sources Potentially potentially Less TM n No ER # 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Signiticart Significant Significant Impact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 101 Evaluation a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources, No impact, c), d), h), i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. Plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. Less than significant impact. e), f), g) The project site is located within the 100-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map as is the majority of the downtown area- The project is therefore subject to showing compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, Per section 3.0 of the Waterways Management Plan, new development projects and redevelopment projects within the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain that are not located within the Mid-Higuera or special Floodplain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are met. The project will be required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1-foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation at the time, or for commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of FEMA "flood -proofing" measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact, 1 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the nroiect: I 1,3 Evaluation X X X a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed deviations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is a downtown re -development that would not divide an established community and there are no applicable habitat conservation plans or community conservation plans on the subject property. Conclusion: No Impact. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-I 1, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant impact Mon-terey R1aCe Issues Unless impact Mitigation lncoaporate' 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proiect: a X Evaluation a), b) There are no known mineral resources on the project site which would be of value to the region or the State. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 1 12. NOISE. Would the proiect result in: I 8,18 excess Evaluation X X X X a) The project involves development of residential and commercial uses which are consistent with the site's Downtown- Cominercial Zoning and will not generate noise levels in excess of standards of the Noise Element and Municipal Code of the City of San Luis Obispo. Any future uses within the project will be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance. The project site is not in proximity to any noise sources which would generate unacceptable noise levels per the General Plan Noise Element or the Noise Guidebook and the project does not introduce noise sensitive uses which would warrant further evaluation in the Noise Guidebook. Less than significant impact. b), c) Site development will not result in increases in ambient noise levels since the project involves redevelopment in the already urbanized area of the City's downtown core. Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact. d) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a public use airport. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. .. CITY OF SAN Luis Obispo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially Potentially Less Than No -- ER 9 43-1 1 , 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant hnpact Monterey Plaee Issues unless hnpact Mitigation hicorporated 113, POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project- I 0 M Evaluation a) Tlge project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other- infrastructure. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. No Impact. b) The project would not displace any existing housing. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. Evaluation a), b), d), e), t) As an infill redevelopment site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities) are available to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. Less than significant impact. c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN Luis ®BIspo 19 INITIAL 7TUnY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20I3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially Less Than No ER # 4.3-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant hnpact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation. Incorporated 1 15. RECREATION. Would the nroiect: I 947 X Evaluation a) New residential developments incrementally add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. 23 residential units are proposed with the project. Condominium subdivision is proposed as a part of the project. Park -in -lieu fees would be required to help finance additional park space or equipment in the vicinity in accordance with the subdivision regulations. These fees are sufficient to offset the effect of the additional demand for recreational facilities. The project site is in the downtown area and close to Mission Plaza and adjacent to the City creek walk area which is currently underutilized in the vicinity of the project. Less than significant impact. b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreation facilities. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 1 16. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC. Would the proiect: I X X X X X X 0 setting The project site is located within. the Do%vnto,,vn Core area of the City. The General Plan Land Use Element states that the Downtown (commercial core) is the preferred location for retail uses suitable for pedestrian access, off -site parking, and compact building spaces. The General Plan states that the Downtown should provide a diversity of parking areas and that any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the commercial core (LUE 4.1). Vehicle parking for uses within the _11 .. . CITY OF SAN Luis OBisPo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inforrnation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-1 1 , 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant hnpact Monterey Place Issues unless Fanpact Mitigation Licoa oxated downtown area is intended to occur within parking structures or public surface lots, The project site is located immediately across the street from an existing public parking lot and the location for a future parking structure which will provide approximately 445 parking spaces. Other parking structures in the vicinity include the Marsh Street Parking Structure at 871 Marsh Street, Palm Street Parking Structure at 842 Palm Street, and the City Parking Garage at 919 Palm Street. The project site is located along Monterey Street and is near the intersection of Nipomo Street and Monterey Street which are designated as local roadways in this area of the City. SLO Transit provides bus service within the City. There are seven bus routes on weekdays, six routes on Saturdays, four routes on Sundays, and a Downtown Trolley Thursdays through Sundays. There are five routes which operate Monday through Friday evenings through the school year which operate to serve students from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. The City maintains sidewalks on almost all City roadways, as well as pedestrian crosswalks throughout the downtown area. Sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to the project on Monterey Street. Evaluation a), b) Several traffic studies have been prepared in the project vicinity including one by Fehr and Peers in 2012 and one by Orosz Engineering Group in 2011. Both studies concluded that all study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service. (Table 1, below). Table 1 Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Existing Project Cumulative Cumulative Hour, LOS2 LOS LOS2 Project LOS2 PM, Palm Street/ Nipomo Street P.M. A A B B Palm Street' Broad Street P.M. A A A A Broad Street/Monterey P.M. A A A A Monterey Street/ Nipomo Street P.M. A A B B Higuera Street/ Nipomo Street P.M. B B B B Marsh Street/ Nipomo Street P.M. A A B B 1: P.M. = evening peak hour 2: LOS= Level of Service. The project proposal is consistent with the Circulation Element of The General Plan (1994) and is consistent with The City's Access and Parking Management Plan which states that parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities. The project's proposal to utilize surface parking and parking structures within the downtown area and pay in -lieu fees to satisfy parking requirements is consistent with the Circulation Element and City Access and Parking Management Plan. Overnight residential parking can be accominodated by the City's pilot program which allows overnight parking within City parking lots and parking structures. City parking requirements of the Zoning Regulations for the Downtown area which allow payment of in -lieu fees for area wide funding and maintenance of surface parking lots and parking structures have already been evaluated in the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. Therefore, the project's impacts on local roadway traffic would be less than significant. Less than significant Impact. f) The project will not affect policies or programs for public transit, and will not affect bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 ISSI.I"a s, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources `, Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Puce Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated project will provide significant long term bike parking with enclosed lockers for each of the residential units in the designated residential storage area of Building "C". The project is designed to be fully consistent with bike parking regulations of Zoning Code section 17.16.060 (Table 6.5) and the project frontage will be required to be constructed consistent with City Standards. The project is consistent with policies for pedestrian circulation and there will be no conflict with an adopted plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The project provides a pedestrian paseo that will enhance circulation in the area by creating a direct point of connection from Monterey Street and Parking Lot# 14 through the project site to the creek walk area and the San Luis Creek pedestrian bridge which leads to Iliguera Street. No Impact. c), g) The project is not located within the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Plan Area and would not have any effect on air traffic levels, and would have no effect on air traffic patterns, No Impact. d) All pedestrian walkways, ramps, stairs or other features will be required to comply with relevant City, state, and/or federal requirements including accessibility standards. All proposed uses and project designs comply with the underlying zoning and no exceptions or conflicting uses are proposed. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 1 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 10 1 1 1 X X X X X 0 Evaluation a)b) c) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on -site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project and commercial connection. Storm drainage facilities in the vicinity are adequate to serve the proposed project and no expansion is required which could result in significant environmental effects. Less than significant impact. d) The project will allow for development of the site with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUoy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, D°Iscusseon and Supporting �nlorrnation Sources Sources Potentially Poteabtially ]Less Than No ER # 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Pace Issues Unless hupact Mitigation Incorporated adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. Less than significant impact, e) f) g) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A13939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 18.1VIANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. / The project site does not contain any habitat for fish or wildlife and mitigation measures have been established to mitigate Potential impacts to historic resources to less than significant levels. Less than significant impact. X The project scope is within an area of existing development and is already served with infrastructure, and will not result in potential effects from probable future projects. Less than significant impact, M Adverse effects on human beings will not occur either directly, or indirectly as a result of the project since the project will have to remain consistent with allowed land uses and development in the Downtown -Commercial Zone (C-D), and project construction and ongoing land uses will have to comply with all relevant codes and regulations established for public health, safety, and welfare. Less than significant impact. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. N/A NiA CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Bssues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-11, 667 & 679 Monterey Street Significant Signlfflcalt Significant hupact Monterey Place Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ieasur�iiit 11 w�`'�rpott ar f n ozn ` he �fhf, dsCu�neril a� tlie'xt`(3n €ttlth tltyyLtldr� tl ;; .. .S1; �jrtrLrli�-,,eft i t'v N/A. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006 2. SLO County Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009 3. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, August 2012 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005 5, CA Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) 6. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, revised April 2006 7. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010 8. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 9. Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ 10. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 6, 2010 11. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 13. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consr,v.ca.gov/dITpi'FMMP/ 15. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map and Burial Sensitivity Map 16. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 17. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 18. Ai ort Land Use Plan, May 2005 19. Airport Area Specific Plan, August 2005 20. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010 21. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element Attachments 1..Yaci.aity- ' 2. ans 3. Applied Earthworks Evaluation of Leitcher Apartment Building relocation and rehabilitation, April 2012 4. Archaeological Resource Evaluation for 667 Monterey Street, prepared by Singer Associates, July 15, 2011 REQUIRE,D MITIGATION AND .MONITORING PROGRAMS AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Mitigation Measure No. 1: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; CITY or SAN Luis OBISPO 24 INOT@AL STu®v ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 43-1 1, 667 & 679 Monterey Street significant Significant Significant Impact Monterey Place Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track -out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. Monitoring Pro rg am: Community Development Department staff will insure that project plans incorporate the mitigation measures. City engineering staff will inspect the construction operations to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION To ensure that work is carried out consistent with recommendations of the Historic Evaluation and Secretary of Interior Standards, the following mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measures No. 2: Plans submitted for relocation and rehabilitation work on the Leitcher Building, shall include all details and information required to verify compliance with all recommendations contained in the Applied Earthworks Report prepared by Ms. Victoria Smith, dated April 2012. Plans submitted for construction and relocation shall be fully consistent with amended plans reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on October 1, 2012, which reflect revisions needed for consistency with recommendations of the report. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for construction approval will be reviewed by Community Development Department staff to verify conformance with the above mitigation measure and ongoing inspections will be conducted during the construction phases to guarantee work carried out is consistent with approved plans. Inspecting staff will include Planning Staff, Building inspectors, and Public Works inspectors. Mitigation Measure No. 3: Prior to issuance of construction plans all recommendations from the July 15, 2011, Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SAFE) prepared by Singer Associates, shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Phase III mitigation plan shall be in full conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Prior to occupancy of any structures a report shall be provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee which summarizes the results of the Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE). Monitoring Pro ram: Planning Staff will "flag" building permit submittals to guarantee permit issuance does not occur until the above mitigation measure has been completed. Mitigation Measure No. 4: If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. If pre -historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans submitted for the project. • Monitoring Program Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. CITY OF SAN L.UIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 �v Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building, 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo Evaluation of Proposed Plans for Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Application ARC/ER/U 43-11: Monterey Place Prepared For Michael Hodge, P.E. Shear Edge Development 351 San Miguel Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 2012 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1-1 PREVIOUS RELEVANT RESEARCH ..... ..........._------_____ 1.1.1 Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation.... 1.1.2 Historic Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Study— .................... 1.1.3 Addendum to Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P 40-002391) .............. 1.1.4 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation ........................ 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK.................................................................................. 1.2.1 Limited Background Research ..................................................... 1.2.2 Site Visit....................................................................................... 1.2.3 Building Analysis and Design Review.... ... ................................ 1.2.4 RenortPrevaration------------------------------ ------ -_ .1 .3 .3 .4 4 5 6 6 6 2 LEITCHER APARTMENTS HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE.......................................7 2.1 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY...............................................7 2.2 HISTORY OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.................8 2.3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.................................20 2.3.1 Roof.................................................................................................................20 2.3.2 Building Sheathing..............................................................................I............20 2.3.3 Main (North) Fagade........................................................................................21 2.3.4 Side (East) Fagade............................................................................................22 2.3.5 Rear (South) Fagade.........................................................................................22 2.3.6 Side (West) Fagade ........................... 2.3.7 Landscaping.....................................................................................................23 2.3.8 Orientation and Setback...................................................................................23 2.3.9 Character -defining Features.............................................................................24 2.3.10 Primary and Secondary Fagades and Views....................................................24 3 PROPOSED PLANS FOR REHABILITATION AND RELOCATION OF THE LEITCHER APARTMENT BUILDING....................................................................25 3.1 PROPOSED USE........................................................................................................25 3.2 PROPOSED RELOCATION.......................................................................................25 3.3 PROPOSED ALTERATIONS......................................................................................25 3.3.1 Proposed Exterior Alterations..........................................................................25 3.3.2 Proposed Interior Alterations...........................................................................26 4 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS......................................................................................27 4.1 DEFINING THE TREATMENT.................................................................................27 4.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION...................................................................28 4.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES.........................................................................................32 4.3.1 Relocation of Historic Resources.....................................................................32 4.3.2 Percent of Historic Resource to be Preserved, ................................................. 33 Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building ii 4.3.3 Retention of Character -defining Features........................................................33 4.3.4 Exterior Building Changes...............................................................................33 4.3.5 Interior Building Changes................................................................................34 4.3.6 Acquired Historic Significance........................................................ ........... __34 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES........................................................................................................................35 5.1 PORCH DECK EXTENSIONS AND ADDITION OF PORCH STAIRS ..................35 5.2 PORCH REMOVAL, REPAIR, AND RECONSTRUCTION.. ....... ........................... 35 5.3 REMOVAL OF NONHISTORIC MAIN ENTRY FEATURE....................................36 5.4 REMOVAL OF NONHISTORIC ADDITIONS FROM REAR OF BUILDING..................................................................................................................36 5.5 WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR..............................................................36 5.6 DOOR REPLACEMENT............................................................................................37 5.7 REPAIR OF EXTERIOR WALL SHEATHING.........................................................37 5.8 CLEANING TREATMENTS......................................................................................37 5.9 ROOF REPAIR............................................................................................................38 5.10 LANDSCAPING AND HARDSCAPING..................................................................38 5.11 EXTERIOR PAINT.....................................................................................................38 5.12 CONCLUSIONS.. .................... ...... ............................................ ............................... 38 6 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS.....................................................................................39 7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................40 APPENDIX A: Reconstructed Original Plans and Elevations for the Leitcher Apartment Building FIGURES 1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California ................................................... 2-1 Detail of 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-2 Detail of 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-3 Detail of 1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-4 Detail of 1903 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property 2-5 Detail of 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-6 Detail of 1909 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-7 Detail of 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-8 Circa 1930s photograph of the Leitcher Apartments Building, view to southeast of main farade................................................................................. 2-9 Detail of 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property ......... 2-10 Aerial image of the subject property prior to demolition of secondary structures (circa 2011)..................................................................................... TABLES 2-1 Chain of Title and Ownership Information for Bloch 8, Lot 13/27........ Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building .........2 ......10 ...... I I ......12 ......14 .......18 .......19 ..21 .................9 •r. 1 INTRODUCTION Shear Edge Development, LLC proposes an adaptive reuse of the Leitcher Apartment Building, located at 667 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo, California (Figure 1-1). As part of a proposed new mixed -use project known as Monterey Place, the Leitcher Apartment Building will be repurposed as the feature element of a new bed and breakfast hotel. Shear Edge Development proposes to remove the nonhistoric additions to the Leitcher Apartment Building and rehabilitate the main structure. The proposed work also includes relocation of the structure a few feet closer to the street and to the adjacent property line and placement on a new concrete foundation. The Leitcher Apartment Building is within the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Downtown Historic District and is included on the City's Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. As such, relocation and rehabilitation of the Leitcher Apartment Building must comply with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). Because development of the project will require a discretionary permit from the City, it is also subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); under CEQA and the City Guidelines, a project that complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties will not have a significant impact on historical resources. City staff recently reviewed Shear Edge Development's resubmitted Application ARC/ER/U 43-11 (architectural review, use permit request, and environmental impact determination) for the proposed Monterey Place redevelopment. The results of that review were communicated in a letter dated September 23, 2011 from Brian Leveille, Associate Planner for the City's Community Development Department, to Michael Hodge of Shear Edge Development. The letter requested that additional information be submitted to the City to verify conformance of the proposed project with City standards. The City requested additional information on the proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building and required that the relocation and all proposed work on the building be based on the recommendations of a qualified architectural historian. At the request of Michael Hodge of Shear Edge Development, Victoria Smith of Applied EarthWorks, Inc. performed the required historic preservation design review of the proposed conceptual plans for the Leitcher Apartment Building. This report provides written recommendations and guidance to ensure the proposed rehabilitation and relocation plans are consistent with the cited regulations, ordinances, guidelines, and standards. Tasks undertaken for this consultation project included background research, a site visit, analysis, design review, and report preparation. Prior relevant research has been conducted on the Leitcher Apartment property, which is summarized below. Historic Preservation Design Review ---Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle San Luis Obispo, CA 0 0.5 1 a 30S, R12E, Section 34 Miles Figure 1-1 FrojecE location to San Luis Obispo, California. Historic Preservation resign Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building !" J 1.1 PREVIOUS RELEVANT RESEARCH The Leitcher Apartment Building was placed on the City's Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in 1983 as part of the Downtown Historic District and was minimally recorded around that time. Since then several historical resource investigations of the property have occurred. A summary of those studies, their findings, and recommendations are provided in this section to place the current historic preservation design review project into the context of prior research. 1.1.1 Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation In June 2005, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants performed a cultural resource inventory and initial structure evaluation of the Leitcher Apartment property at 667 Monterey Street (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005). At that time, the property contained the Leitcher Apartment Building (referred to as the main building), a two-story apartment building attached to the southeast corner of the main building, two detached duplex buildings, and a pump house. The built environment resources were recorded during that investigation as P 40-002391. California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record forms were also prepared for the property by the researchers and submitted to the Central Coast Information Center at University of California, Santa Barbara. The Bertrandos' research identified a mid- 1880s construction date for the main Leitcher Apartment Building. They noted that since that time the apartment building had "served the community and may be the oldest remaining building of its type in the City of San Luis Obispo" (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:20). As such, they recommended that it possessed historical significance as an individual property and suggested that it be upgraded to the City's Master List of Historic Resources. They also concluded that the property met state significance criteria primarily under California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criterion 1 because of its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, but also to a lesser extent under Criterion 3 as embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction (Betrando and Bertrando 2005:20-21). The historically significant resource on the parcel was identified as the two-story Leitcher Apartment Building (circa 1885). The small two-story apartment building (circa 1888) semi - attached to the rear of the main building, two small duplexes (circa 1930s), pump house (circa 1930s), and the landscaping (circa 1930s) were identified as potentially contributing elements on the property (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:21). The period of significance for the property was not defined concretely. The investigators observed that the main Leitcher Apartments "maintain their structural integrity from the late 1920s and early 1930s, but with more information the 1880s may well be the more significant period" (Betrando and Bertrando 2005:20-21). An archaeological assessment was also conducted as part of the investigation. A known historical site, CA-SLO-2001/H, had been previously recorded on the adjacent property and was believed to extend into the project area. The remains were believed to be associated with the Leitcher Apartment Building and an adobe dwelling (Gaxiola Adobe) known to have been present on the lot adjacent to the Leitcher Apartment Building (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:8-9, 20-21). Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 3 The Bertrandos' report provided the following recommendations: If actions are proposed for the property that could have an effect on the building, the proposed development must address potential impacts to the structure, the historic district, the setting and any significant archaeological deposits. This can be achieved in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, avoidance, plan redesign or mitigation through data recovery [Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:21]. They further recommended if there were to be any changes planned for the two-story apartment building (semi -attached to the rear of the main apartment building), duplexes, or pump house, written and photographic documentation should be completed "to address them as contributing elements to the property's significance" (Betrando and Bertrando 2005:21). 1.1.2 Historic Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Study Students of an EDES 420 (Historic Preservation and Adaptive Reuse in the Built Environment) class in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) performed an investigation of the Leitcher Apartment property in the fall of 2005 (Moser et al. 2005). The results of their study is presented in a report entitled "The Leitcher Apartments, 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo," a copy of which is on file with Shear Edge Development. The report does not indicate the specific adaptive reuse of the property the authors were considering, but it does provide useful documentation of existing conditions of the Leitcher Apartments Building, evidence of past alterations, notes and photo - documentation of original building fabric and features, and a few recommendations for rehabilitation or restoration of the building. Notably, the students conducted additional background research on the property's history beyond that undertaken in the Bertrando and Bertrando (2005) original evaluation. They present a chain of title resulting from their research and identify the construction date for the main building on the property as 1885, soon after Charles Wever took ownership of the property. Unfortunately, there is no source cited in the report for where they obtained that construction date or if it was surmised from the gathered chain of title information or other background research. Of interest is the report's presentation of the researchers' measured drawings of existing and reconstructed original floor plans, as well as reconstructed historic elevations and perspective drawings of how the property appeared in 1885 (presented in Appendix A of this report). 1.1.3 Addendum to Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P 40-002391) A follow-up to the 2005 historic resource inventory and initial evaluation of the Leitcher Apartments was conducted 2 years later by Betsy Bertrando (2007). The addendum study was performed to evaluate the significance of a secondary structure (Building B) on the property, one of four buildings proposed for demolition by Shear Edge Development to prepare the property for redevelopment. The others included two small apartment duplexes and a pump house (circa 1930s). Research conducted in the original investigation determined that Building B—a small two-story apartment building that was semi -attached to the southeast comer of the main building —dated to between 1886 and 1888 (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:14). It was the first Historic Preservation Design Review ---Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 4 structure to have been built on the property following the construction of the main Leitcher Apartment Building. The original study (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005) had not concretely identified the period of significance for the property, but in the addendum report it is cited as the 1880s (Bertrando 2007:2). The theme and property type are identified as "city development and worker housing respectively." With the 1880s period of significance assigned for the property, the three 1930s secondary structures were not considered to be character -defining features that contributed to the significance of the resource. The addendum investigation also concluded that Building B was not historically significant under CEQA due to extensive and repeated alterations to the exterior and interior over time that had caused the loss of historic integrity from the period of significance (Betrando 2007:2). Most of the alterations were believed to have occurred during the time period (cited in the report as circa 1930s) when other secondary structures were built. 1.1.4 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation A Phase Il subsurface archaeological resource evaluation was conducted by C.A. Singer & Associates in 2011 to identify the presence of archaeological resources that might be affected by the proposed Monterey Place development (Singer 2011). Of concern was the possible presence of archaeological remains associated with the circa 1850 GaxiolaAdobe (CA-SLO-239H) once present on the parcel adjacent to the Leitcher Apartment Building. Singer (2011.10) interpreted the test excavation results to indicate a high potential for the presence of archaeological remains relating to the Gaxiola Adobe and Leitcher Apartments Building that could yield information important to understanding the history of San Luis Obispo. The construction of the proposed Monterey Place project, he concluded, could impact those remains and recommended additional archaeological work employing a consolidated approach to data recovery and impact mitigation (Singer 2011:10), 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK Victoria Smith, M.A., Applied EarthWorks Senior Architectural Historian and Historic Preservation Program Manager, served on this design review project as the Architectural Historian and Project Manager. She oversaw the background research, conducted the building analysis and historic preservation design review, and prepared this report. Aubrie Morlet, Applied EarthWorks Staff Architectural Historian, provided research assistance. A summary of their qualifications is presented in Chapter 6 of this report. Applied EarthWorks' historic preservation design review for this project required several tasks, as described in this scope of work. 1.2.1 Limited Background Research Morlet performed archival research at the City Clerk's Office to review the 1870 land petitions, the Cal Poly Library's Special Collections to review the 1906-1937 City Building Permits, the City Community Development Office to review the Historic Resources Inventory file, and the San Luis Obispo Historical Museum Research Room to seek historical photographs of the Leitcher Apartment Building. Building records from 1937 to 1950 were apparently lost in a fire Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 5 at City Records and, therefore, could not be reviewed. Morlet also consulted with Betsy Bertrando, who conducted previous research on the Leitcher Apartments, to obtain the only known historical photograph of the building, a copy of which is on file at Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants' office in San Luis Obispo. Copies of previous cultural resource and historic built environment research reports of the subject property were provided to Applied EarthWorks by Shear Edge Development. 1.2.2 Site Visit Morlet conducted a site visit on February 24, 2012 to inspect the property's current condition and take detailed color digital photographs of the Leitcher Apartment Building and overview images of the property, surrounding built environment, and streetscape. Smith visited the property on March 5, 2012 to inspect the building's prior alterations, character -defining features, and overall condition, as well as to view the surrounding properties and streetscape. 1.2.3 Building Analysis and Design Review Smith analyzed available historical data and current conditions of the Leitcher Apartment Building to establish a design baseline for how the original building appeared. She reviewed the proposed conceptual plans for relocating and rehabilitating the Leitcher Apartment Building from March 21-28, 2012, and assessed consistency of the conceptual plans with Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in general, and in particular, the Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings provided therein, as well as with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). Full-size conceptual plans for the proposed rehabilitation and relocation of the Leitcher Apartments (dated January 12, 2012) were provided to Smith by Michael Hodge of Shear Edge Development for use in this review. 1.2.4 Report Preparation. The scope of work for this project includes this report, which provides project background, a summary of previous research, review of the property's historic development, results of the historic preservation design review, and recommendations to guide future development. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 6 2 LEITCHER APARTMENTS HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE This chapter provides information regarding the historic significance of the Leitcher Apartments property, a summary of the property's historical development, and current conditions. Information provided derives from previous research conducted by others as well as supplemental research conducted by Applied EarthWorks to verify and document certain aspects of the property's history, nonhistoric alterations, current conditions, and architectural details of the Leitcher Apartment Building. 2.1 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY The Leitcher Apartments Building is located within the boundaries of the City's designated Downtown Historic District and has been registered on the City's Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources for that district since 1983 (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:62). The evaluation of the Leitcher Apartments by Bertrando and Bertrando (2005:20) suggests that the property may also be eligible for upgrade to the City's Master List of Historic Resources for its important association with community development and its role in housing local workers (Bertrando 2007:2). That evaluation report further suggests that the Leitcher Apartment Building may be historically significant as an individual property under CRHR Criteria 1 (significant contribution to historical events) and 3 (architectural merit). The period of significance identified for the property is the 1880s (Bertrando 2007:2). It is outside the scope of the current study to assess historic significance of the property for upgrade to the Master List of Historical Resources or under the CRHR criteria. It is important to note, however, that a property included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a local survey, is presumed to be a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The Downtown Historic District comprises the oldest portions of the City and contains a notably high concentration of historic sites and structures (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38). The district includes two subdivisions, including the Mission Vineyard Tract (recorded in 1873) and the Town of San Luis Obispo (recorded in 1870). The period of significance identified for the district is 1870-1930. In 2010, the Downtown Historic District included 98 designated historic structures (San Luis Obispo 2010:38). The Downtown Historic District contains the heart of the City's historic commercial district and continues to retain its historical use today as the City's commercial and civic center. Classical Revival, Italianate, and Romanesque styles are readily identifiable in the commercial core, as are early American commercial designs. Additionally, the district includes a residential section, mostly focused along portions of Monterey Street and Dana Street. The residential portion of the historic district reflects settlement between the mid -nineteenth century and the 1930s (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38). It is within this portion of the historic district that the Leitcher Apartments property is located. The variety of architectural styles represented in the residential section of the Downtown Historic District reflect distinct periods of community growth and development. One notable Historic Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building structure in the district is the Rosa Butron de Canet Adobe, a rare surviving example of adobe architecture from the pioneer period. Other architectural styles in this portion of the district include Folk and High Victorian from the turn of the twentieth century, and Spanish Revival and other revival designs popular during the 1920s and 1930s (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:40-41). Lots within the residential section of the district are primarily platted in regular grids. The exceptions are lots along Dana Street, which were curved to match the orientation of the creek. The City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010:41) provide a list of site features and characteristics for the residential section of the Downtown Historic District that includes: A. Street yard setbacks of 20 feet or more, often with low walls (2 feet) and fences at sidewalk B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear yard C. Front entries oriented toward the street with prominent porch and steps D. Front fagades oriented toward the street. Residential architectural features are described as: A. One and rarely two-story buildings B. Gable and hip roof types predominate C. Traditional fenestration, such as double -hung, wood sash windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen doors D. Painted wood or smooth stucco siding. 2.2 HISTORY OF THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY Research performed by Moser et al. (2005) included a title search to establish the chain of title for Block 8, Lot 13/27, the parcel upon which the Leitcher Apartment Building is located. The property also includes two other parcels to the west, Lots 13/23 and 13/25, which had previously been the location of the Gaxiola Adobe. The chain of title for the main parcel (Lot 13/27) along with other pertinent ownership information is presented in Table 2-1. The original block and lot number assignment for the parcel on which the Leitcher Apartment Building was built in 1885 is Block 8, Lot 3, Lot 4, the parcel on which the Gaxiola Adobe had once been located, was eventually added to the Leitcher Apartments property and was later used for resident parking (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:9). No street address had apparently ever been assigned to the Gaxiola property. The original street address for Lot 3 is indicated as 28 Monterey Street on the 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (see Figure 2-1). W. 1. Marcus' 1870 Petition for Grant of Land indicates that the subject parcel had been settled since 1868. If Moser et al. (2005) are correct that Charles Wever built the main house in 1885 (later known as the Leitcher Apartment Building), there may well have been an earlier structure on the property. The Bertrandos (2005:14) raise the question in their report as well stating, it "is not known if he [Marcus] built the same building that is currently on the property or if there was an earlier house." Historic Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building Table 2-1 Chain of Title and Ownership Information for Block 8, Lot 13/27 Date Title and Ownership Activity 1860 Board of Trustees to John Wilson 1868 Romona Wilson to Capt. D.P, Mallagh; Capt D. P. Mallagh to C.H. Mills; C.H. Mills to W. Marcus 1870 (Petition for Grant of Land, W.I. Marcus: stated the property was settled in 1868) 1871 W. Marcus to J. P. Andrews 1873 (U.S. Patent to Block to Board of Town Trustees) 1885 J. P. Andrews to Chs. Weaver (house built) 1902 Chs. Weaver to Chs. Bowden 1914 Chs. Bowden to C. Noyes 1919 C. Noyes to D. Bryant 1924 D. Bryant to Edward Leitcher; Edward Leitcher to Lizzie Tullman (not a deed) 1927 Lizzie Tullman to Edward Leitcher 1927-1996 (Remained in Leitcher Family) The earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the property dates to 1886 (Figure 2-1). It does not indicate the name of the property owner, but depicts the main building as a wood -shingled, wood -framed boarding and lodging house with two -stories on the front (north) two-thirds of the building, a one --story comprising the rear (south) portion of the building, and surrounded on all sides by a one-story, covered wrap -around porch. A small two-story, wood -frame structure with a gable roof with wood shingles, a south -facing porch, and an open -sided shed on the west side of the structure is located to the south and the rear of the main house. It is possible that this was the original 1868 residence on the property referred to in Marcus' 1870 Land Grant Petition. What appears to be a privy is located adjacent to it on the eastern property line. By 1888, the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map now labels the small building as a stable. The shed on its south side has been replaced by a slightly larger one-story addition and the small southern porch is now shown as enclosed on two sides. A new two-story, wood -frame building (with the notation "Rooms") with wood shingles and a west -facing porch is shown connected to the southeastern comer of the main lodging house (Figure 2-2). The new building shows an address of 28 1/2 and the stable, indicated as vacant, shows a new address of 28 1/3. The 1891 Sanborn map (Figure 2-3) shows a few small changes to the main building, including the addition of two small "pop -outs," presumably indicating the addition of bay windows on the east and west fagades. The small two-story rooming building connected to the southeast corner of the main house shows an added porch on the north side of the building. Both the main house and the rooming building next to it are coded as dwellings. The presumed privy previously shown at the eastern property line is not shown on this map and is presumed to have been torn down. The stable is now labeled as a barn and its south -facing small porch is no longer present. Instead there is a small detached structure just south of the eastern corner of the barn depicted with a line leading from it to the eastern property line, possibly indicating a water line. This suggests the function of the small structure could be a small pump house or utility structure of some kind. A small single -story structure is also shown at the southeastern corner of the parcel, but its function is not indicated. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building •55' Figure 2-1 Detail of 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 10 NIPOMA Figure 2-2 Detail of 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the LeitcherApartment Building 11 BROA 4 E Figure 2-3 Detail of 1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 12 By the 1903 Sanborn map (Figure 2-4) little had changed. The small structure, possibly a water closet or small pump house, shown on the 1891 map as just south of the eastern corner of the barn is no longer depicted. The street address is now shown as 667 W. Monterey Street. There appears to be a small addition on the west side and near the south corner of the small rooming building attached to the southeastern corner of the main house. The Gaxiola Adobe next door is now shown as storage rather than a dwelling. The 1905 and 1909 Sanborn maps (Figures 2-5 and 2-6) show no changes to the subject property since 1903. However, the 1909 Sanborn map no longer shows the Gaxiola Adobe on the adjacent lot; it was apparently dismantled sometime between 1905 and 1909. After 1909, no Sanborn maps were produced again for 23 years. The 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (Figure 2-7) shows that the barn on the property, now owned by the Leitchers, had been removed and replaced with a small single -story wood -framed apartment with a composition shingle roof. The main building is labeled "Lodging." There was a single historical photograph identified during the research for this project. A copy of the image was provided to Applied EarthWorks by Betsy Bertrando, who had acquired the image from Kathy De Palma —a member of the Leitcher family ---when conducting her research on the property in 2005. The image (Figure 2-8) is attributed to the early 1930s and provides a view of the Leitcher Apartments Building's main facade as it appeared prior to alterations. There is another long hiatus of Sanborn maps and the next version not produced until 1950 (Figure 2-9). The 1950 map indicates the main building as apartments and shows several changes to the building, among which are a one-story addition covering two-thirds of the rear (south) facade and another along the entire length of the side (west) facade. Both are single story and are indicated as having composite or asphalt shingles. Likewise all the previously extant structures and the remaining porches are indicated as now having composite or asphalt shingles, presumably replacing the original wood shingles sometime between 1926 and 1950. The bay window has been removed from the side (west) facade, presumably when the addition to that side of the building was added. The wrap -around porch has been removed from the main (north) facade and from the side (west) facade and part of the rear (south) facade where the new additions are located. The 1950 Sanborn map still shows the porch on the east end of the rear (south) facade, but appears to have been expanded where it connects to the smaller two-story building attached to the southeast corner of the main house. The smaller two-story building is still indicated as a dwelling. The small apartment building behind the main house has been expanded westward toward the adjacent property line. A new wood -framed building is also shown on the 1950 map, east of the small apartment building and just south of the small, two-story building attached to the corner of the main house. The new building is shown as divided into a duplex dwelling. The date of the additions to the main Leitcher Apartment Building indicated on the 1950 Sanborn Map is not precisely known. Morlet, Applied EarthWorks Staff Architectural Historian, reviewed 1906-1937 City Building Permits archived at the Cal Poly Special Collections. Building permits between 1938 and 1950 were unavailable for viewing as they were apparently lost in a fire. No building permits for 667 Monterey Street were issued between 1909 and 1937, Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 13 EG 9l W Er W z 0 VJ 3� Figure 2-4 Detail of 1903 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 14 05� U1 x W {z V1YfI 0 00.57 Figure 2-5 Detail of 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 15 l7r, Figure 2-6 Detail of 1909 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review ---Rehabilitation and Relocation of the LeitcherApartment Building 16 y ♦ � +n+ s �.. .r w. w .�. •r .r �, +�ii1 rrr �! a w � � wM � w w � .� � a w ir, w � � wnc .� .� — QV08e h 95 W ^ 0 W w z v �.t i rr Yv QYVad I N k� Figure 2-7 Detail of 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 17 Figure 2-8 Circa 1930s photograph of the Leitcher Apartment Building, view to southeast of main facade (photograph courtesy of Kathy De Palma, Saga Luis Obispo). although there were several permits issued to the heitchers during those years for other properties they owned around town. The lack of permits issued prior to 1937 for the two large additions to the L.eitcher Apartment Building suggests that the additions were constructed sometime in the 12-year span between 1938 and 1950, when the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map indicates their presence. Previous researchers ascribe those alterations to the 1920s or 1930s (cf. Bertrando and Betrando 2005:20- 21; Moser et al. 2005:4). Based on the materials and construction methods used for the additions, a date range between 1938 and 1950 is consistent. Given that few major additions to buildings occurred during World War 11 (1939-1945) when building materials for private use were scarce and expensive, a date of 1945-1950 appears to be a reasonable estimate. It is unknown whether the two additions were constructed at the same time or were undertaken as separate construction episodes during those years. Sometime after 1950 a small pump house was apparently constructed at the rear of the property, along the eastern property line. Bertrando and Bertrand.o (2005:20-21) and Moser et al. (2005:5) attribute this structure to the 1930 and 1920s, respectively. It does not appear on the property on -the 1950 Sanborn map, suggesting it was actually constructed after that date. It was recently demolished. listoric Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation or the LeiicherApartrnent Building 18 f X, !W h OV Ne s s—. " c 1wa a+ 2 Figure 2-9 Detail of 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing the subject property. Historic Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 19 2.3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING The circa 1885 Leitcher Apartment Building, as it was originally constructed, was a symmetrically executed, two-story, side -gabled, simple Folk Victorian residential building surrounded by a generous one-story wrap -around covered porch with Eastlake Stick -style angled porch supports and set on a post and pier raised foundation. Over time, the building was altered and additions were constructed, as already noted. Because the alterations were not documented in detail through a permit process that can be consulted, additional observations were made by Applied EarthWorks during the site visit on February 24, 2012 that expand upon those documented in reports by previous researchers and what information could be gleaned from the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. 2.3.1 Roof The steeply pitched side -gable roofline over the original two-story portion of the building appears to be in its original configuration. The original one-story rear portion of the house had an interesting roofline; it was originally covered by a medium -pitched shed roof that articulated directly with the wrap -around porch's low -pitch shed roof across the length of the rear (south) fagade of the building. The rear shed roof was significantly altered (circa 1945--1950) to accommodate the west and rear additions. The rear porch was removed and replaced with an odd configuration that extended a portion of the rear shed roof and removed other portions of it to accommodate the gable -front roofline of the side (west) addition, a gabled addition to east end of the rear facade, and an awkward expansion of the roofline attachment to the once present secondary two-story apartment at the southeast corner of the building. Figure 2-10 provides a circa 2011 aerial image of the property. The alterations are clearly visible in the red shingled portions of the roof. Coding on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps indicates that the original portions of the roof were sheathed in wood shingles during the building's period of significance (1880s). Sometime between the publication of the 1926 and 1950 Sanborn maps, the wood shingles were removed and replaced with composite or asphalt shingles. The shingles on the main, original portion of the house are mostly a weathered pale grey while those on the west and rear additions are an orange/red. 2.3.2 Building Sheathing The original portions of the building were sided with horizontal shiplap (droplap) wood siding. Vertical boards measuring between 7 and 9 inches were used as apron skirting around the base of the porch. The rear of the property slopes down southward and eastward toward the creek, and the building takes advantage of this slope with a partially subterranean half story on the rear of the house, which is also covered with vertical board siding. The skirting boards match those used on the added front -gabled entryway and were presumably installed at the time the front, west, and rear portions of the wrap -around porch were removed (circa 1945-1950), and therefore also appear not to be original. It is unknown what was originally present, but likely it was similar to what is present today as it is close to the board width on the building's exterior sheathing. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 20 Figure 2 t0 Aerial image of the subject properti prior to demolition of secondary structures (circa 2011). 2.3.3 Main (North) Facade The main facade was significantly altered since the period of significance with the removal of the first -story covered porch from this portion of the building, the addition of a gabled entry feature with side lights and a six -panel door, replacement of original windows, insertion of two new window openings, and addition of decorative wood shutters. Originally, the :first floor fagade displayed an arrangement of four wood -framed two -over -one double --hung windows. The windows were arranged symmetrically with two on either side of the main entry, all of which was sheltered by the one-story covered porch. The second floor on the main fagade had a narrow wood casement window centered at the attic level and flanked on either side by a larger wood- frained double -hung window (see Figure 2-8). The original main entry door is difficult to make out in the 1930s photograph. It appears to be glazed with a single light in the upper portion of the door; it was likely paneled on the lower portion, a style popular at the time. Presumably at the time of the west and rear additions, the fenestration was altered. On the first floor, all four windows were replaced and a new window inserted between each set of two windows flanking the main entry for a current total of six windows across the first story of the main facade. On the second story, the narrow casement window above the main entry was replaced with a larger double -hung good frarne window of the same size and configuration as the two that were flanking. Decorative cut-out wood shutters were added to the windows on the second story, most likely at the same time as the other window renovations. When viewing the postulated elevation reconstructions illustrating Moser et al.'s (2005) study, some discretion is advised. There are several apparent errors that should not dictate fixture Historic Preservation resign Review —Rehabilitation any' Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 21 attempts to restore the exterior appearance of the building. On the main facade, the windows on both stories are all shown as two -over -two double -hung sash. The early 1930s photograph of the property shows a different configuration, as described above. Likewise, when viewing the 1930s photograph, although difficult to make out, it appears the front porch railing had a more complex design (offset grid pattern) and not the simple three railed appearance as depicted in the reconstruction drawing. 2.3.4 Side (East) Facade The east facade has retained the greatest historic integrity and provides important clues to the original appearance of the pre -altered west facade. Given the symmetrical design of the building, it is probable that the west facade once mirrored the east. The original covered porch with diagonal Eastlake Stick -style porch supports (with punch -outs and turnings) is present along this side of the building and, other than the porch railings, appears to exhibit its original design and materials. Centered on the first story east facade is a squared bay window that, based on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, has been present since at least 1891. The windows, however, appear to have been replaced (the windows are currently boarded over, but see Figure 1 in Moser et al. 2005: 5), likely during the same time period as the construction of the rear and west additions. Other fenestration on the first story includes a small window of unknown configuration to the north of the bay window and what may be side -by -side double -hung sash windows are toward the south end of the east facade_ The second story of the east facade has two symmetrically placed one over one double -hung sash windows. They originally likely matched those as seen in Figure 2-8 with a two -over -one configuration. Centered above these two windows at the attic level is a smaller wood -framed double -hung six -over -six window mirroring the double -hung window still present on the west facade attic level (see Figure 4 in Moser et al. 2005:5). 2.3.5 Rear (South) Facade Given the extensive renovations to the rear of the building, it is difficult to determine precisely the original configuration of the rear facade. Considering the overall symmetrical treatment of. the building's design, the first story likely had a central or slightly offset rear entrance, leading into the house from the back porch and four double -hung sash windows, two positioned on either side of the rear entrance with the same placement as the original four on the main facade. Likewise, the second story facade also likely mirrored that on the main facade with a central narrow casement window flaked on either side by a two -over -one double -hung wood sash window. The windows on the rear facade, like the rest of the building, were boarded over at the time of this study. However, it appears that the westernmost are a side -by -side set of double -hung windows, which appear to have been added at the time of the rear and western additions. A single (uncovered) small window is centered on the rear facade and appears to have been replaced at some point with a single fixed pane. The window on the eastern end of the rear second -story facade is partially obscured by a rear addition, but appears to be smaller in scale than that on the western end and may be of a single double -hung configuration. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 22 2.3.6 Side (West) Facade - The first story of the building's west facade is completely covered with the previously noted circa 1945-1950 addition. It is presumed to have previously mirrored the east fagade with a centered squared bay window, flanked with a small window on the north end and possibly, side - by -side double -hung sash windows toward the south end of the east fagade. The second story mirrors the east facade with two symmetrically placed one -over -one double -hung sash windows. Originally they likely matched those as seen in Figure 2-8 with a two -over -one configuration. Centered above these two windows at the attic level is a smaller wood -framed double -hung six - over -six window. 2.3.7 Landscaping There are no coherent remnants of the historic landscaping on this property or records indicating what may have been present during its 1880s period of significance. The only record of vegetation once present on the property are previous accounts of the lushness of the plantings, which were reportedly a mix of tropical and succulent plants established on the property over a series of years, beginning in the 1930s (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005;16). Bertrando and Bertrando (2005:16) provide a 1933 photograph of Robert Leitcher standing in the backyard of the property next to a wishing well that shows some young trees and plants. By this time, they had developed a cactus garden on a portion of the property. Reportedly, during the 1980s, Ron Vargas took over gardening at the property and began introducing "unusual plants" (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005:16). By 2005, the plantings had been neglected for more than 10 years and had overgrown and overtaken the property, effectively obscuring some of the secondary structures (Bertrando and Bertrando: 18). Most of the vegetation was removed in 2011 when the secondary buildings on the property were demolished. All that remains in the front yard today are two overgrown trees and a remnant palm tree, none of which appear to be representative of the property from its period of significance. The early 1930s photograph of the main building (Figure 2-8) shows a front lawn, small shrubs planted along the base of the porch on the front of the house, and a small tree of an unidentified species. 2.3.8 Orientation and Setback The Leitcher Apartment. Building directly faces northwest onto Monterey Street, which runs southwest to northeast toward the mission. Currently the front (north side) of the Leitcher Apartment Building is a little over 11 feet south of the edge of the public sidewalk and approximately 18 feet from the current edge of Monterey Street, a two-lane road with room for on -street parking along the north and south curbs. There is a gutter and curb next to the road on either side, as well as a 6-foot-wide public sidewalk. Given the uneven setbacks of older homes on the north side of the street as compared to those along the south side, it appears that Monterey Street was once more narrow and has been widened over the years and may have been widened to the south rather than the north (or at least more so). The results of the uneven widening is an artificially distinct setback of 20-30 feet of older homes on the north side of the road versus those on the south side of the road, Which are now are about 18 feet or less from the edge of the street. Construction of the sidewalks additionally abbreviated the setback of the Leitcher Apartment Building from the public right-of-way such that now it is Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 23 only 11 feet from the sidewalk's edge. Newer construction along this block, such as the Children's Museum to the west and other recent buildings constructed to the east of the Leitcher Apartment Building have been built closer to Monterey Street such that there is no longer a coherent setback distance of historical buildings along this streetscape as there was originally. 2.3.9 Character -defining Features Character -defining features of the>Folk Victorian -style Leitcher Apartment Building during its period of significance (1884s) include the following: • Two-story rectangular massing on front (north) two-thirds of the building with one- story rectangular massing on the rear. • Steeply pitched side gable roof configuration with slightly overhanging eaves on two- story north portion of the building; shed roof on the rear single -story portion of the building that articulates with and changing pitch to match lower pitched roof of the first -story wrap -around porch. • Wood shingles. • First -story wrap -around covered porch with shed roof; Eastlake Stick -style angled decorative porch supports; simple wood decking, rails, and balustrades (in an offset - grid pattern); and centered wood steps leading from walkway to main entry. • Symmetrical fenestration with a centered main entry. • Two -over -one double -hung wood sash windows with the exception of: (1) a small casement window at attic level on main (north) fagade, and (2) a six -over -six small double -hung wood sash window centered at attic level on east and west facades. • Broad shiplap (droplap) wood exterior wall sheathing. • Simple and unadorned exterior walls (no shutters or other decorative elements). • Simple landscaping of the front of the property, including a front lawn, central walkway from street to main porch steps, small shrub plantings along base of porch and several small trees. 2.3.10 Primary and Secondary FaVades and Views The primary facade identified for the Leitcher Apartment Building is the main (north) fagade. The secondary fagade is the side (west) fagade. The primary view of the property is of the main (north) fayade as viewed from directly in front of the property on Monterey Street. The secondary view is of the side (west) facade as viewed obliquely while proceeding east toward Broad Street along Monterey Street from Nipomo Street. The east side of the building and the property in general does not appear to have been a view focus and for much of its history was heavily obscured by dense trees and other vegetation. Although the rear of the building was likely partially visible through the vegetation along the creek from the adjacent properties on the south bank of the creek, it does not appear to have been a historically significant view. Historic Preservation Design Review ---Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 24 3 PROPOSED PLANS FOR REHABILITATION AND RELOCATION OF THE LEITCHER APARTMENT BUILDING The following description of proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building, unless otherwise noted, is derived from Arris Studio Architect's conceptual Monterey Place plans dated January 12, 2012. As mentioned above, the scope of work for the current design review includes only consideration of the proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building and does not include review or recommendations for other components of the proposed Monterey Place redevelopment project. 3.1 PROPOSED USE Shear Edge Development proposes an adaptive reuse of the Leitcher Apartment Building to serve as the feature element of a new bed and breakfast as part of the larger Monterey Place redevelopment project. 3.2 PROPOSED RELOCATION Shear Edge Development proposes to move the Leitcher Apartment Building 3 feet toward the front (north) property line and 9 feet toward the east property line and to place the building on a new foundation. 3.3 PROPOSED ALTERATIONS Shear Edge Development proposes to remove the nonhistoric additions to the Leitcher Apartment Building. The conceptual plans state that "the main structure will be restored and placed on a new concrete foundation" (Arris Studio Architects 2012:A0.2). The specific alterations are discussed below and are distinguished between those proposed for the exterior from those for the interior. 3.3.1 Proposed Exterior Alterations Alterations proposed for the exterior are as follows (see Arris Studio Architects 2012:A6.0— A6.2): Remove nonhistoric additions (first -story addition on west side, rear additions, covered main entry porch element, squared bay window on east fagade, and east side entry addition). • Original porch to be removed and rebuilt (reuse material and/or rebuild in -kind). New roof over porch; roofing materials to be consistent with original design. Historic Preservation Design Review -Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 25 • Porch deck on main (north) facade to be extended north on the west half of the front of the house (north, main facade) and westward beyond historic porch line on the west side of the house. Porch deck and roof to be extended south beyond the historic porch line on the rear (south) side of the building to create an uncovered deck area. • New wood post and trim to match original materials and design. • New wood railing to match original materials and design. • New wood decking. • Repair and reuse existing original windows or replace with new wood windows consistent with the original windows. New windows to be located consistent with original design. • Restore historic fenestration ratio of window to wall surface on first -story main (north) facade by removing and filling nonhistoric window openings. • New wood and glass entry door (glazed upper and paneled lower). • New wood steps. • New concrete flatwork. • New landscaping. 3.3.2 Proposed Interior Alterations Alterations proposed for the interior are as follows: • Interior walls to be removed and reconfigured. • New interior walls. • HVAC units for guest rooms. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the LeitcherApartment Building 26 4 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The Leitcher Apartment Building is located within the City's Downtown Historic District and is included on the City's Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. As such, relocation and alterations of the Leitcher Apartments must comply with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). Because the development of the project will require a discretionary permit from the city, it is also subject to the requirements of CEQA. Under CEQA and the City Guidelines, a project that complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Weeks and Grimmer 1995)---referred to as the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards for Treatment —will not have a significant impact on historical resources. 