Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-27-2022 CHC Agenda Packet
Cultural Heritage Committee AGENDA Monday, June 27, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo has returned to in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported. For those attending in-person, City facilities will be at limited capacity and masks are strongly recommended. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting): Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting. Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. *All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received after the deadline will not be processed until the following day. Public Comment during the meeting: Meetings have returned to an in-person format. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present in the Council Chambers. Zoom participation will not be supported. The Council Chambers are located in City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy, Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation are encouraged to provide display-ready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100. Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Ulz will call the Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee to order. 2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA The public is encouraged to submit comments on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Committee that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Committee will not take action on items presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a future agenda for discussion. 3.CONSENT Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non- controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Cultural Heritage Committee to pull an item for discussion. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit. Recommendation: To approve Consent Item 3a. 3.a.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - MAY 24, 2022 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES 5 Consideration of the Culture Heritage Committee Special Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2022. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: The action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or to City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. 4.a.2223 MONTEREY STREET (ARCH-0327-2021) REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 83-ROOM HOTEL, INCLUDING 29 "BUNGALOW" GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, FOUR SMALL OUTBUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS 9 Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s historical preservation polices and standards. 4.b.446 DANA STREET (ARCH-0023-2022) REVIEW OF A NEW TWO- STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT 85 Recommendation: Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01). 4.c.1258 PALM STREET (ARCH-0566-2021) REVIEW OF A NEW TWO- STORY DWELLING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DWELLING BEHIND THE PATRICK & CATHERINE MCHENRY HOUSE IN THE MILL STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT 103 Recommendation: Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance, including any recommended conditions of approval to ensure such consistency. 5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a.STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Brian Leveille. 6.ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for July 25, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the Clerk The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and- minutes. Meeting video recordings can be found on the City’s website: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60971&dbid=0&repo=CityCl erk 1 Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes May 24, 2022, 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Members Present: Committee Members John Ashbaugh, Valerie Butterbredt, Chuck Crotser, John Tischler, and Vice Chair Karen Edwards Absent: Committee Member Leslie Terry and Chair Eva Ulz City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on May 24, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Vice Chair Edwards. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Public Comment: None --End of Public Comment-- 3. CONSENT 3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 25, 2022 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES Approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of April 25, 2022. Motion By Member Crotser Second By Member Tischler Ayes (4): Member Butterbredt, Member Crotser, Member Tischler, and Vice Chair Edwards Abstained (1): Member Ashbaugh Absent (2): Member Terry, and Chair Ulz CARRIED (5 to 0) Page 5 of 143 2 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.a 211 CHORRO STREET (HIST-0174-2022) HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION CONTRACT FOR THE MULLER-NOGGLE HOUSE AND GARAGE Senior Planner Brian Leveille introduced Assistant Planner Graham Bultema. Assistant Planner Bultema presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries. Applicant representative, James Papp, provided a brief overview of the project, provided an explanation concerning the Mills Act and building ADUs on designated properties and responded to questions raised. Vice Chair Edwards opened the Public Hearing Public Comments: None --End of Public Comment-- Vice Chair Edwards closed the Public Hearing Motion By Member Ashbaugh Second By Member Crotser Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract with the property owners, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 211 Chorro Street, known as the Muller-Noggle House and Garage. Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Butterbredt, Member Crotser, Member Tischler, and Vice Chair Edwards Absent (2): Member Terry, and Chair Ulz CARRIED (5 to 0) 4.b 1133 PISMO STREET (HIST-0171-2022) DESIGNATE 1133 PISMO STREET, THE THOMAS AND MAY BRECHEEN HOUSE, AS A MASTER LIST RESOURCE Assistant Planner Graham Bultema presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries. Page 6 of 143 3 Applicant representative, James Papp, provided an overview of the Colonial Revival style, explained the relationship of the project property to this style, and responded to Committee questions. Vice Chair Edwards opened the Public Hearing Public Comments: None --End of Public Comment-- Vice Chair Edwards closed the Public Hearing Motion By Member Ashbaugh Second By Member Tischler Continue the item to a date uncertain with direction given to the applicant to specifically identify unique qualities or characteristics of the property which would meet eligibility criteria to be designated as a Master List Resource, and to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Butterbredt, Member Crotser, Member Tischler, and Vice Chair Edwards Absent (2): Member Terry, and Chair Ulz CARRIED (5 to 0) 5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for June 27, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. _________________________ APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2022 Page 7 of 143 Page 8 of 143 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Staff Agenda Correspondence DATE: June 24, 2022 TO: Chair and Committee Members FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Item #4a – 2223 Monterey Street (ARCH-0327-2021) Review of the development of an 83-room hotel, including 29 “Bungalow” guestroom buildings, pool area, and associated site improvements Please see the attached Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the originally approved project as discussed in the staff report. If you have any questions, please contact Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell at 805 -781- 7593, or by email: woetzell@slocity.org Page 9 of 143 Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Motel Inn Project (PR-0113-2015) 1. Project Title: Motel Inn Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner 805-781-7176 4. Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Applicant and Representative Name and Address: Motel Inn, L.P. Covelop Holdings, LLC PO Box 12910 PO Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Studio Design Group Tim Ronda, Principal Architect Ariana Melendez, Project Architect 762 Higuera Street, Suite 212 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial Page 10 of 143 7. Zoning: C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with “Special Consideration” Overlay due to San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property) 8. Description of the Project: The previously approved Motel Inn project consisted of a 55-unit hotel including guestrooms and bungalow units, a restaurant, 26 Airstream trailers (for guests), and one Airstream spa trailer (ARCH-3741-2016 and USE-0580-2017). The proposed project consists of a modification to the previously approved Motel Inn project, and would consist of 29 bungalow guestroom buildings. Four accessory structures, consisting of restroom and housekeeping/maintenance buildings, are proposed. The project does not propose any changes to the previously approved restaurant building, which incorporates the remaining portions of the Master List Historic Motel Inn, and would include a restaurant and lobby for guests. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Design Review 10. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The approximately 4.2-acre site is located at the northeast end of Monterey Street, immediately south of Highway 101. San Luis Creek and the San Luis Drive residential neighborhood are located to the south. The Apple Farm Inn and restaurant are located to the southwest, and the La Cuesta Inn is located to the northwest. The project site is nearly level to gently sloping, and is accessed directly from Monterey Street, near the Highway 101 on- and off-ramp. The project site is included in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Construction within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way would require an encroachment permit. 12. Previous Environmental Review On March 23, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Motel Inn project. On September 27, 2017, the Planning Commission considered and approved a modification to the Motel Inn project (specific to the substitution of the recreational vehicle spaces with Airstream trailers), and found the modification consistent with the adopted IS/MND (Resolution No. PC-1010-17). All adopted mitigation measures remain in effect and will apply to the proposed project. Page 11 of 143 Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an IS/MND when “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. In addition, the lead agency is required to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which requires subsequent EIRs when proposed changes would require major revisions to the previous EIR “due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” The evaluation below discusses the issue areas covered by the Motel Inn IS/MND and concludes that in each case no new environmental effects are created and that there is no increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Environmental impacts associated with the Motel Inn project were evaluated in the adopted IS/MND. As addressed below, the proposed modifications would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the adopted IS/MND and would not increase the severity of any impact identified in the adopted IS/MND. Aesthetics No significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the adopted IS/MND. The proposed modifications would not increase the height or massing of the project, and would not adversely affect any scenic vistas. Site development would occur consistent with development and lighting standards, and design criteria identified in Ordinance 1651 (associated with the “Special Consideration” overlay). Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, and impacts would remain less than significant. Agricultural Resources No impacts to agricultural resources were identified in the adopted IS/MND. Based on the location of the project, underlying zoning, and lack of Farmland, no impact would occur. Air Quality The adopted IS/MND identified potentially significant impacts related to the construction and operational phases of the project, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. At the time, the project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and mitigation measures recommended by the APCD were incorporated into the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the previously- approved project. The proposed project would increase the total lodging units by only two (from 81 to 83), and would therefore not result in an increase in operational emissions. All adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1). Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, the project would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Page 12 of 143 Biological Resources San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the project site, and proposed project complies with the required 20-foot creek setback (applicable to structures) identified in Ordinance 1651. Conditions within the upland portion of the project site (where development is proposed) has not changed, and continues to lack any biologically sensitive or jurisdictional habitats. The adopted IS/MND identified construction-related impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required (Mitigation Measure BIO-1), which would mitigate the impact to less than significant. In addition, a creek restoration and enhancement plan, including the removal of non-native vegetation and replacement with native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers is required (Mitigation Measure BIO-2), which would enrich the creek habitat. As the proposed project does not increase the size or intensity of the previously- approved project, would continue to provide a minimum 