4.1 DEFINING THE TREATMENT In order to effectively evaluate compliance of the proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building with the SOI Standards of Treatment, it is important to appropriately define the specific category of treatment that is being proposed. The following definitions are cited verbatim from the "Introduction to Standards and Guidelines" provided online by the National Park Service: The four treatment approaches are Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction, outlined below in hierarchical order and explained: The first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made. Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.) Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods. Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non - surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials [Weeks and Grimmer 2001]. Rehabilitation is further defined "as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values" (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:61), Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 27 The stated intent for alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building is to restore as much as possible the historic appearance of the building from its period of significance (1880s) and remove nonhistoric materials and additions. However, the proposed work does not appear to be consistent with a restoration treatment as defined under the SOI Standards of Treatment given the proposed interior wall reconfigurations and removal of small remnants of the rear single - story circa 1885 portion of the building, among other details. The proposed treatment of the Leitcher Apartment Building is, therefore, best characterized as rehabilitation under the SOT Standards of Treatment as it proposes a compatible use for the property (bed and breakfast) and proposes retention and repair of historical materials and alterations to the building to prepare the property for that use. Consequently, this design review is conducted with reference to the Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as presented in the SOI Standards of Treatment (Weeks and Grimmer 1995) and supplemented with the updated version provided online (http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/, accessed March 27, 2012). 4.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building as communicated in the conceptual drawings dated January 12 , 2012 are consistent with 8 of the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation but do not comply with Standards 6 and 9. A discussion of each of the standards and assessment of the proposed alterations for consistency is presented in this section. Recommendations for revisions to the proposed plans for consistency with the SOI Standards for Treatment are provided in Chapter 5. 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given anew use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The proposed use of the Leitcher Apartment Building as a bed and breakfast is compatible and comparable to its original use as a boarding and lodging house. As described above, the proposed exterior rehabilitation attempts to restore as much as possible the building's exterior to its historic appearance. The proposed use of the building requires minimal alterations as compared to other potential adaptive reuse possibilities, such as for retail, office, or restaurant use, or to rehabilitate it to serve as a single-family residence. The building has stood vacant for some years and had suffered from prior neglect, poor maintenance, and insensitive alterations and additions. Rehabilitation of the Leitcher Apartment Building to serve as a bed and breakfast is an excellent solution that provides a highly compatible use with relatively minimal amount of alteration. Removal of nonhistoric materials and additions and restoring the wrap -around porch, a character -defining feature of the property, to its original configuration will add to the historic character of this property and this portion of the Downtown Historic District. Furthermore, adaptive reuse of this building for an economically viable use will ensure its continued maintenance and bring life and relevance back to a building that was once an important part of San Luis Obispo's community and its social landscape of workers for which it once provided lodgings. Given that the property is currently on the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources rather than the City's Master List for properties that have achieved individual historic significance, the interior alterations are less critical than those proposed for the exterior, which more directly Historic Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 28 affect the property's ability to contribute to and communicate the significance of the Downtown Historic District. The proposed interior alterations include removal of walls that Moser et al. (2005) suggest were added when the property was converted to apartments in the 1920s. The reconstructed floor plans resulting from their study (presented in Appendix A of this report) appear to be well -reasoned based on architectural remnants and indications they provide as evidence for the original configuration. The proposed reconfiguration of the interior walls more closely approximates the reconstructed original floor plans than what is currently present. The primary differences between the two are the proposed installation of a Manager's Unit with bathroom, kitchen, and full living quarters on the west half of the first floor and en suite bathrooms in the upper two guest rooms, which were not present in the reconstructed original floor plans. The proposed interior alterations will partially restore the interior room sizes, shape, and layout to their original symmetrical configuration. Furthermore, the building's historic significance is not based partially or wholly on interior architectural characteristics or features. Therefore, the proposed interior rehabilitation is found to comply with the Rehabilitation Standards. 2. The historic character of a property will he retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration offeatures, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will he avoided. The proposed rehabilitation seeks as much as possible to retain the original historic fabric of the building, repair deteriorated materials and features, and reconfigure the interior spaces to be a much closer approximation to their original layout. However, there is a point worth considering regarding a proposed change to spatial relationships and its consistency with this standard. The proposed relocation of the LeitcherApartment Building would result in the building being lifted from its foundations at its original (current) location and moved 3 feet toward the front (north) property line and 9 feet toward the side (east) property line. Moving a building, even if only by a few feet, changes the spatial relationships on the property. The question is whether relocating the building as proposed affects a character -defining spatial relationship for the property. Based on the analysis conducted for this study, this does not appear to be the case. Because the property is a contributing element of the Downtown Historic District, we must also consider whether relocating the building will affect the integrity of the district's setting in regards to recognized setback patterns. A historic feature of the residential section of the Downtown Historic District is a typical building setback of 20 feet or more (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:40). As mentioned above, the historic setback on this block has already been impacted by road widening, sidewalk installation, and reduced setbacks of new construction, particularly along the southern side of the street where the Leitcher Apartment Building is located. Moving the subject building forward (north) 3 feet on the parcel as proposed will have no further affect as the front yard -to -building spatial ratios have already been compromised on this property and in this section of the district. The building's proposed new position on the parcel will still allow an unobstructed view of the building from the primary and secondary views established during this study. Based on the proposed conceptual plans, the front yard between the public sidewalk and the building will still be retained. There are no character -defining features identified for the placement of the building Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 29 on the property along its east to west axis. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed relocation of the building is consistent with this standard. The proposed alterations also include removing the rear nonhistoric additions to the first floor, as well as any remaining fragments of the original one-story rear portion of the building. As indicated on Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps from 1886 (Figure 2-1) and 1888 (Figure 2-2), there was a rear one-story portion of the house present during the period of significance (1880s). However, nonhistoric alterations and additions to the rear of the building have resulted in irreversible impacts. Reconstructed elevations were attempted by Moser et al. (2005) for the rear (south) facade of the building, but were noted as conjectural because the original building fabric and features on the one-story original portion of the building had been too altered or obscured by additions to indicate with certainty how it originally appeared. In viewing the rear of the building today, it appears that one small section of the exterior south wall of the original one-story portion of the building may possibly remain. As any reconstruction of the original one-story portion of the building would be conjectural and not based on solid evidence, attempting it would not be consistent with Standard 3. Also, considering that the rear facade is not a primary or secondary building facade, removing the small remnants of the historic one-story rear portion of the building is consistent with the SOI Standards. Finally, the conceptual plans indicate the removal of the squared bay window from the side (east) £a�ade. The bay window on the east side facade first appears on the 1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map [Figure 2-3]), which is outside the 1884s period of significance for the property. The twin to this window was already removed (circa 1945-1950) when the west addition was constructed. The removal of the remaining bay window is consistent with this standard. 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. The proposed rehabilitation complies. There are no proposed changes that would create a false sense of historical development. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The period of significance for this property has been assigned by previous research and the City as the 1880s. The proposed rehabilitation seeks to remove nonhistoric additions so that the Leitcher Apartment Building more closely reflects its original appearance. The proposed rehabilitation complies with this standard. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Of primary concern is the proposed removal of the remaining portions of the original covered porch and decorative porch supports on the east facade, both of which reflect distinctive examples of the builder's craftsmanship on an otherwise unadorned and simply executed Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the LeitcherApartment Building 30 vernacular design. The covered porch and associated features, particularly the decorative angled porch supports, are identified in this study as character -defining features of the building. The developer's desire to restore the portions of the wrap -around porch removed circa 1945-1950 are laudable and a large part of what makes this proposed rehabilitation desirable from a historic preservation standpoint. However, clarification is needed regarding proposed changes to the porch. The conceptual plans state, "[o]riginal porch to be removed and rebuilt (reuse material and/or rebuild in -kind)." It is assumed that there is a compelling need for the removal and reconstruction of the porch on the east side where it is still present. If there is and all removed materials that can be reused are integrated into the rebuilt porch in its original configuration, the proposed rehabilitation is consistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation. If there is no compelling reason to remove the roof and/or if the original materials that can be reused are not, the proposed rehabilitation is not consistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation. 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. The repair and replacement of the historic wrap -around porch is discussed in more detail under Standard 5. Proposed replacement of deteriorated materials or missing features for the entire building are found to be consistent with this standard. However, the proposed plans indicate that the replaced porch sections will extend beyond the original porch deck and roofline in several locations. The conceptual plans show the new porch deck extending beyond the porch's roofline toward the street on the west half of the front of the building and extending westward on the west side of the building. This extension beyond the roofline affects the symmetry of the porch as the main facade is viewed from the street (primary view) and deviates from the original porch footprint on the west side (secondary view). As currently proposed, these porch deck extensions on the north and west sides of the building do not comply with this standard as they do not match the original design. Additional discussion of this issue is presented under Standard 9 below. 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. The conceptual plans do not indicate any planned chemical or physical treatments. As long as none will be undertaken that could cause damage to historic materials, the proposed rehabilitation complies. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The potential for archaeological resources on the property has been identified by previous research; affects are assessed and mitigation measures are proposed in the report by Singer and Associates (Singer 2011). The conceptual designs indicate that mitigation measures for potential impacts to archaeological resources will be undertaken as part of this project. The proposed project complies. 9. New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be Historic Preservation Design Re vie w—Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 31 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. The proposed porch deck extensions —summarized under the compliance discussions for Standards 5 and 6—deviate from the original porch design and, as currently conceptualized, would not be sufficiently differentiated from the old. In addition to the porch deck extensions on the north and west sides of the building, the first floor conceptual plan indicates that the porch decking will be extended southward beyond the porch's roofline on the rear west half of the building to create an uncovered deck area. As currently designed, the new porch extensions to the north, west, and south would not be sufficiently differentiated from the original porch configuration and thus, are not consistent with this standard. The addition of a side set of porch stairs are indicated on the west side, leading up to the extended porch deck along this side of the building. They are placed toward the rear edge of the western side of the building. This placement is acceptable as designed since it is sufficiently set back from the front building edge and does not alter the primary historic view of the building or design vocabulary of the primary (main) fagade. Their design, however, does not sufficiently distinguish them from the originally designed porch configuration, which did not have stairs on this side of the building. As they are currently conceptualized, the west porch stairs do not comply with this standard. Related new construction on and adjacent to this parcel that is part of the proposed Monterey Place redevelopment project is not within the scope of work for this assessment. Consistency of the rest of the project with this standard is undetermined. 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. Proposed changes to the Leitcher Apartment Building are consistent with this standard. Related new construction on and adjacent to this parcel that is part of the proposed Monterey Place redevelopment project is not within the scope of work for this assessment. Consistency of the rest of the project with this standard is undetermined. 4.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES The City requires that alterations to listed historic resources be evaluated for consistency with the SOI Standards for Treatment. The evaluation for that consistency is presented in the preceding section. This section addresses additional requirements as set forth in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010). 4.3.1 Relocation of Historic Resources Section 14.01.110 of the City's Municipal Code Chapter 14.01, Historic Preservation Ordinance, includes legal requirements that must be met for the relocation of structures listed on the Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the t_eitcherApartment Building 32 r Inventory of Historic Resources. As the Leitcher Apartment Building is on the Contributing List of Historic Resources, it must meet those requirements and the criteria presented in the ordinance for relocation. The proposed relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building is consistent with the criteria set out in Section 14.01.110.B. As discussed under Standard 2 in Section 4.2 of this report, the relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic value of the resource and it will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the Downtown Historic District, surrounding properties, or new location_ As the proposed new location would be 3 feet north and 9 feet east on the same parcel as the building is currently located and was originally constructed, the proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's historic significance. 4.3.2 Percent of Historic Resource to be Preserved The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:13) require that alterations to historically listed buildings must ensure retention of at least 75 percent of the original. building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding. The proposed alterations comply with this requirement. As currently proposed, an estimated 80-85 percent of the remaining original framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding will be retained. 4.3.3 Retention of Character -defining Features Character -defining features for this property are identified in Section 2.3.9 of this report. The City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state: Alterations of historically -listed buildings shall retain character -defining features. New features on primary and secondary building facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:13]. The proposed alterations to the building will retain or restore all of the building's character - defining features with the exception of proposed extensions to the historic wrap -around porch. Proposed extensions of the porch deck to the north (on west half of north side of building), west (along the west side of building), and south (on the rear of the building) do not comply with the City's stated requirement. The main and west facades are identified in this report as, respectively, the building's primary and secondary facades. The rear (south) fagade and proposed new porch deck extension will be visible from a public area once the associated Monterey Place development is constructed, and, therefore, is also inconsistent with this requirement. It is possible to preserve the original architectural character, scale, and appearance of the porch on the rear of the building by differentiating the new construction from the old while using compatible (not identical) materials, style, and/or treatment. Recommendations for design of the porch and extended porch deck to be consistent with this guideline are provided in Chapter 5. 4.3.4 Exterior Building Changes The City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state the following: Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 33 Exterior changes to historically -listed buildings or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character -defining features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape, quality and appearance. However, original materials are not required [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:131. The proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building are consistent with this guideline. 4.3.5 Interior Building Changes The City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines indicate that "interior changes to publicly - accessible listed historic buildings whose architectural or historic significance is wholly or partially based on interior architectural characteristics or features shall preserve and restore significance architectural features" (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:14). As the Leitcher Apartment Building's historic significance is not wholly or partially based on interior architectural characteristics or features, the proposed interior alterations are consistent with this guideline. 4.3.6 Acquired Historic Significance The City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state, "[c]hanges to listed historic resources that the Director or CHC determines to have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved" (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:14). To the best knowledge of the project sponsor, Shear Edge Development, and Applied EarthWorks, consultant, no changes to the building have been identified by the Director or Cultural Heritage Committee to have acquired historic significance in their own right. This study also did not identify any changes that would be considered historically significant. The proposed alterations are consistent with this guideline. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 34 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The results of this historic preservation design review identified two SOI Standards (6 and 9) with which the currently proposed alterations to the Leitcher Apartment Building are not consistent. Recommendations to resolve those inconsistencies are provided in this chapter. Additional recommendations are provided to guide future plan development, repairs, and rehabilitation of the building to ensure consistency of the project with the prevailing standards and guidelines. 5.1 PORCH DECK EXTENSIONS AND ADDITION OF PORCH STAIRS As currently depicted on the conceptual plans, the proposed porch deck extensions beyond the historic porch roofline are not consistent with the SOI Standards or the City's Guidelines. To resolve this discrepancy, Applied EarthWorks recommends that the applicant: 1. Revise the porch plans so that the porch deck on the north and west sides of the building do not extend past the historic roofline limit. The north and west facades, identified as the primary and secondary facades (respectively), and their character - defining features must retain their original scale, proportion, and design characteristics. 2. Revise the design for the rear porch deck extension so that it is sufficiently differentiated from the original porch configuration to meet SOI Standards. One option would be to retain the original porch deck dimensions and have a step down to the new deck area. The deck and its railings, posts, and other associated features from the old porch must be distinguished from the new porch configuration by using compatible, but differentiated, design treatment and/or materials. 3. Revise the design for the west side porch steps addition so that they are sufficiently differentiated from the original porch configuration to meet SOI Standards. This can be accomplished by using compatible, but differentiated, design treatment and/or materials. 5.2 PORCH REMOVAL, REPAIR, AND RECONSTRUCTION The conceptual plans indicate that the original single -story, covered, wrap -around porch will be repaired and where missing, restored. Recommendations to guide that effort are as follows: 1. Only remove the remaining east porch segment if it is necessary to ensure safety and code compliance or to repair deteriorated materials that cannot be accessed otherwise. 2. If the porch must be removed, produce detailed measured drawings and detailed photo -documentation of the porch and its features prior to their removal to create a permanent record of its original appearance and guide the porch's reconstruction. It is Historic Preservation Design Review --Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 35 r wi recommended that a copy of that documentation be placed in the property file at the San Luis Obispo Historical Museum Research Room. 3. Replicate the materials, design, scale, and placement of the porch and its features as evidenced in the early 1930s photograph of the building's main facade (Figure 2-8) and as observed in the remaining east side porch segment. Where differences exist between the two references, the historic photograph should take precedence. 4. Repair rather than replace any remaining architectural materials and features of the porch where possible. 5. Where porch decking must be replaced, the replacement material should be wood. 6. Porch entry steps on the main facade should be constructed of wood and match as closely as possible their appearance in the early 1930s photograph in Figure 2-8. 7. Where porch skirting replacement is needed, it should match in kind and vertical orientation what is currently present. 5.3 REMOVAL OF NONHISTORIC MAIN ENTRY FEATURE At the time that the wrap -around porch was removed from all but the east side of the building (circa 1945-1950), a new gabled main entry addition was constructed and side lights were installed. The entry feature and side lights are nonhistoric and should be removed as proposed. Recommendations for treatment include: I. Extreme care should be taken during the removal of these features to preserve as much as possible the original surrounding exterior wall sheathing that remains. 2. Any nonreparable or missing sheathing material should be carefully replaced to match in kind and alignment with the historic sheathing on the main facade. 5.4 REMOVAL OF NONHISTORIC ADDITIONS FROM REAR OF BUILDING Recommendations to guide removal of nonhistoric additions are as follows: 1. Extreme care should be taken during the removal of nonhistoric additions to preserve as much as possible of the remaining historic material of the original two-story portion of the building. 2. Any nonreparable or missing material should be carefully replaced to match in kind and alignment with that which is still present. 5.5 WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR Recommendations to guide treatment of windows on the building are as follows: 1. Restore the historic fenestration ratio of window to wall surface on first -story main (north) facade by removing and filling nonhistoric window openings. The middle window of the three -window string on either side of the main entry is a nonhistoric addition and should be removed. Match extant historic sheathing in kind, scale, alignment, and treatment when covering nonhistoric window openings. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 36 2. Replace current windows with historically accurate versions. With the exception of the smaller attic -level windows, the replacements should be wood double -hung two - over -one sash windows of the same size as are present on the main facade today. The east and west attic -level windows should be repaired if possible or replaced to match the size and current (and historic) pane configuration as seen on the west facade (six - over -six). With the exception of the bay window, all fenestration on the west facade should mirror that on the east facade in size, position, and type. 3. The attic -level window on the main facade should be removed and the historic smaller opening restored to fit a narrower wood casement window with broad wood surrounds, such as seen in the early 1930s historic photograph (Figure 2-8). 4. The squared bay window on the east facade is not original and should be removed. 5. The historic windows did not have decorative shutters; the shutters currently present should be removed. 5.6 DOOR REPLACEMENT Recommendations to guide replacement of door on the building are as follows: 1. Replacement doors on the main and rear entries should be wood and simple in style with glazed single -light uppers and paneled lowers. 2. Main entry door should be centered on the main facade and the side lights currently present removed and filled -in to restore historic proportions. 3. Rear entry door should centered (but can be slightly off -centered if needed for appropriate flow) and should mirror the type and treatment of the main entry door. 4. No entries should be present on the east or west facades. 5.7 REPAIR OF EXTERIOR WALL SHEATHING Recommendations to repair exterior wall sheathing are as follows: Repair and refurbish as much as possible of the extant shiplap (droplap) wood sheathing. 2. Where deterioration is too great for repair and/or where sheathing is missing, replacement sheathing needs to match the alignment, board thickness and width, and application of the extant historical sheathing. 5.8 CLEANING TREATMENTS The conceptual plans do not indicate any planned chemical or physical treatments. However: 1. Should any cleaning or other materials treatment be required, they must be undertaken gently and using cleaning or treatment solvents, liquids, and methods that will ensure there is no resulting damage to historic materials. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the L.eitcherApartment Building 37 5.9 ROOF REPAIR Recommendations to guide roof repair are as follows: 1. The steeply pitched side -gabled roof configuration over the two-story portion of the building must be retained as a character -defining feature. 2. If feasible, wood shingles should be used for roof sheathing on the main roof of the building as well as for the porch roof. 3. If wood shingles are not feasible, replacement shingles should be selected to mimic the texture, thickness, and color of natural wood shingles commonly used in this area in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 5.10 LANDSCAPING AND HARDSCAPING Recommendations for design and installation of landscaping and hardscaping on the front of the Leitcher Apartment Building are as follows: 1 Plantings in the front yard should strive to recreate the domestic look and feel of the property during the historic period, including a grass lawn, small shrubs along the base of the porch, and a few small, symmetrically positioned ornamental trees. 2. Hardscaping to the front of the building should consist solely of a centered straight walkway leading to the front porch steps from the sidewalk. 5.11 EXTERIOR PAINT The original paint colors of the Leitcher Apartment Building are not precisely known. However, the early 1930s photograph shows a light paint color (likely white) for the exterior walls. Trim, including window and door surrounds, porch deck, porch top rail, and box molding around the porch supports all appear to be of a single medium hue. This is consistent with 1880s Folk Victorian architecture and it is recommended that light paint, preferably white, be used on the exterior walls and a single medium -hued paint be used for the trim and details. 5.12 CONCLUSIONS If the recommendations provided above are followed, the rehabilitation of the Leitcher Apartment Building will be consistent with the SOT Standards for Treatment and the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010), Under CEQA and the City Guidelines, a project that complies with the SOI Standards for Treatment will not have a significant impact on historical resources. Historic Preservation Design Re vie t41--Rehabilita tion and Relocation of the LeitcherApartment Building 38 6 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS Victoria Smith, Historic Preservation Program Manager and Senior Architectural Historian, for Applied EarthWorks, Inc., has more than 12 years of experience as an architectural historian and historic preservation specialist. During those years her work has primarily focused on managing regulatory compliance projects under Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966, as amended), Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and state and municipal regulations. Her professional experience includes archival research, historic built environment inventory surveys, historic streetscape assessments, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility assessments and nominations, historic context development, visual impacts assessments, historic preservation planning, cultural landscape inventories, and design review. Her historic research interests include regional variants in vernacular architecture; social history of architecture; and residential, industrial, commercial, and military architectural history. She meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural Historians, Aubrie Morlet, Staff Architectural Historian, meets the Professional Qualifications Standards as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and has more than five years of experience in researching California history and recording and evaluating architecture and engineering structures. Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 39 7 REFERENCES Arris Studio Architects 2012 Monterey Place: 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Conceptual Plans, dated January 12, 2012. Arris Studio Architects, San Luis Obispo. Bertrando, Betsy 2007 Addendum to Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P 40-002391). Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, San Luis Obispo, California. Bertrando, Ethan, and Betsy Bertrando 2005 Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P #40-O02391), 667 Monterey Street, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, San Luis Obispo, California. City of San. Luis Obispo 2010 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California. Moser, Christine, Cynde Spence, Jacob Turner, and Calvin Yu 2005 The Leitcher Apartments, 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo. Paper prepared for EDES 420: Historic Preservation and Adaptive Reuse in the Built Environment. College of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Manuscript on file, Shear Edge Development, San Luis Obispo, California. Singer, Clay A. 2011 Subsurface Archaeological Resources Evaluation (SARE) for 667 Monterey Street, a Property in the City of San Luis Obispo: Analysis of Stratigraphic Profiles and Samples from Site CA-SLO-2391H. C. A. Singer& Associates, Inc., Cambria, California. Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer 1995 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. 2001 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. Updated online version, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/, accessed March 27, 2012, Historic Preservation Design Review —Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Leitcher Apartment Building 40 APPENDIX A Reconstructed Original Plans and Elevations for the Leitcher Apartment Building (from Moser et al. 2005) —J —A IL Z EL g !s 3 fI e^ a 41 3 t 77, 77 77 77 vp S UJ B 12 0. 14�CC }im ' '=1 W 7t5 a) CL � ]\ RH) (1) SUBSURFACE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION (SARE) FOR 667 MONTEREY STREET, A PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: ANALYSIS OF STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILES AND SAMPLES FROM SITE CA-SLO-2391H. JULY 15, 2011 -ABSTRACT- Subsurface testing at 667 Monterey Street was designed to examine areas behind the Leitcher House and locate remains from the former Gaxiola Adobe. Part of the adobe's foundation was identified along with a few 19th Century artifacts but no refuse deposits or features associated with the Leitcher House were found. Six backhoe trenches yielded stratigraphic profiles and soils with 19th and 20th Century artifacts and ecofacts. Testing revealed no prehistoric artifacts, ecofacts or anthropic soil. The sample assemblage consists of 58 catalog entries, single pieces and multiple specimens of concrete, unmodified rock, fired brick, floor tile and roof tile, white glazed porcelain, white glazed dinnerware, bottle glass, brown glazed pipe, marine shell, rusted iron, animal bone, leather and cut glass. The importance of these resources is discussed within the framework of research values, information potentials, and the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. To complete a data recovery program and fully mitigate anticipated impacts to the Gaxiola foundation a "Consolidated Approach" is recommended and a Phase III mitigation plan is outlined. PREPARED FOR: Mr. Mike Hodge Shear Edge Development LLC 351 San Miguel Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 PREPARED BY: Clay A. Singer, Anthropologist C. A. Singer & Associates, Inc. P. O. Box99 Cambria, CA 93428-0099 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report describes and evaluates cultural resources located in the City of San Luis Obispo. Specifically, it documents historic artifacts and other materials found at 667 Monterey Street, hereafter called the Leitcher House property. Designated APN 002-421-023/025/027, the subject property is located in the downtown area near Mission San Luis Obispo and currently has one standing structure, the Leithcher House, also known as the Leitcher Boarding House or Leitcher Apartments. Additional small structures formerly existed both west and south of the Leitcher House. Of particular concern are the remains of the Gaxiola Adobe identified and recorded in 2005 by Betsy Bertrando (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005). The Leitcher House and the remains of the Gaxiola Adobe share the same archaeological site number, viz. CA-SLO-2391H [or P40-002391]. Attached are five maps that show the location and dimensions of the Leitcher House and property. Map 1 is a portion of the USGS San Luis Obispo 7.5' topographic quadrangle showing the property on Monterey Street. Map 2 is part of the County Assessor's Map with the Leitcher property, .A.PN 002-421-023/025/027 (shaded). Map 3 is a plan of the Leitcher property showing the existing house and six test trench locations (T-1 through T-6). Map 4 is a sketch of known archaeological sites in the City of San Luis Obispo in 1990. Map 5 is a 2011 project plan showing the proposed redevelopment of the Leitcher property. Attachment A is a geoarchaeological report by Jeff A. Parsons describing the soils and stratigraphy exposed in six test trenches. The Leitcher property consists of three contiguous parcels on the eastern side of Monterey Street between Broad Street and Nipomo Street. The area is bounded on the west by Monterey Street, on the east by the channel of San Luis Creek, on the south by the Children's Museum, and on the north by a residential property (cf. Maps I and 2). The property is around 200 feet above sea level but the surface is neither flat nor level. Instead, the surface is inclined and dips to the southeast. Essentially, the property is on the east flank of a ridge formed by two creek channels. Archaeological testing was initiated at this location because of two related concerns: (1) Is there any evidence of prehistoric resources on the property? and (2) What kinds of buried historic remains exist on the property and where are they located? Since the answers have direct implications that could affect the proposed redevelopment a Phase II subsurface archaeological resource evaluation (SARE) was carried out. In 2009, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted "Draft Archaeological Resources Preservation Program Guidelines" to direct and standardize archaeology done in the city. Section 5.0 recognized that, "Archaeological studies in downtown settings present several challenges to conventional archaeological field methods. Where appropriate, the [Community Development] Director may authorize the use of a consolidated approach [designed to identity and mitigate impacts]." (San Luis Obispo 2009: 16). The consolidated approach advocated here is based on information found in the Phase I Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI), a report by Bertrando and Bertrando (2005), and data generated during this Phase 11 test, hereafter termed a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE). Two historical conditions prompted the above concerns, the nearness of Mission San Luis Obispo and the high probability of discovering buried remains. The nearby Mission buildings and grounds are designated archaeological site CA-SLO-64; they are about 200 m away. The nearest prehistoric site, CA-SLO-30, recorded in 1948, is about 400 m away. Surviving records indicate that the site no longer exists (cf. Map 4). Records suggest that CA-SLO-30 was an Early Period habitation deposit with a mortuary area. Site CA-SLO-44,was likely a Late Period village called Tilhini, about 2 km away. f Page 2 In 2005, Ethan and Betsy Bertrando completed a Historic Resource Inventory of the Leitcher property (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005). They identified a large standing structure as the Leitcher House, a late 19th Century residence, and noted the location of the former Gaxiola Adobe, a small house built ca. 1850 and demolished before 1909. A single site number, CA-SLO-2391H [Primary # P40-002391] was assigned to both structures. The Gaxiola Adobe was identified on one historic map, the 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map. Sanborn Maps were updated regularly and the 1910 edition no longer shows the Gaxiola Adobe. Archaeological testing should be based on a prior knowledge of the location, a good idea of what might be present underground, and an clear understanding of soil deposits. Sampling methods and analytical techniques will then determine the range of information collected and the quality of generated data. Information presented in the Phase I survey report (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005) and data from other investigations in the downtown area directed this investigation toward finding buried features, producing clear stratigraphic information, and recovering representative samples of artifacts, ecofacts, and rock materials. This investigation began with a question not addressed in the 2005 survey report: "Are there any prehistoric resources at this location?" A quick review of maps and documents suggested a Phase II subsurface study (SARE) designed to determine what was and was not on the property was appropriate. On January 17, 2011, a Phase II testing plan and research design was prepared for the Leitcher House project and approved by the developer. Excavation work, stratigraphic profiling, materials sampling, and trench backfilling were completed on January 29, 2011. Excavation work and backfilling was done by Mr. Jeff Lindemans of Lindemans Trucking and Construction, Atascadero. Excavation monitoring, trench wall profiling, soil characterization and sampling were done by Jeff A. Parsons and Clay A. Singer. Jeff A. Parsons completed the geological and pedological analyses and Clay A. Singer did the material and artifact identification, specimen cleaning and cataloging, and the distributional analyses. II. BACKGROUND In 1990, archaeological records and maps held by the City of San Luis Obispo were examined to identify known prehistoric and historic resources in the downtown area. Most of the information concerned late 19th Century buildings, primarily businesses and homes, and a few standing adobe structures, but eight archaeological sites were described in short notes attached to a map titled, "Map B - Burial Sensitivity Areas". Below are the descriptive notes with supplemental information in brackets [ ]. I. Mustang Village - Chumash site #44; burials uncovered during construction; east of Brizziolara Creek, north of Foothill Boulevard, just northeast of Monte Vista Street. [Site CA-SLO-44, most probably the town site Tilhini.] 2. Garden Creek - Chumash barrio with adobe structures behind Mission and along Garden Creek; west of Chorro Street between Mt. View and Lincoln Streets. [No site number] 3. Mill and Palm - Chumash site #30; 4 burials removed during construction of Pacific Telephone building; along Morro Street between Mill and Palm. [Site CA-SLO-30, probably an Early Period deposit with later burials. The manos included in the Freer Collection at the British Museumlikely came from this site.] 4. Chorro and Monterey - A Mission cemetery was located between the Mission and Chorro Street. [No site number] Page 3 5. General - Scattered historic graves within 1/4 mile of the Mission. [No site number] 6. Morro - Burial ground for Chumash cholera victims by Rocky Point near Buchon (1850s); near intersection of Buchon and Morro Streets. [No site number] 7. Carmel - Original site for the Catholic cemetery - moved prior to 1882 to present location. Scattered Protestant burial just outside the boundary; along Carmel Street between Higuera and Pacific Streets_ [No site number] 8. Elks Lane - Odd Fellows Cemetery - between the road and creek (Potters Field) - suspect burials go beyond present boundaries. [No site number] Only sites CA-SLO-30 and CA-SLO-44 have solid evidence of prehistoric habitation and the evidence is far from substantial. [Note: Other site numbers assigned to Tilhini are CA-SLO-1419 and CA-SLO-1424.] All other recorded sites in the downtown area are clearly historic deposits including CA-SLO-64, CA-SLO-886, CA-SLO-891, CA-SLO-914H, CA-SLO-1419H, CA-SLO- 1424 and CA-SLO-1890H. The so-called "Chinatown Site", now the Palm Street Parking Structure, has no official site number. Excavations produced a very large sample but no catalog of specimens is known and no data reports have been generated. Prehistoric material reportedly found at this site cannot be confirmed. Elevation above sea level (ASL) and proximity relative to stream channels and marshes are important variables to consider when analyzing settlement patterns. For example, Mission San Luis Obispo, CA-SLO-64, is about 220' ASL. Nearby is the Manderscheid House, CA-SLO-1890H, around 10 lower than the Mission. The Leitcher House, CA-SLO-2391H, is even lower, at about 200' ASL. The nearest prehistoric site, CA-SLO-30 was above the Mission at about 260' ASL. Finally, the village of Tilhim, site CA-SLO-44, was upstream at about 280 feet ASL. The Native American names for local creeks are not known but all of the above sites are located on a ridge bounded on the east by San Luis Obispo Creek and on the west by Brizziolari and Stenner Creeks (Hall -Patton 1994). Topographic data suggests that before the 20th Century most people lived and build their homes in well drained areas. In 1772, the Mission was established on the ridge. Very soon afterward the local native population dropped sharply. Since the Mission claimed ownership of the surrounding land there were no private homes established nearby. When the'Mission lost the land it was sold and given away to colonists. After the State of California was established, the County and City of San Luis Obispo were created. Streets were laid out, land was divided and sold, houses were built, farms established, and taxes collected. According to Bertrando and Bertrando (2005: 9) the first building on the property was the Gaxiola Adobe, a small house built in the 1850s, perhaps by Felipe Gaxiola. The report, titled "Historic Resources Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P#40-002391) 677 Monterey Street, City of San Luis Obispo, CA" is serious and comprehensive. It gives many details concerning the history of the Gaxiola and Leitcher families and discusses the fate of the Leitcher House and the Gaxiola Adobe. The Leitcher property, including the Gaxiola Adobe, was recorded as a single archaeological site, CA-SLO-2391H [Primary# P40-0023911. Structural and some architectural details were provided for the Leitcher House and four other structures on the property were acknowledged. 