20-foot creek setback, and would comply with adopted mitigation measures, the proposed project does not create any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Cultural Resources The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List Historic Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) was constructed in the 1924- 1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style. Building permits issued under previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the façade remaining from the original restaurant building. The previously approved building at the entrance to the property contains the two significant historic elements of the old Motel Inn including portions of the historic lobby building with the three-tiered bell tower and a portion of the façade from the original restaurant building. This portion of the project will not change. The project proposes construction of 29 bungalow guestroom buildings. A restroom building and three accessory housekeeping and maintenance buildings are proposed southeast and southwest of the existing remnants of the Motel Inn and previously approved restaurant building and would be constructed with a Mission Revival style similar to the previously approved project. The primary changes, as compared to the previously proposed project, are the elimination of a 2-story lobby building with guest rooms, to be replaced by five new two-story bungalow guestroom buildings, and elimination of a 23-space recreational vehicle park at the eastern portion of the site, to be replaced with 14 one-story bungalow guestroom buildings. The bungalow guestrooms would be approximately 15 feet in height (one-story buildings) and 25 feet in height (two-story buildings). Proposed materials include plaster siding, red clay tile roofing, exposed timber decorative features, and wrought iron railings and trim. The guestroom buildings would be located south and southeast of the restaurant building. A recreational area with swimming pool, spa, and garden patio would be located between the restaurant and guestrooms. The style and materials proposed for the guestroom buildings reflect those of the original Motel Inn’s Mission Revival architectural style, achieving consistency with the property’s historical character. These buildings are located behind the future restaurant/lobby building which Page 13 of 143 incorporates the only remaining historically significant components of the original Milestone Mo- Tel, and are set back from the structure across pedestrian pathways. The proposed architectural style of the accessory restroom and housekeeping buildings, which would be located to the southeast and southwest of the remaining historic features and future building, also incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the original Motel Inn architectural style. Based on the location and scale of the proposed structures, the proposed project would not block views towards, nor visually distract from the remaining historic features to be incorporated into the future lobby and restaurant building. The new construction would not destroy any of the character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved building, and because they are designed in a compatible Mission Revival style and at a modest scale, the buildings would not detract from the original motel setting or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist-oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor-serving purpose of the property. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resources, would not create any new impacts to historical resources, and would not increase the severity of any identified impact. Regarding archaeological resources, an Extended Phase 1 Testing Report (Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002) prepared for the previous project concluded that no archaeological deposits were identified; however, it is possible that resources could be uncovered during project excavation and grading. The adopted IS/MND identifies a potentially significant impact related to resource discovery, and Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires preparation and implementation of an archaeological monitoring plan. As the proposed project would not increase the area of depth of ground disturbance, and compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required, no new impacts would occur, and the project would not increase the severity of any identified impact. Potential impacts would remain less than significant with required mitigation. Geology and Soils The adopted IS/MND did not identify any significant geology or soils impacts. The proposed project would not increase the size or intensity of development, and would be required to comply with applicable Building Codes. Therefore, the project would not result in any new impacts, and would not increase the severity of any identified impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction-related greenhouse gas emisisons would be similar (or less than the previously- approved project, due to the modular nature of the A-frame units). The proposed project would reduce the total lodging units from 81 to 76, and would therefore not result in an increase in operational greenhouse gas emissions. All adopted mitigation measures will be applied to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure AQ-1), which would reduce potential emissions. Therefore, the project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Page 14 of 143 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The adopted IS/MND identified a potentially significant impact due to the potential for underground storage tanks. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant by compliance with recommendations identified in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and remediation of any potential contamination to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). The proposed project would not increase the area of disturbance or include any elements that require the use or storage of hazardous materials beyond standard, legal use. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with required mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the previously-approved project, the proposed revised project is required to comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual of the Waterway Management Plan, Post Construction Requirements for stormwater, and Floodplain Management Regulations (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.78). The proposed project would result in a marginal increase in the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and would not increase water demand compared to the previously approved project. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Land Use and Planning The proposed project remains consistent with the General Plan, as the site is designated for tourist commercial land uses, the proposed use of the property would not change (lodging), and the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Mineral Resources No mineral resources are present onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Noise The project site is located south of Highway 101 and immediately east of the Monterey Street/U.S. 101 ramps. Noise sensitive uses (single-family residential neighborhood) are present to the south, across San Luis Creek. The proposed project remains a lodging project, with most of the proposed guestroom buildings located behind the future “restaurant” building, and 14 of the buildings behind a sound wall to be located along the northern property boundary. The total number of proposed units would marginally increase from 81 to 83, and consistent with Ordinance 1651, no balconies, outdoor use areas, or operational windows would face the creek corridor and adjacent residential neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. Page 15 of 143 Population and Housing Similar to the previously approved, project, the proposed project consists of a similar use (lodging) and would not induce growth nor displace existing house. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Public Services and Recreation The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and would be adequately served by municipal services. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and no impact would occur. Transportation/Traffic The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83, and payment of Transportation Impact Fees is required. Similar to the previously approved project, access to the site would be provided from Monterey Street, and a roadway channelization project (subject to approval by both the City and Caltrans) is required to be completed by the applicant to address geometric concerns related to the proximity of the project access point and the U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps (Mitigation Measure TT-1). Therefore, based on compliance with the adopted mitigation measure, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would marginally increase the total number of lodging units from 81 to 83. Since the project was initially approved, the City has initiated the expansion of and improvements to the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The WRRF is designed for an average dry- weather flow of 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and treated an average of 2.9 mgd during 2020. The average dry weather flow of wastewater is expected to reach 5.4 mgd at the WRRF once the City reaches its 2035 build-out population identified in the General Plan. Upon completion in 2024, the WRRF modifications will increase treatment capacity at the facility to 5.4 mgd, which is planned to accommodate wastewater flows in the City under full buildout of the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City sewer infrastructure and the WRRF. Regarding water, the City maintains adequate, diverse water supply (and excess supply) to meet Citywide water demands during single- and multiple-dry years through 2035 (build-out of the General Plan). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would be adequately served by City water infrastructure and water supply. The proposed project reduces the number of lodging units, and would be adequately served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the area, and has a remaining capacity of 13,000,000 cubic yards (maximum permitted capacity is 24,000,000 cubic yards). Page 16 of 143 Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new impacts, would not increase the severity of any impact, and impacts would remain less than significant. DETERMINATION In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the adopted IS/MND for the Motel Inn project is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the IS/MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because: 1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental document: a. The project changes do not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the IS/MND. c. The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approved mitigation measures. Attachment: 1. Motel Inn Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 17 of 143 City of San Luis Obispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM USE-1035-2015 (PR-0113-2015) February 24, 2016 1.Project Title: Motel Inn & RV Park 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner (805)781-7176 mcarloni@slocity.org 4.Project Location: 2223 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Motel Inn L.P. P.O. Box 12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 6.General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7.Zoning: C-T-S (Tourist Commercial with "Special Consideration" Overlay due to the San Luis Creek and residential neighborhood bordering the property.) ATTACHMENT 1 Page 18 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 8.Description of the Project: The proposal is to construct a new motel with a total of 55 rooms spread across a main hotel/lobby building and 12 detached "bungalow" units. A recreational vehicle (RV) park (23 spaces) is also proposed on the easterly portion of the project site. The property address is 2223 Monterey Street. The vicinity map is shown on the right. Total floor area for the buildings will be approximately 34,500 square feet. The property is approximately 4.19 acres in area and is situated at the northerly terminus of Monterey Street. The project site also includes remnants Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated of the Historic "Motel Inn" which includes a fa9ade and portions of the original lobby. Portions of the original historic Motel Inn are under construction and will be incorporated into an already approved building which was issued a building permit under prior entitlements, and is not a part of the current project under evaluation. 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: North: East: West: South: Highway 101 San Luis Creek Apple Farm Inn Motel San Luis Creek and San Luis Drive residential neighborhood 10.Project Entitlements Requested: The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and the issuance of a use permit from the Planning Commission. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ATTACHMENT 1 Page 19 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 I Housing Agriculture Resources x Hazards & Hazardous Public Services Materials x Air Quality Hydrology I Water Quality Recreation x Biological Resources Land Use I Planning x Transportation I Traffic x Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities I Service Systems Geology I Soils Noise x Mandatory Findings Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 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)). of ATTACHMENT 1 Page 20 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated DETERMINATION {To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signaturn� Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Printed Name February 24, 2016 Date For: Michael Codron Community Development Director No Impact x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 21 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards ( e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4."Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross referenced). 5.Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8.The explanation of each issue should identify: a)the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance ATTACHMENT 1 Page 22 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation Sources Potentially Significant Issues 2 2 1,2 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x a), b) The proposed buildings are situated in a previously developed area and are low scale that will not exceed two stories (structure height of approximately 32 feet). The proposed project does not have the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas and the project will not affect scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings. c)The project site is located in an area zoned for commercial development and was previously disturbed with buildings and site development associated with the Historic Motel Inn. The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines which address compatibility of proposed development on the site and in relation to surroundings. Additionally, the Planning Commission will review the project for compatibility through requirements of Ordinance No. 1130. In 1989, commercial properties on the east side of Monterey Street (including this property) were rezoned to include the "S", Special Consideration, overlay district. The implementing ordinance, Ordinance No. 1130, contains specific design criteria for new development on sites within the S district overlay. Aspects of site development that could potentially affect neighborhood compatibility and environmental quality are addressed in the design criteria. The design criteria include specifications which limit building openings onto the creek and address lighting, screening between land uses, riparian corridor protection, building height and grading limitations and drainage control. d)New sources of lighting will be evaluated as part of the review of ordinance No. 1130 to ensure that lighting remains on site and does not produce glare that could affect neighboring properties. The project will also be reviewed by the ARC and at the time of building permit submittal for compliance with the City's Night Sky Ordinance (SLOMC 17.23) which contains provisions to minimize glare and protect the natural environment from excessive and/or misdirected light and glare. Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? x x x a),b),c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with the project. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 23 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 Conclusion: a-c) No Impact. Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 3,4,5 X quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?1-----+------+---X---+-----+--------<c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 4, 5 pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 4, 5 X concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? a-e) The proposed project was reviewed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD is a commenting agency to assess air pollution impacts from both construction and operational phases of the project. The APCD found potential impacts associated with operational and construction phase impacts unless recommended mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The APCD provided a letter dated November 17, 2015 (Appendix C) which included recommended mitigations to address construction impacts, operational phase impacts, and sensitive receptors. With incorporation of all mitigation measures and recommendations provided by APCD, impacts to air quality will be less than significant. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Conclusion: a-e) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, all mitigations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 6 x 6 x 7, 8, x 6 x 3 x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 24 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x (a-d) The proposed project complies with required setbacks from the creek bank and C/OS portion of the site. South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek in the vicinity of the area of the project and have been documented upstream of the project site. The City's Natural Resources Manager has visited the site and confirmed that no riparian or otherwise biologically sensitive habitat or wetlands or wildlife corridors are associated with the portion of the site impacted by the proposed project. However, due to the proximity of development to the creek channel and downward slope of the site, there is the potential for construction-related impacts associated with machinery and sedimentation which could enter the natural area. A mitigation measure (BI0-1) has been recommended to ensure that proper erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor are utilized under a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP). San Luis Creek runs through the eastern edge of the site, and is subject to protective standards adopted with Ordinance 1130 ( 1989 Series) for the C-T-S and C/OS-5 zones at this location. On its western bank ( on the project site) the creek channel is vegetated by a mixture of native and non-native trees and groundcovers. All proposed structures and other improvements are above the established top of bank. Residential properties across the creek to the east encroach to the top of bank or overhang the creek channel with decorative landscaping and decking. Despite these encroachments, the creek has retained its value as a significant biological corridor. Its condition could be enhanced with the proposed project development if a robust restoration and enhancement plan is implemented, as required by Ordinance 1130 (1989 Series), criterion No. 3. The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and has recommended mitigation measures (BI0-2) requiring a planting plan which would retain existing native vegetation along the banks and channel and replacement of non-native plantings with appropriate trees, shrubs and groundcover to enrich the creek habitat by providing additional shade cover and food sources for South-Central California Coast Steelhead, District Population Segment (Onchorynchus mykiss) and a more diverse, complex tree canopy that will be attractive to various bird species. (e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure BI0-1: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a.No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b.Equipment will be fueled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c.Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d.All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e.All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Conclusion: a-f) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pro_ject: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 10, 11, x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 25 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5) c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Historic Resources Sources Potentially Significant Issues 12, 13 14 13 13 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Master List Historic Motel Inn was constructed in the 1924-1925 timeframe and was constructed in a Mission Revival architectural style. The Motel Inn is significant historically since it is associated with events that made a broad contribution to California's history and cultural heritage. This is the first location to use the word "motel" and the first business to employ motoring comfort accommodations which represented a shift away from auto camps and cabins. Building permits issued under previous entitlements removed many of the non-historic structures on the site and the remaining historic portions of the Motel Inn include the main lobby building of the original Motel Inn, and a portion of the fa9ade remaining from the original restaurant building. That said, these remaining building remnants from the historic Motel Inn are not a part of the currently proposed project and will be incorporated into a building which is currently under construction pursuant to building permits issued under previous entitlements. a)The proposed project includes the construction of a lobby building with 12 attached hotel rooms, a mix of one and two story detached bungalows with a total of 40 hotel rooms, and a 1.6 acre site with 25 RV hookups. Due to the fact that the applicant has a current, approved building permit regarding partial construction of those elements of the project which are of historic value, no further evaluation is required for that part of the project. However, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will still need to review the remaining components of the project to insure that the entire project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines of the City and the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The proposed development requires an evaluation of the projects compatibility with the remaining character defining elements of the historic Motel Inn which are incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building which is under construction. The project's compatibility with the approved restaurant building (including the remaining historic lobby building and fa9ade of the original structure) will be evaluated by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee for conformance with relevant City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. An evaluation has been provided by City Staff for review by the Cultural Heritage Committee which finds that the proposed new construction will not detract from the historic significance of the remaining historic features to be incorporated into the previously approved restaurant building. Proposed development will be located approximately 20-feet behind the previous! y approved restaurant building ( which includes the historic features) and the scale of the lobby building and bungalow units will not block views, nor overwhelm or detract from the remaining historic features. The proposed architectural style of the new development incorporates Mission Revival features which are complementary to the original Motel Inn architectural style. The new work will not detract or destroy any of the character defining features of the existing historic elements of the approved restaurant building and the proposed structures will preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property. The RV portion of the property is of a relatively low intensity with only 25 potential RV spaces on the site plan. The parking of vehicles, including recreational vehicles, will not detract from the original motel setting, or its historic building elements. The continuation of a tourist-oriented use is consistent with the historic, visitor serving purpose of the property. Less than significant impact. Archaeological Resources b-d) The project site is considered an archaeologically "sensitive area" because it is within 200 feet of the top of the bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. In January, 2002, Bertrando & Bertrando prepared an Extended Phase I Testing report, which is attached to this initial study as Appendix F. No archaeological deposits were identified. While no archaeological resources were discovered in the test trenches, it is possible that resources could be uncovered with project excavation and grading. The Phase 1 testing report found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could be impacted during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with mitigation ATTACHMENT 1 Page 26 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated incorporated. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. Conclusion: a-d) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated 6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the_risk ofloss, injury or death involving: I.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. II.Strong seismic ground shaking? III.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? IV.Landslides? 16 16 16 16 x x x x x xb)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?17 1--��-+-���--+����---1����-+���� c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 16, 17 would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the 17 California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 17 tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? x x x a)San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are ATTACHMENT 1 Page 27 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of "High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Building Code. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant impact. b)The site is already partially developed and is an infill site located in an urbanized area. The project will not result in loss of topsoil to a level that would be considered significant. c), d) A soils engineering report will be required by the Building Division at the time of submittal for building and grading permits. The soils report will require data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, and conclusions and recommendations for grading and construction. Grading and building techniques must be designed in compliance with the report. To ensure the proposed project does not pose a risk to occupants and structures the construction plans submitted to the building division for review and approval shall be consistent with recommendations of the soils engineering report. e)The proposed project will be required to connect to the City's sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Conclusion: a-e) Less than Significant impact 7