1n 2007, an addendum was prepared by Betsy Bertrando (2007) that provided further details on the four detached structures and established their insignificance; shortly thereafter the buildings were demolished and removed. The Gaxiola Adobe was situated close to Monterey Street about 20 m west of the Leitcher House. It is shown on the 1886 Sanborn Insurance Company Map reproduced by Bertrando and Bertrando (2005: 14). It appears again on the 1888, 1891, and 1903 editions but is not on the 1909 or later editions (cf. Grisanti 2005: Appendix Q. The Sanborn Maps indicate the adobe was very close to the street, had a front verandah and a rear addition. The location now serves as a parking area for Page 4 the adjacent Children's Museum. The parking area is partially paved and shows no signs of buried resources. Large and widespread, the Gaxiola family has roots in Europe, Mexico and California. In their 2005 report, Bertrando and Bertrando (2005: 9-14) highlight aspects of the family history including the wedding of Felipe Gaxiola and Cuciana Feliz in San Luis Obispo on February 19, 1851. [A short time after the wedding] "Felipe and Cuciana Gaxiola settled in San Luis Obispo, presumably, in the adobe on Monterey Street." (ibid.: 9). In 1857, the house of Felipe Gaxiola was recognized as a location for posting legal notices (ibid.: 10). Felipe and Cuciana raised five children in the house and may have lived there until Felipe died, in 1903 (ibid.: 13). Using four unpublished works by Wilmer N. Tognazzini, excerpts taken from late 19th Century editions of the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune, the Bertrandos dish up an unflattering picture of life in San Luis Obispo and relate the misfortunes of sons Philip and David (ibid.: 11-13). Unfortunately, the information presented about Gaxiola family members cannot be connected with the Gaxiola house. More confusing is the ownership of the house after 1889 (ibid.. 13) and exactly how long Felipe and Cuciana lived there. Howard and Rose Gaxiola are listed in the 2011 Telephone Directory for San Luis Obispo County; their relationship to the larger family is not known. The 2005 inventory report is rich in historical information but contains only one reference to prehistoric archaeological resources (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005: 4). "Most.... sites represent temporary occupations or small village sites located on one of the major creeks running through the city (i.e. Stenner and San Luis Creeks)." Site CA-SLO-30 is not mentioned. Sites referred to by number include the Mission, CA-SLO-64, and two refuse deposits, CA-SLO-1668H and CA-SLO- 2001/11. The last site is a deposit on the west bank of San Luis Creek adjacent to the Leitcher property. Relationships between the refuse in the deposit, the Leitcher Apartments, and the Gaxiola Adobe are postulated but not explained (ibid.: 8, 21). III. EXISTING STRUCTURE At the present time the only standing structure on the property is the Leitcher House, a two-story building with substantial interior and exterior modifications. Probably built between 1874 and 1880; it functioned first as a boarding house and then as an apartment building; occupation ended around 2005. The building is now a recorded historic resource, site CA-SLO-2391H, with recognized potential to yield new information about former residents of San Luis Obispo. Since the smaller detached structures are now gone, and subsurface testing has revealed little buried refuse, the research potential here is essentially architectural, confined to the standing structure itself. IV. FORMER STRUCTURES The small wooden structures behind the Leitcher House are completely gone. The Gaxiola Adobe is also gone but not completely. Significant differences in construction methods and demolition techniques separate adobe buildings from wood -frame structures. These basic differences imply that whatever remains after a structure disappears will be quite different. The Gaxiola house was built with unfired adobe bricks and small foundation stones. It had wood roof beams and door frame, with fired roof tiles (tejas) and floor tiles (ladrillos). The small buildings behind the Leitcher House were wood, rough -cut lumber and sawed planks held together by iron nails; they had metal hardware and fixtures but lacked internal plumbing and substantial foundations. In 2007, a mechanical shovel demolished and removed the buildings; the demolition debris was collected and hauled away (Bertrando 2007). In 2011, surface inspections and subsurface testing Page 5 behind the Leitcher House found no demolition debris or evidence of structural foundations. The Gaxiola Adobe was assembled by hand and disassembled the same way. Before 1909, all the roof tiles (tejas) were removed followed by the roof timbers. Next, the walls were taken down, brick -by -brick, the floor tiles (ladrillos) were removed, and the larger foundation stones extracted. Everything was recycled, probably somewhere in the neighborhood. Had the building been destroyed by pushing or pulling it down the resulting debris pile would have contained broken bricks, roof tiles and floor tiles. A low mound would have formed as the bricks broke down and melted. No melt mound was observed and tile fragments were very scarce. V. TESTING STRATEGY Early in 2011, a strategy for testing the Leitcher property was designed (Singer 2011). Since evidence of prehistoric resource was insubstantial, testing was directed at finding historic resources, namely privies and refuse deposits behind the Leitcher House, and evidence of the foundation of the Gaxiola Adobe. Digging small square holes by hand, the `normal' method of archaeological testing, was deemed inappropriate and eschewed in favor of larger holes excavated with a backhoe. Six trenches were excavated, examined, and backfilled. Trench walls and floors were scraped (cleaned), samples were retrieved, and profiles drawn before backfilling (see Appendix A). Lithic materials and artifacts were placed in labeled bags then transported to Cambria for processing. Collected materials were water washed, air dried, identified, and cataloged (see Section VIII). The collected samples and their geological context are the fundamental components of this study. VI. TEST EXPECTATIONS Phase II testing was designed to find evidence of the Gaxiola Adobe and locate features behind the Leitcher House. Reasonable test expectations were presented in the Leitcher property test plan under the heading Test Implications (Singer 2011: 2). Subsurface testing was expected to expose part of the adobe's foundation and reveal artifacts associated with its construction, specifically pieces of roof tile and floor tile. Testing behind the Leitcher House was expected to produce a small amount of late 19th and 20th Century domestic refuse, some broken glass, pieces of glazed ceramics, and rusted cans. But, given the 2007 demolition regime, evidence of the demolished structures, e.g. water pipes and foundations, and recognizable deposits of domestic refuse were not expected. Subsurface testing near the creek channel was not attempted because of the saturated soils and the old well and pump location was not investigated. VII. SOILS AND STRATIGRAPHY Four sources provided basic information on the geology and soils of the project area: (1) direct observations [Attachment A]; (2) geological maps (Dibblee 2009; Hall et al. 1979); (3) a soils engineering report by King and Shallenberger (2008); and (4) the USDA Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County (Emstrom 1984). Based on the USGS Survey Maps, Parsons (Attachment A) suggests there should be two soils on the property: (1) Soil #162 - Los Osos-Diablo Complex Clayey Loam on slopes of 5 to 9 %, and (2) Soil #198 - Salinas Silty Clay Loam on slopes of 2 to 9 %. The reality was not as predicted. Testing revealed various clayey to sandy soils with some anthropic elements - mostly fill soils - and complicated stratigraphy (cf. Attachment A: Figures 2 and 3). The location, dimensions, and stratigraphy of each test trench is described below . The recovered samples are described below in Section VIII. Page 6 • Trench 1 [T-I] - An east -west trench with extensions at the western edge of the property, south of the Leitcher House; presumed location of Gaxiola Adobe. Trench started c. 1 in east of fence; c. 6 m long, 1 m wide, 0.8 m deep (max.). North Extension c_ 6 m long, 1.2 m wide, 0.4 m deep (max.). South Extension c. 5 in long, 3 m wide, 0.3 m deep (max.). North wall profile (Attachment A: Fig. 2, top). Half the collected specimens came from the Trench I Extensions. Portions of the Gaxiola Adobe foundation and it's eastern extension were identified under the pavement and fill soil. A probable floor with tile remnants was also found - see Trench 1 profile. • Trench 2 [T-2] -- As east -west cut about 6 in south of the fence and 8 in east of Trench 1. Trench c. 2.5 m long, 1.4 m wide, 1.2 m deep. North wall profile (Attachment A: Fig. 2, lower left). About one-third of the collected specimens came from this location. Five layers of fill soil containing 19th and 20th Century materials resting on clay subsoil - see Trench 2 profile. • Trench # [T-3] - An east -west cut near the southeast comer of the parcel, c. 25 rn east of Trench 1 and 3 m south of the fence. Trench c. 3 m long, I m wide, 1.5 m deep. East wall profile (Attachment A: Fig. 2, lower right). This trench produced a small sample of historic refuse. Five layers of fill soil containing a few pieces of late 19th Century refuse resting on sandy subsoil - see Trench 3 profile. • Trench 4 [T-4] -- An east -west cut at the western edge of the Leitcher parcel; north of fence, c. 2 m north of Trench 1 North Extension. Trench c. 2 in long, 0.8 in deep, 1.2 in wide. North wall profile (Attachment A: Fig. 3, top). Few specimens came from this trench. Possible remnants of the Gaxiola foundation and floor under pavement and fill soil - see Trench 4 profile. • Trench 5 [T-5] - A north -south cut near the center of the Leitcher parcel about 5 m east of the house. Trench c. 2 m long, 1 in wide, 1.2 m deep (Attachment A: Fig. 3, lower left). Recently disturbed fill soils with little refuse blending into intact clayey subsoil - see Trench 5 profile. • Trench 6 [T-6] - An east -west cut close to the northeast comer of the Leitcher parcel about 2 m south of the fence. Trench c. 2.5 m long, 1.1 m wide, 0.6 m deep. Thin disturbed fill soil over serpentinite bedrock (Attachment A: Fig. 3, lower right). Small amount of historic refuse in fill soils -see Trench 6 profile. VIII. SAMPLES RECOVERED Samples of natural stones and cultural materials were collected from six trench locations, three on the Gaxiola parcel and three on the Leitcher parcel (cf. Map 3 and Attachment A: Figure 1). A total sample of 82 specimens was retrieved and analyzed. After washing, specimens were examined and sorted into 24 form and material categories, quantified, cataloged, labeled and bagged. Each specimen is identified by trench number and catalog number, with a description of form, material, general condition, dimensions, and other significant attributes. • Trench T-1: Southern Exposure I. Red Brick - fired clay; hand made; 80% complete; trace of Roman cement. 2. Red Brick - fired clay; hand made; 40% complete. 3. Stone Cobble - serpentinite; broken. Page 7 4. Stone Cobble - serpentinite. 5. Stone Pebble - shale; broken. 6. Stone Pebble - shale; burnt and broken. 7. Ladrillo [floor tile]- fired clay; fragment; 4.5 cm thick. 8. Bone - medium mammal; sternum? 9. Nail - iron; rusted; 40 d square cut nail. 10. Nail - iron; rusted; 6 d duplex wire nail. 11. Bolt - iron; rusted; square head; 1/2 x 3 1/2 inches. 12. Strap - iron; rusted; 2 rivets; 4 1/2 x 5/8 x 1/16 inches. 13. Pocket Knife - steel, plated metal and plastic; disintegrating; 3 3/4" long, 1 blade. • Trench T--1: Northern Exposure 14. Concrete Slab - Portland cement with very small gravels; 3-sided fragment, no edge; hand finished upper surface; max, thickness ca. 1", ca_ 8" x 61/2" x 10". 15. Stone Cobble - shale. 16. Stone Block - serpentinite. 17. Stone Cobble - sandstone; asphaltum and Portland cement. 18. Stone Block - volcanic (dacite?). 19. Stone Cobble - sandstone conglomerate; grains small, hard, tightly packed. 20. Stone Block - Monterey chert; layers warped. 21. Red Tile - fired terra cotta (very fine); 3/8" thick; edge fragment; 90' edge. 22. Vessel? - fired terra cotta (fine); curved rim fragment; body 1/2" thick; exterior fluted; narrow flat rim. 23. Ladrillos [floor tiles]-- fired clay; 5 fragments - no fits; too small to measure. 24. Sewer Pipe - glazed stoneware; wall fragment 5/8" thick; dimpled exterior; chestnut brown glaze interior and exterior. 25. Bottle; clear glass; large base fragment; 7/16" thick. 26. Bottle; clear glass, large base fragment; 5/16" thick. 27. Bottle; clear glass; wall fragment; 3/8" thick. 28. Faceted Pendant; clear glass; fusiform chandelier element; both ends tapered with 6 facets at proximal end, multiple facets at distal end; both ends broken, distal end burinated; surface battered and scratched; ca. 6.8 cm long, 1.5 cm max. diameter. • Trench T-2 29. Stone Cobble (small) - quartzite or metachert (?). 30. Stone Pebble (large) - volcanic (?). 31. Stone Block - sandstone (fine gray). 32. Nail - iron; rusted; 20 d common; wire nail. 33. Cans - iron; rusted and burned; ±20 fragments; lids and walls. 34. Can - iron; 2 rusted pieces; thin wall with chrome plating. 35. Light Bulb - glass and brass; base fragment; screw -in base. 36. Belt or Strap- leather; 2 pieces, 1 stitched; 7/8" wide, 3/16" thick (dry). 37. Ceramic - glazed white dinnerware; fragment. 38. Bottle - clear glass; wall fragment. 39. Bottle - clear glass (with bubbles); broken condiment jar; 8 flat sides; wide mouth; flat lip; 80% complete. 40. Bones - large mammal long bones; no saw marks; deer? tibia? and goat? Page 8 humerus? 41. Shell - Pismo Clam; 2 fragments (same shell); weathered white; large shell. 42. Ladrillos [floor tiles] - fired clay; 6 fragments; pieces with 1 flat surface; 2 edges, 1 corner; thickness range 2.0/1.7/2.0/1.5/1.3/1.7 cm. 43. Tejas [roof tiles] - fired clay; 5 small fragments with concavo-convex surfaces; edge; thickness range 2.0/2.0/1.8/1.5/1.7 cm. • Trench T-3 44. Bottles - clear glass; wall fragments; 1 with embossed dots (soda?). 45. Red Brick - fired clay; 4 fragments; hand made; I corner, 3 with cement. 46. Sink/Wash Basin? - white glazed porcelain; 4 large fragments (no fits); curved surfaces and flat flanges. • Trench T-4 47. Stone Cobble - Monterey chert; adhering clayey soil; foundation rock? 48. Shell - oyster [Ostrea sp.]; large modern shell. 49. Nail - iron, rusted shaft fragment, 16 d square nail. Trench T--S 50. Paving Stone - shale; tabular fragment; ±2.5 cm thick; 1 smoothed face with numerous scratches. 51. Tile - white glazed porcelain; fragment; raised band on exterior; thickness?? 52. Bottle - clear glass with blue tint; burned base fragment; old glass with bubbles. 53. Spall - Monterey chert (black and brown); rectangular; one flat face; not a flake; [looks like a broken gunflint]; ca. 2.0 x 2.0 x 0.7 cm. • Trench T-6 54. Concrete Chunk - Portland cement with small pebbles and sand; no finished surface. 55. Stone Block - Serpentinite. 56_ Shell - Pismo Clam [T stultorum]; 2 fragments, weathered white and chalky. 57. Glass Bottle - dark blue wall fragment embossed, " BROM...". 58. Sink/Wash Basin? - white glazed porcelain; flat fragment; 1/2" thick; similar to pieces #46. IX. DISCUSSION All six test locations produced buried remains or features associated with the historic occupation of the property during the 19th and 20 Centuries, long after the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo, in 1772. Each tested location produced geological information, historical artifacts, and other identifiable remains, but prehistoric remains were absent. While historic artifacts are present on the property they are not abundant, concentrated or particularly unusual. Section VI11(above) shows that each sample was different. The six samples are easily divisible into two temporal groups based on the presence of roof and floor tiles. Samples from Trenches T 1, T2, T4 and probably T3, date from the mid -to -late 19th Century. Each contains material associated with the former Gaxiola Adobe. In contrast, samples from Trenches T5 and T6 have no tile fragments but contain 20th Century materials related to the Leitcher House. Page 9 The 82+ individual specimens collected from six test locations are listed and described in Section VIII, above. These same specimens (#I through #58} are listed below grouped into 23 categories based on physical form and material. a. Pieces of Portland Concrete (n=2) b. Unmodified Rocks (n=15) c. Pieces of Fired Red Brick (n=6) d. Pieces of Fired Floor Tile [ladrillos] (n=12) e. Pieces of Fired Roof Tile [tejas] (n=5) f. Pieces of a Fired Terra Cotta Tile & Turned Vessel (n=2) g. Pieces of a White Glazed Porcelain [sink] (n=5) h. Pieces of White Glazed Dinnerware (n=1) i_ Piece of Glazed Stoneware Sewer Pipe (n=1) j. Pieces of Marine Shells (n=3) k. Pieces of Rolled Iron Cans [rusted] - 2 types (n=many small frags.) 1. Pieces of Molded Glass Bottles (n=9) m. A Monterey Chert Spall (n=1) n. A Shale Paving Stone (n=1) o. Rusted Iron Wire Nails (n=4) p_ Animal Bones (n=3) q. A Leather Strap (n=2) r. A Metal and Glass Light Bulb Base (n=1) s. A Metal and Plastic Pocket Knife (n=1) s. A piece of White Glazed Tile (n=1) t. A Rusted Iron Strap (n=1) u. A Rusted Iron Bolt (n=1) v. A Cut Glass Chandelier Pendant (n=l) Moist soils and ease of excavation permitted the partial exposure of foundation elements from the adobe as well as a small concentration, of associated refuse. Two stone alignments exposed in Trench 1 near Monterey Street are most likely sections of the original foundation (Attachment A: Fig. 1, top). Trench 1 produced one fragment of floor tile while Trench 2 had both floor and roof tiles. The debris in Trench 2 may represent parts of the rear extension seen in a sequence of Sanborn Insurance Maps in Grisanti (2005). Small pieces of floor and roof tile appeared only in the refuse concentration exposed in Trench 2, on the slope behind the adobe. Evidence of fire was not detected anywhere during testing. Also absent were signs of `adobe melt', a fanlike feature that forms when adobe bricks are exposed to the elements and disintegrate Considered together these conditions strongly imply that the Gaxiola Adobe was systematically disassembled and the architectural elements -- roof timbers, floor tiles, roof tiles, and adobe bricks -- reused somewhere else. Since the weight (mass) and fragility of these elements impedes their transport they were likely used somewhere nearby for repair and maintenance. As important as the things found are the things not found. For example, the samples include no religious artifacts, such as rosary beads or small medallions, no children's toys, glass marbles or doll parts, no Asian ceramics, no decorated or pressed glassware, a few beer bottles but no `medicine' or hard liquor, scant shell and bone, no automobile parts, no farm machinery, and no refuse features (trash pits) containing 20th Century materials. Preliminary evidence indicates that everyone who occupied the Gaxiola Adobe and the Leitcher House enjoyed a clean frugal life, without children, farm animals, residential insecurity, pain, or disease. Page 10 X. CONCLUSIONS Two evaluations of the Leitcher House and the Gaxiola Adobe have been completed, one in 2005 another in 2011. These evaluation were done to determine if the resources identified on the Leitcher property qualified as important or significant historical resources based on guidelines presented in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and section of the California Public Resources Code (CPRC). Briefly stated, an historic resource can be classified as important or significant if, • It is associated with an event or person recognized as significant or important in American or California history, or • It can provide information that is of public interest and is also useful in addressing scientific questions, or • It has a special or particular quality such as the oldest, smallest, or last example of its kind, or • It is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity, or • It involves research questions important to California or American historians. An historic resources inventory completed in 2005 (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005) reached the conclusion that the Leitcher House qualified as an historic resource. A later study concluded that the surrounding apartment buildings and associated landscaping were not important because they did not contribute to the significance of the main building (B. Bertrando 2007). The 2005 determination that the Leitcher House is a significant resource is not in doubt but the evaluations of the Gaxiola Adobe and the Leitcher House landscaping are questionable. Considering the information on the Gaxiola and Leitcher families presented in the 2005 report, and various photographs, it seems clear that the Gaxiola Adobe and the Leitcher Garden should have been classified as significant historic resources. The results of Phase II testing in 2011 suggest the foundation of the Gaxiola Adobe presents an outstanding opportunity to add new information to the historical record, information concerning the construction and disassembly of a small adobe building. The remains of the Gaxiola foundation could represent the smallest adobe house found in the city and efforts to define and measure it are worthwhile. The Leitcher House offers a chance to examine how this late 19th Century two-story structure was constructed, and modified, and a chance to examine the soils under the structure when it is moved. In order to address these questions a consolidated approach to data recovery and impact mitigation is presented below. Consolidated Phase III Impact Mitigation Plans Evidence presented reinforces the idea that both the Gaxiola Adobe and the Leitcher House have the potential of contributing new information to the California historical record. Although nothing remains of the Gaxiola House the foundation can be studied and measured. Similarly, the Leitcher House can be studied and measured when it is relocated to a new foundation and renovated. When the house is moved the underlying surface will be exposed. At that time there will be an an opportunity to examine a ground surface and soil deposits that have not been modified since about 1880. Page 11 The geological, archaeological, and documentary information compiled for the property suggests that significant buried resources will not be found behind the Leitcher House when the property is redeveloped. Consequently, any impacts to cultural resource that may occur can be mitigated during Phase III excavation monitoring and data recovery. The Gaxiola Adobe presents'a' different set of archaeological conditions. The foundation is very close to the surface and highly disturbed. Development plans (Map 5) indicate the adobe location may not be directly impacted during the early stage of the redevelopment project. Additional archaeological investigations at this location should generate data concerning building dimensions and deconstruction methods but recovery of significant artifacts should not be anticipated. Section 5.0 of the "Draft Archaeological Resources Preservation Program Guidelines" adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo in 2009 recognize that, "Archaeological studies in downtown settings present several challenges to conventional archaeological field methods. Where appropriate, the [Community Development] Director may authorize the use of a consolidated approach [designed to identity and mitigate impacts]." (San Luis Obispo 2009: 16). The consolidate approach advocated here is based on information found in the Phase I Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) report (Bertrando and Bertrando 2005) and data generated during this Phase 1I test, here termed a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE). Map 5, the 2011 project plan, indicates that redevelopment will occur in several stages. The process is likely to start with the removal of plants, old concrete, and asphalt pavement. Work on the Leitcher House should begin at this time and proposed mitigation work would also begin. Separate plans for work at the Leitcher House and work at the Gaxiola Foundation are presented. The Leitcher House Mitigation Plan The Leitcher House mitigation plan is not concerned with the historic building but with soil deposits located under and around the building. Projected impacts to the Leitcher House fall outside the concerns of archaeology and must be dealt with through a separate historic preservation and restoration plan. Bertrando and Bertrando (2005: 20f) outlined a vague agenda for generating more historical information but offered no impact assessment and no plan for locating the Gaxiola Adobe. Some of their recommendations became meaningless when the apartment buildings were demolished (Bertrando 2007). The Leitcher House mitigation plan has five elements designed to supplement the surface and subsurface data collected in 2005 and 2011. All of the proposed mitigation work would be carried out during the initial phase of redevelopment, that is, when earth moving activities are initiated on the property. 1. Examine and evaluate exposed soils located under and around the Leitcher House. Inspect and document soils during excavation work needed to prepared new building pads and surfaces. 2. Examine and evaluate soil deposits under the Leitcher House immediately after the building is lifted and moved to a new foundation. The soils under the house have not been altered since the house was built, ca. 1886. Therefore, an examination of these deposits could provide good geological information and important cultural material. 3. Identify and map any cultural features or materials encountered in the soils under and around the Leitcher House. Additional samples may be collected; emphasis will be placed Page 12 on recovering both unique and statistically useful materials (e.g. coins and metal objects, domestic ceramics and glass). 4. Identify and plot mature trees, large bushes, small plants and other landscaping elements of the Leitcher House. 5. Measure the footprint of the original house. Describe and document the old foundation. The Gaxiola Adobe Mitigation Plan The mitigation plan for the Gaxiola Adobe has six elements designed to supplement data generated during subsurface testing done in 2011. Specifically, the mitigation plan focusses on delineating the foundation of the building and recovering important artifacts left at the location after the adobe was disassembled. 1. Locate and define the margins of the foundation of the original adobe building and attempt to define and delineate the eastern extension shown on the Sanborn Maps. 2. Determine if the foundation extends westward under the present concrete sidewalk. Calculate the distance from (the center of) Monterey Street to the edge of the foundation. 3. Analyze soil deposits inside and outside the foundation to determine if surfaces were altered before construction. Were the floor tiles set on for into] a prepared surface? Is there any evidence of exterior alteration? 4. Retrieve and plot the locations of important artifacts and other significant material. 5. Maintain field notes, prepare maps, drawings and stratigraphic profiles. 6. Monitor all hand excavations and mechanical excavations in this part of the property (cf. Map 5). Final Report After completion of a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE), the City of San Luis Obispo usually requires a Phase III Impact Mitigation program, termed an Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation (ADRE). The stated purpose of an ADRE is, "to recover important archaeological information ....... which can be recovered using commonly applied archaeological methods." (San Luis Obispo 2009: 12). However, when a Consolidated Approach is adopted to mitigate projected impact the ADRE becomes part of the overall mitigation plan. Section 5.0 of the City Guidelines - Use Of Consolidated Approach For Archaeological Investigations - (San Luis Obispo 2009: 16f), requires completion of a final report after fieldwork is done and samples and field data are analyzed. Section 5.20.1 et seq. lists 11 separate components (steps) necessary to meet both City and CEQA standards. Should the Consolidated Approach be adopted for the Leitcher House and Gaxiola Adobe project the archaeological data recovery program described above will addressed all 11 components. Page 13 XI. REFERENCES CITED Anonymous n.d. Heritage Walks in San Luis Obispo. Brochure prepared by City of San Luis Obispo City Cultural Heritage Commission, Promotional Coordinating Committee, San Luis Obispo County Historical Society and Old Town Neighborhood Association (16 pages). Bertrando, Betsy 2007 "Addendum to: Historic Resources Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P 40-002391)". Report prepared for Michael Hodge, Shear Edge Development, San Luis Obispo. Bertrando, Ethan and Betsy Bertrando 2005 "Historic Resource Inventory and Initial Structure Evaluation for the Leitcher Apartments (P #40-002391) 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA". Report prepared for Jeff Edwards, Los Osos. Brock, James and Richard J. Wall 1986 "A Cultural Resources Assessment of Selected Study Areas Within the City of San Luis Obispo". Report prepared by the Archaeological Advisory Group, Newport Beach, for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Ernstrom, D. J. 1984 Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part. U. S. Department of Agriculture and U. C. Extension Service. Gibson, Robert O. 1993 "Inventory of Cultural Resources for the Water Reclamation Project / City of San Luis Obispo, CA". Report prepared for David Zweig, Water Projects Manager, City of San Luis Obispo. Grisanti, Jack 2005 "Leitcher Apartment Property / San Luis Obispo CA / Preliminary Site Assessment". Report prepared by Grisanti & Associate, Los Osos. Hall -Patton, Mark P. 1994 Memories of the Land: Place Names of San Luis Obispo County. EZ Nature Books, San Luis Obispo. King, Judd J. and Dennis Shallenberger 2008 "Soils Engineering Report / Monterey Place Mixed -Use / 667 Monterey Street / San Luis Obispo, California". Report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, San Luis Obispo, for Michael Hodge, San Luis Obispo. Krieger, Daniel E. 1988 San Luis Obispo: Looking Backward Into The Middle Kingdom. EZ Nature Books, San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo, City of 1990 "The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines". Report prepared by the Community Development Department [no author]. Page 14 2009 "Draft Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines". Document prepared by the City Cultural Heritage Committee for the Community Development Department. Singer, Clay A. 1990 Notes on site locations, site record forms, and maps showing the distribution of archaeological sites in and near the City of San Luis Obispo.- Documents on file at the Cambria office of C. A. Singer & Associates. 1995 "Archaeological Monitoring Report on the Kozak Building Demolition Project in the City of San Luis Obispo". Report prepared for Barbara Lynch, City of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works. 2000 "Archaeological Monitoring of Mechanical Excavations at 1015 Nipomo Street in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California." Report prepared for Mary Mitchell-Leitcher, San Luis Obispo. 2001 "Subject: Archaeological monitoring at 464 Dana Street in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report prepared for Todd Martin, Public Works Department. City of San Luis Obispo. Singer, Clay A. and Jay D. Frierman 1999 "Archaeological Investigations at the Manderscheid House, Site CA-SLO-1890H, in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California". Report prepared for Keith and Kathy Godfrey, San Luis Obispo. Singer, Clay A., John A. Atwood, Jay D. Frierman and Alex N. Kirkish 1990 "Along the Banks of San Luis Creek: Refuse Management in Late 19th Century San Luis Obispo, California". Report prepared for Gary Henderson, City of San Luis Obispo, Engineering Department. XII. ATTACHMENTS • Map 1. A portion of the USGS San Luis Obispo 7.5' topographic quadrangle showing the location of 667 Monterey Street, APN 002-421-023/025/027. • Map 2. Part of the County Assessor's Map showing APN 002-421-023/025/027 (shaded). • Map 3. Plan of the Leitcher House and property showing test trenches T-I through T-6. • Map 4. Sketch map of archaeological sites in SLO City (CAS - 1990). • Map 5. A 2011 project plan showing the proposed redevelopment of the Leitcher property. • Appendix A - Geological report on soils and earth materials at 667 Monterey Street. Prepared by Jeff A. Parsons, Geoarchaeologist, February 21, 2011 (5 pages, 3 Figures). Page 15 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. �( 35120—C6—TF-024 :•, 1965 nS:.. PMOTOREVISED 1979 DMA 1 B54 I SW —SERIES V895 ) . I -% 1 / `,�; C �If;� �• �.&oo �_ � '- . �. •s�� Rad' .Isla{i t \ (0, �C° y�� 'an'ta Rosh �IT/: Park i ( \� li Pal erI Meadow \ • Ik. ` Park \ \ �,� - d •� �rc--.,j ar �Radio Tower Ike tea' /cs ��-�+—>-�Da —1-- n' T ka )Trath der \Nell �y (heater ana '-��C/'I �J % rt--•- 3i% .•':'�-.- :JLy_- _ 1' ��•� —� 1,1 `\\\ Map 1. A portion of the USGS San Luis Obispo, Calif., 7.5' topographic quadrangle showing the location of 667 Monterey Street, APN 002-421-023/025/027. MURRAY LAND OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, R.M.' Bk. A , Pg. 145. TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, R.M. Bk. A , Pg. 168, 002-421 r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ASSESSOR'S MAP COUNTY OF SAP! LUIS GBGPO. CA. 600K oat PACE 427 Map 2. Part of the County Assessor's Map showing APN 002-421- 023/025/027 (shaded). Page 17 C) 04 DC140 CD 6 U 0 0 A Ln C> jI E 0� 00 �.j Page 16 ✓C. C. O.R.' �, ��_ 9,11-065280 \' �b MURRAY LAND OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, R.M' Bk. A , Ag. 745. TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, R.M_ Bk. A , Pg. 168. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ASSESSOR'S .MAPS CGUI TY OF SAN LUIS 061SPL, CA. BOOK 002 PAGs 421 Map 2. Part of the County Assessor's Map showing APN 002-421- 023/025/027 (shaded). Page 19 9 APPENDIX A Geological Report On Earth Materials At 667 Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. [5 pages; 3 Figures] Jeff A. Parsons Geoarchaeologist February 21, 2011 i - EARTH MATERIALS AT 667 MONTEREY STREET - BACKGROUND SOILS: 162 Los Osos-Diablo Complex 5-9% slopes, 198 Salinas silty clay loam 2-9 % slopes Reference: DJ Ernstrom, 1984 Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, USDA and UC Agricultural Experiment Station GEOLOGY - Mesozoic -age Franciscan Complex melange; recent alluvium (low areas near creek) References: TW Dibblee, Jr, 2004 Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, Dibblee Geology Center Map DF-129, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, and Hall, C.A., Jr., W,G. Ernst, S.W. Prior, and J.W. Wiese, 1979 Geologic Map ofthe San Luis Obispo -San Simeon Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Map I-1097. LAYERS IDENTIFIED IN TRENCHES See illustrations: 1- Map of Trench Locations 2• Profiles ofBackhoe Trenches 1, 2 & 3 3• Profiles ofBackhoe Trenches 4, 5 & 6 TWENTIETH CENTURY FILL (Tr. 2, 3 & 4) Fill materials cover much of Children's Museum parking area lot. Fill in Trenches 2 & 3 was 3 to 4 feet thick and consisted of a complex of dark colored soil alternating with light colored crushed rock layers, At Trench 2, near the top of the thick fill (only thin fill at Trench 1), there was an isolated trash lens of mid -twentieth century items (rusted pipe, broken bottle, round nails, etc.). Other trash lenses may exist yet the fill mostly consists of earth materials (soil and rock). Similar fill was observed at Trench 4, however, on this lot the fill overlies a truncated surface graded down for the driveway. NINETEENTH CENTURY STRUCTURE REMAINS (Tr. 1 & 4) Remains of two structures occur at Trench 1. These include what might be remnants of stone footing and some debris at the western edge of the lot and a smaller footing with associated red tile floor. The stone footing at the edge of Trench 1 contains some rocks of large cobble size, but does not appear to be a continuous feature (i.e., only portions remain). Westward from the presumed footing is debris is a surface layer. Trench 4 also exposes portions of this feature. At this lot, stones marking a footing are lacking, and there is a 40 cm (16 inches) thick layer of yellowish brown pebbly clay loam that appears to be a demolition deposit backfilling the area where a structure may have been located. The demolition layer appears to be level but nuns westward off the property and under the sidewalk and roadway. The second structure in Trench 1 is 10 feet downslope of the first footing (above). It is marked by a red tile floor lying on a slight slope, The floor sits on a 15 cm (6 inch) thick fill layer made during construction of the structure, and at the edge of the floor there is a small stone footing. The footing is only about 30 cm by 30 cm (1 x 1 feet) in cross- section and loosely filled with fist -sized cobbles. The small footing and sloping floor suggest a small relatively inconsequential structure. Above surface remains are lacking. DISTURBED SURFACE LAYER jr. 5 & 6) Disturbed soil layers in the yard behind the Leitcher House appear to generally cover the back lot. In Tr. 5 & 6 the surface disturbed layer is 20-35 cm thick grayish brown clay loam to sandy clay loam that is soft, slightly loose and lacks soil structure or fabric. This surface layer results from the activity of people in the yard over the past hundred years. Portions of the layer have likely been cultivated at times, served as pathways and playing grounds, generally churned up and in part possibly added to. NATURAL SOILS (Tr. 5) Only exposed in Trench 5 in the yard behind the Leitcher House, the natural soil is a dark gray clay loam overlying a yellowish brown sandy clay loam. Good soil fabric (presence and character of pores and linings in soil) indicates -these soils are intact natural soil materials. The soil is similar to Salinas series soils in the general area. Its sand content suggests soil genesis in stream alluvium, however, it position on the slope eroded into Franciscan serpentine indicates a significant colluvial input to the soil as well. NATURAL SUBSOILS (Tr. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) Natural subsoils in Tr. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are brown to dark yellowish brown clay loam to silty clay loam with good soil fabric (presence and character of pores and linings in soil) indicating these soil layers are intact. In these four trenches the subsoils underlie scalpic (or truncated) surfaces created by grading away of pre-existing surface layers. At Trench 5, subsoils are part of the natural soil profile with much of the original surface A horizon still intact. Trench 5 subsoils are dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam, the sand suggesting a significant alluvial content. NATURAL BEDROCK jr. 6) Only exposed in Tr. 6 the rock is a serpentinite in Franciscan Complex melange. C E L C E Fig. 1: Map Showing Location of Six Backhoc Trenches at Study Parcel I °L a — u u aci ai a/ a it a � � m o C a+ a I ro� -r� O �� L E ai O L Cn c u $ o E Eh O .. ai ,L Ol iE O Vl a v E E ro ra V ra O a o a E T ra V O q� V 2 v c'd >1-8 32 2 T nu c P 3 E rn E a y 2 v r` v� i Era - ` 'n > v Cm >, 3 u rn 0 `a 3 2 c r ro (h L y `c a c > u >. ra a '0 V C v 22 T ra >, - 2 _ V C R _ — O O .L f0 a V 3 b w � ++ w _ LM O �. O E p o Q a av E d VI F E O O L V A O ul Fig. 2; Profiles of Backhoe Trenches 1, 2 & 3 V a N R C a C E o a N a a 3 'a M m C a of H L TM q U E c o m m r v a �aj Y ` V V ro M a � Y E 7 m O E o o vi V in ro V '� _ E Y m u m U m « x c O N U .Y v ? p u 'y m m O ro � ^ Qi O v m O v u rn v 0 � � N c o � o 0 � Ln Rt V n = ... O Wm. L o A� W V = IAT �.. C d M m 0 C rn a+ E r r r r o vi Fig. 3: Profiles of Backhoe Trenches 4, 5 & 6 Attachment 11 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A USE PERMIT AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE MONTEREY PLACE MIXED USE PROJECT LOCATED AT 667 AND 679 MONTEREY STREET (#U, ER 43-11) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approved the rezoning of the subject property from Office to Downtown -Commercial Zoning on May 20, 2008, with the requirement that subsequent development requires Planning Commission use permit review and final design approval by the City Council to ensure compatibility with existing development in the vicinity; and, WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conceptually reviewed the project on April 16, 2012, and granted final design review with a recommendation for City Council approval on October 1, 2012, based on recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee and upon findings revised plans adequately responded to direction for project modifications provided at the conceptual review hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project on July 23, 2012, and found the project in compliance with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 13, 2013, and continued the item with direction to a date uncertain; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project to consider applicant responses to directional items in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 23, 2013; and, WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based on all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 2 Mixed Use Project Findings 1. Proposed uses within the project including the bed and breakfast, and restaurant are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible with surroundings, neighboring uses, and with each other since the use permit approval includes conditions of approval and prohibits uses and hours of operation that would not be compatible with nearby residential uses and residential units within the project. Future proposed commercial uses within commercial floor area in the project will also be subject to conformance with underlying zoning and use permit requirements to ensure ongoing compatibility. 2. The project's design protects the public health, safety, and welfare since the project has been reviewed and, with inclusion of conditions of approval, found in conformance with related health and safety code regulations by City Departments such as the Building Division, Public Works Department, Fire Department and Utilities Department. The design of the project provides adequate separation and privacy between commercial uses in the project and the residential component. 3. The mixed uses in the project provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site since they implement various goals and policies of the General Plan to provide housing in the downtown core, residential dwellings above ground level commercial uses, provision of housing close to activity centers, and efficient use of land as an infill development project. Mechanical Parking Lift Findings 4. The use of mechanical lift parking results in superior design and implementation of City goals and policies for infill development since it provides for the amenity of on -site parking for residential uses without compromising ground level space which is used for pedestrian circulation, commercial storefronts, and available space for the mixed use project design which is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan for infill projects in the Downtown area. 5. The mechanical lift parking is adequately screened since it is located in a basement level, is not visible from the public right-of-way, and its design is integrated into the overall project and included for review of the overall building and site design. 6. The mechanical lift parking system complies with development standards and including height, setbacks, and as conditioned, the project has been found in compliance with Parking and Driveway Standards by the Public Works Department; there exists adequate agreement running with the land that mechanical parking systems will be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception of limited periods of maintenance. Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 3 7. There are no circumstances of the site or development, or particular model or type of mechanical lift system, which could result in significant impacts to those living or working on the site or in the vicinity. 8. The Planning Commission finds that retail spaces greater than 2,000 square feet will be compatible with the neighborhood based on the project design and that such pedestrian serving uses should be encouraged in the project without the need for subsequent administrative use permit approval. 9. The design of the project is compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties since the materials, style, character and form of the new structures promote the architectural character, style, form, and materials of the existing Downtown Historic District and complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and are consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 10. The project has previously been found consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards, Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Archaeological Preservation Guidelines by the Cultural Heritage Committee. 11. The project has previously been found consistent with Community Design Guidelines by the Architectural Review Commission. 12. Land uses which may be established within the project will be compatible with surroundings since the project's Downtown -Commercial Zoning will not allow land uses which are incompatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses, and additional restrictions have been included in the use permit approval which further restrict potentially incompatible uses consistent with the Council requirements of Ordinance No. 1514 (2008 Series) when the rezone of the property was approved and through use permit conditions contained herein. 13. The proposed mixed use development is consistent with the intent of the 2008 City Council rezone of the property to Downtown -Commercial Zoning to stimulate redevelopment of underutilized properties in the Downtown Core. 14. The project is consistent with Housing Element and Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed -use infill development project in the downtown core as discussed in Mixed Use Project findings and the attached staff report. Section 3. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for final adoption by the City Council. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to the environment will be less than significant. Section 4. Action. The Commission hereby approves Use Permit #43-11, and recommends the City Council grant final project approval and adoption of the Mitigated Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 4 Negative Declaration of Environmental Review subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The following land uses shall be prohibited unless approved as an accessory use to a hotel or restaurant and with approval of an administrative use permit: Night Club Fitness/Health Facility B ar/Tavern 2. Due to traffic, noise generation, and development character along the street, the following land uses shall be prohibited facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets: Medical Services Fitness/Health facility (when allowed as an accessory use) Night club (when allowed as an accessory use) Bar/Tavern (when allowed as an accessory use) Banks and financial services 3. Hours of operation: Consistent with Zoning Regulations for mixed use projects, all commercial uses are limited to hours of operation between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. unless approved for expanded hours by Director's action. The bed and breakfast reviewed by the Planning Commission may operate with expanded hours and the restaurant use reviewed by the Planning Commission may operate from 8:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. 4. Deliveries are prohibited outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No commercial delivery vehicles or trucks may be left idling, and no amplified music or entertainment which exceeds the "ambient" level is permitted unless approved in accordance with Condition #1. 5. Public Art: Prior to final occupancy, public art shall be installed in the location shown on project plans. The applicant should consider the Cultural Heritage Committee recommendation that the public art reflect the history of the site. 6. Affordable Housing: The designated unit shown as "affordable" on project plans (unit 206) shall be dedicated at the "low" income level consistent with Affordable Housing Standards. Alternatively, a two -bedroom, two -bath unit may also be dedicated at the "moderate" level if found by the City Housing Programs Manager to be comparable in appearance and basic quality to the balance of market rate units. One on -site parking space in mechanical parking lifts shall be reserved for the dedicated affordable unit. 7. Mechanical Parking Lift Maintenance: The mechanical parking lifts included in project plans shall be safely operated and maintained in continual operation with the exception of Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 5 limited periods of maintenance. This requirement applies to all 28 vehicle parking spaces included on projects and the required dedicated space for the affordable residential dwelling. 8. Commercial and residential uses of the site and ongoing building maintenance and landscaping shall at all times remain consistent with approved plans and conditions of approval of this use permit. The project shall also remain consistent with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission and any project modifications that occur through Planning Commission or City Council review. Any change to the approved design or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director, Planning Commission, and/or Architectural Review Commission as deemed appropriate. 9. Plans submitted for construction approvals shall include modifications from ARC approved plans to include relocation of the wash area of the restaurant to a location further away from the Children's Museum outdoor area in the vicinity of the trash and recycling. Plans shall also include a solid wall (finished CMU or poured concrete consistent with material finishes in existing development) along the west property line between the proposed project and Children's museum. The wall shall be constructed in the early phases of construction to provide an additional buffer during construction operations. In addition to related air quality mitigation measures, project plans shall contain clear notes and measures to ensure dust, odors, or any other debris does not cross property lines. 10. Project tenants and owners within the project along the west property line shall be notified of intermittent outdoor noise levels which can occur at the San Luis Obispo Children's Museum during open hours and special events. Final notification form and language shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and consistent with the intent to prevent any future noise complaints. 11. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking calculation for the commercial component of the project upon the submittal of Business license applications and planning and building permits for tenant changes or improvements. This requirement is to ensure the project site remains in conformance with Zoning Code Regulations for payment of parking in -lieu fees per SLOW Chapter 4.30, 12. The access driveway off of Monterey Street shall be widened to 16' — 20' to accommodate two-way traffic into and out of the parking garage. The two-way width shall be extended as far as practical into the garage but shall not be less than one car length beyond the Monterey Street right-of-way. 13. The applicant or parking lift vendor shall provide a list of common vehicles, including make and model that can utilize the proposed lift as submitted. The lift shall be shown to accommodate a reasonable number of vehicles to the satisfaction of city. The list shall be presented to the city for acceptance prior to commencing with working drawings. If the Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 6 list of vehicles is determined to be unacceptable, the applicant shall research other lift options and/or may be required to extend the parking space lengths, depths, and/or heights to accommodate a larger number of vehicles. 14. The project design shall provide adequate sight distance at the parking structure exit onto Monterey Street for motorists to see and yield to pedestrians. To accomplish this, the parking structure exit shall provide a minimum of ten feet clear visibility to the sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building corners, columns, or any other visual impediments. This distance is measured from eight feet behind the stop bar and two feet to the right of the centerline where a driver would be located in a stopped vehicle. 15. To minimize off -site parking impacts, prospective tenants and employees shall be notified in writing of the project's on -site vehicle and bicycle parking, off -site parking options, and transit schedules for accessing the site via transit. 16. The City's regulations currently allow residents in the C-D zone to purchase monthly 10- hour meter permits that allow them access to parking at the City lot at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets on a first come first serve basis. Because the City has limited enforcement of parking restrictions overnight, this facility can be used for overnight parking subject to availability, the maximum 72 hour parking provision and the 10 hour parking permit requirement. Although this lot is currently underutilized, it will likely see additional demand as Chinatown, Garden Street Terraces and the potential closure of Lot 10 (at the corner of Higuera and Nipomo Streets) come to fruition, therefore spaces in this lot cannot be guaranteed for use by the developer in the future. In addition, this off- street parking option will not be available during the construction of the Palm Nipomo parking structure if/when that project moves forward. If Council decides that the future structure should be designed to accommodate overnight parking, Council will need to consider additional operational issues (and costs) including: the projected parking demand of daytime versus nighttime users, the additional costs associated with providing overnight parking (ie. lighting, security and storage) and the extension of operational hours overnight. 17. Construction and grading plans submitted for review and approval by the Building Division shall incorporate applicable recommendations of the Earth Systems Pacific Soils Engineering Report dated October 23, 2008. The report shall be updated to evaluate and provide recommendations based on recent project revisions to include subterranean parking where the mechanical lifts are shown. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a final drainage report for this project. The floodzone section of the report and final plans shall show compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. The plans shall be revised to show compliance with the NAVD88 map and creek profiles within the Flood Insurance Study with the effective date of November 16, 2012. In some cases the FEMA conversion from the NGVD29 Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 7 datum and NAVD88 datum is more conservative than the conversion previously established by the City of San Luis Obispo, 19. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal of the working drawings. The current 2010 City Engineering Standards are expected to be updated and adopted by the City Council in early 2013. 20. Pedestrian level street lights shall be installed per City Engineering Standards and the approved conceptual Downtown Lighting Plan. The final details of how the historic granite curb will be incorporated into the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of Public Works Director. 21. A pre -construction meeting and/or pre -demolition meeting shall be coordinated by the contractor or developer and shall include the appropriate representation from the Community Development Department and Public Works Department. The meeting shall include but is not limited to the scope of work, construction staging, pedestrian protection, tree protection, inventory of the historic granite curb to be salvaged, existing building protections, public art protection/relocation, and erosion control/site drainage provisions. 22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. Individual service connections shall be perpendicular to the street. On -site services shall not be located within and parallel to the sidewalk unless specifically approved by the Public Works Director. The building plan submittal shall include all dry utilities, meters, poc's, and transformers for reference. 23. A separate public improvement plan and/or excerpt from the civil plans included with the building plan submittal will be required to document the proposed and constructed improvements within the public right-of-way. A separate public improvement plan review fee of $2,114 (July 2012 rates) will be required in conjunction with the review of the public improvements. The improvement plans shall include the Monterey Street improvements but will also need to include the improvements related to the connection and alterations at the city owned Creek Walk parcel. 24. Tree preservation measures shall be shown and noted on the building plan submittal per City Engineering Standards and shall be approved to the satisfaction of City Arborist. Offsite trees in the areas of underground or overhead work shall be included for reference. Tree protection measures may be applicable to some these offsite trees. 25. Any conditions of approval related to the Use Permit and/or Mitigation Measures related to the Initial Study shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal and public improvement plans. Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 8 26. The pedestrian paseo connecting the public sidewalk on Monterey Street to the creekwalk and bridge shall maintain a clear width of 8'. Any temporary closures of the crosswalk, the Paseo, and/or access to the creekwalk and bridge after occupancy shall be properly noticed to the satisfaction of the City. 27. Building plans shall identify bicycle parking required for each phase, the path of travel to these spaces and how these spaces will be easily accessed for use by residents, employees and customers (ie. directional signage and lighting). Bicycle parking shall be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible. The final bicycle parking plan shall be provided with Building plans and configured to the satisfaction of the Public Works Transportation Division. 28. Peak Racks (Peakracks.com) or inverted "U" racks may be used for short-term bicycle parking (ribbon racks are not permitted). Building plans shall include details including rack design and location, area bikes will be take up when parked in the racks, clearances from walls, etc. and circulation for users in compliance with the manufacturer's standards. The general dimension of a bicycle is two -feet in width and six -feet in length. 29. Bike lockers shall be labeled and reserved for bike storage. 30. Project approvals include a loss of two on -street parking spaces to install a mid -block crossing of Monterey Street. Any further requests to remove on -street parking to facilitate the project shall follow the City's Downtown Parking Space Conversion procedures (Resolution No. 10139). 31. Through the encroachment permit process, the applicant shall be responsible for making any physical changes (including striping and signage) to on -street parking resulting from the project. 32. The project's parking requirement shall be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. This project approval does not include any City commitments for off -site parking, valet parking, or retaining Monterey Street in its current configuration. 33. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a construction activity management plan addressing construction traffic, temporary wayfaring signs and outreach to area businesses and residents to minimize construction impacts. 34. The applicant shall ensure that information on public transit, bicycle parking, carpooling and local transportation management organizations, shall be provided to prospective residents employees, and hotel guests to encourage a reduction in personal vehicle use. 35. If the following circulation improvements have not been undertaken by others prior to the Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 9 a. issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a cost estimate for these improvements and pay their fair share for their design and installation: b. Extend Nipomo Street left turn lane at Higuera to provide 65 feet of vehicle storage. c. Extend Nipomo Street left turn lane at Marsh to provide 45 feet of vehicle storage. d. Install crosswalks at Marsh/Nipomo intersection. e. Install pedestrian countdown heads at Broad/Higuera intersection. 36. More than one solid waste enclosure may be necessary based on the types of proposed commercial and residential uses on the site. Confirm in writing with San Luis Garbage Company the capacity needs of the proposed uses and the location and access of the proposed solid waste enclosure. 37. The applicant must submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly detail the size and location of underground grease interceptor to allow for convenient access by service vehicles, including grease interceptor pumping trucks. The City's Environmental Compliance Manager, Aaron Floyd, (781-7425) can assist in planning for proper facilities. 38. The applicant must submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly details the covered restaurant equipment washing area. This area must be connected to the sanitary sewer and not be allowed to discharge to the storm drain system or surrounding environment. The City's Environmental Compliance Manager, Aaron Floyd, (781-7425) can assist in planning for proper facilities. 39. The applicant shall submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly identify both private and public sewer system details and the point of connection at the City main. This includes private injector pumps and force mains located within the building and their connection to a lateral. If an existing sewer lateral at the site is to be reused a CCTV inspection will be required and shall be submitted to the Building Division during the building permit review process. All unused sewer laterals shall be identified and abandoned at the City main. 40. The applicant shall submit utility plans during the building permit review process that clearly identify existing water service(s) and show proposed water service to any proposed buildings. Based on the limited information provided on sheet C5.0, sub - metering of the proposed buildings may be required. Backflow devices on the fire line and landscape water services shall be located within ten feet of the water meters. For multiple meter installations, please use City Standard 6260 to the maximum extent possible to reduce the number of water service lines in the street and the number of connections to the existing water line. Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 10 41. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 and Appendix D of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Fifteen feet on either side of the fire hydrant and FDC on Monterey Street shall be designated as "No Parking -Fire Lane". 42. Address Numbers: Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. 43. Water Supplies: Water Supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 508 of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using Appendix B of the CFC. At least one fire hydrant capable of delivering a needed fire flow of 4500 gpm shall be located at mid -block on Monterey. If at least 50% of the NFF cannot be provided, an increase in fire sprinkler density will be required. 44. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air - handling systems, automatic fire -protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. 45. Knox Box: A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room. 46. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA 13 system will be required for this mixed -use project. Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Main and all associated control valves shall be installed per NFPA 24 Standards and City Engineering standards. The Fire Department Connection shall be located within 40 feet of Monterey Street. 47. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Chapter 14 of the CFC. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commr , and on the following roll call vote: Planning Commission Resolution # XXXX-13 U 43-11 (667 & 679 Monterey Street) Page 11 AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23`d day of October, 2013 Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission by: DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze Absent: Commissioner John Fowler Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Chief Building Official Joseph Lease, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of September 25, 2013, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1265 Mill Street. AP -PC 136-13: Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny an appeal of a Notice to Correct a Code Violation for operating a vacation rental including a Statutory Exemption; R-2-H zone; Sky Bergman, applicant and appellant. (Doug Davidson) Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report, recommending that the appeal be denied based on findings that the contested use is a vacation rental and that vacation rentals are not allowed under the City's Municipal Code, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Commr. Stevenson asked what the basis of the appeal is. Deputy Community Development Director Davidson said the appeal is for the code enforcement action. Commr. Stevenson asked if it would be better to issue a citation. Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 2 Chief Building Official Lease stated that the appeal must be heard by the Commission after which the next step would be a citation. Commr. Larson asked if complaints have been received. Chief Building Official Lease stated that no complaints have been received for this property. There have been general complaints regarding vacation rentals. Commr. Larson asked how the definition of a vacation rental was formulated. Deputy Community Development Director Davidson stated that vacation rentals have always been prohibited by omission prior to the 2007 ordinance. He noted that the definition of vacation rental is a common one and that what varies is what they are called: home stays, short-term rentals, vacation rentals. Appellant Sky Bergman stated she went to the City when she first wanted to become an Airbnb host and was told all she needed was a business license. She stated that she took out special insurance for a BnB and was given a business license. She noted she is no longer on Airbnb and has rented her room full-time. Commr. Malak asked what she would have done if she had not been given a business license. Appellant Bergman stated she would have rented the room full-time and then fought for change. Commr. Multari asked what she wants the Commission to do and if she wanted the Commission to reinterpret the ordinance to allow her to rent her room on Airbnb. Appellant Bergman wanted the Commission to look at the issue. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Edelman, SLO, supported the appellant, noting she was acting as a local ambassador and promoting the spending of money here. He stated he would like a cease and desist order until the City deals with the issue. Steven Rudner, SLO, supported Appellant Bergman stating that the City is not seeing the economic benefits of Airbnb and should reconsider because Airbnb charges reasonable rates, allowing visitors to spend their money at local businesses; visitors get an inside perspective from hosts; and it provides additional housing for Cal Poly events. He noted that he made the decision to relocate to the City and contribute to local economy after a stay with a local host. Bill Bartlet, SLO rental property owner, supported the comments of previous speakers. Jacqueline Williams, SLO, stated she had a similar experience in checking with the City about a business license. She noted her need for extra income and that she is Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 3 complying with the law now by having a full-time tenant but prefers Airbnb because she can block out time for personal visitors. She asked that action against the appellant be put on hold until the City deals with this. Jim Culver, SLO, supported the appellant. He stated there is a clear distinction between a vacation rental with absentee owners and an Airbnb type rental. He noted that the prohibition has an impact on homeownership affordability and may drive people out of their homes in the City. Rick Sample, SLO, supported the appellant, stating that he has experienced no noise or other problems and that this helps people hold onto their homes. D. "Rosh" Wright, SLO, supported the appellant and stated she is now doing minimum 30-day room rental but that, as an Airbnb host, most of her guests were here for business and for Cal Poly, and she never had a problem guest. She stated that she takes issue with the term "vacation rental" and wants to hear specifics of complaints. Minke WinklerPrins, SLO, supported the appellant, stating that she lives next door and likes the appellant's role as a community ambassador. She noted that interacting with the visitors has enhanced her sense of community. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Deputy Community Development Director Davidson stated that there is no question the appellant tried to do the right thing. It all depends on how the question is asked concerning length of stay, less or more than 30 days. He stated that the City may end up using a different term than "vacation rental." Chief Building Official Lease stated there has never been a complaint from an Airbnb visitor. He noted that the complaints have been mostly about unfair competition. Commr. Multari stated that he found 176 Airbnb listings for San Luis Obispo. He asked how this one was identified. Chief Building Official Lease stated that Staff has identified 52 listings within the City but that Staff is only devoting about four hours a week to this issue. Commr. Multari asked why only about one -quarter of the 52 received notices. Chief Building Official Lease stated that some listings do not show a photograph of the house or list an address necessary to positively identify them. Commr. Riggs stated that it is important to not get stuck on names of businesses (Airbnb, VRBO). He asked why there has not been an exemption. Commr. Multari responded that BnBs are not allowed in R-2 zones. Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 4 Commr. Stevenson stated that the meat of the discussion will be at the City Council. He stated he served as a hearing officer for the county, where the term "home stay" was used. He noted that when there was interest in home stays, there was tremendous controversy and that these kinds of uses in single-family neighborhoods can be very controversial, pitting neighbor against neighbor, generating concerns about traffic, noise and strangers, and changing the character of neighborhoods with some homes becoming businesses. He stated that he foresees the same issues in the City with it taking years to develop an ordinance. He noted that visitors can use Internet websites to find local attractions. He stated that an expensive discretionary permit may be required and enforcement and equity need to be considered. Commr. Larson noted there is no difference between a BnB and a vacation rental. He stated that vacation rentals were once a big issue in Cambria but thought they were not owner -occupied. He stated that the presence of the owner is important and that what works in one community does not work in another. He gave the example of Mammoth, where vacation rentals make up 80% of housing. He noted that responsibility for code compliance rests with the owner/occupant. Commr. Multari stated there are two things to deal with: 1) the appeal and that the Commission must deny the appeal due to the clear language of the ordnance. 2) whether this type of use should be approved by the City, which will be dealt with by the City Council. He stated that it is not obvious that this is an appropriate use in residential neighborhoods and that the Commission's role is to be very protective of residential neighborhoods although regulations could be crafted that would do that. He stated that BnBs could be allowed in residential zones and could be limited to owner -occupied residences with other restrictions involving the building size, parking, character of the building, rental frequency, etc. He noted that the next action for advocates is convincing the City Council to bring this through the review process. He asked Chief Building Official Lease what staff is going to do with these cases in the interim. Chief Building Official Lease stated that, if complaints are received, they will be pursued but he noted the limited resources available. He stated that any case under appeal is stayed. Commr. Multari suggested that in the interim, outside of significant complaints, that this not be the highest priority. Commr. Riggs encouraged staff to be open-minded and not make any assumptions. Commr. Larson stated he does not support the motion. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to deny the appeal based on _findings that the contested use is a vacation rental and that vacation rentals are not allowed under the City's Municipal Code and with the addition of a section 3 to the resolution stating "the Commission hereby denies the above -referenced appeal based on findings." Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 5 AYES: Commrs. Draze, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: Commr. Larson RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 5:1 vote. 2. 1635 Lizzie Court, GPI/ER 140-13: Review of Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; C-OS zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from September 25, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting) (Bob Hill) Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission review draft Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and recommend to the City Council that the Plan and a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted as presented, or as amended, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Stevenson complimented Natural Resources Manager Hill on his work and asked when the loop trail will be completed. Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that funding would be requested in 2015-17 and that trails will be laid out by Staff with help from the California Conservation Corps and built by volunteers. Commr. Stevenson asked about the left turn from Reservoir Canyon Road onto 101 south. He noted that CalTrans is converting 101 into a freeway with no grade crossings which would mean the left turn may be eliminated. Natural Resources Manager Hill agreed left turns onto 101 are a hazard and that turning right and then left onto Stagecoach Road may also be eliminated. He stated that a longer -term solution may be a tunnel under 101 with parking on the west side. Commr. Malak commended the City for working closely with Cal Poly. He commended Natural Resources Manager Hill for his good work on this project. Commr. Draze suggested the following changes in the plan: 1) p. 15, 3.10 Scientific Research, first sentence, should be changed to add "manager" after "program." 2) p. 22, "years one and two specific tasks." He stated that there is no value in doing estimates in years one and two when construction is several years away. He recommended moving this to years three to five. He stated that everyone involved did a great job and he appreciates the clear knowledge Natural Resources Manager Hill has Draft Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 6 demonstrated. He noted that he is supportive of this plan and other conservation efforts and that the open space ring around the City is coming to fruition. Commr. Riggs stated that Natural Resources Manager Hill should check with the City traffic engineer. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by_Commr. Stevenson, and seconded by Commr. Riggs, to approve the draft Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and recommend to the City Council that the Plan and a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted as presented with the addition of a review of traffic issues. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast: 1) October 23, 2013, meeting: Monterey Place property 2) No meeting on November 27, 2013 4. Commission: a. Commr. Stevenson will be absent on October 23, 2013. b. Commr. Draze will be absent on November 13, 2013. c. Commr. Stevenson announced that HealSLO is sponsoring "Community Design: What does health have to do with it?" on October 18, 2013, at the Vets Hall. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary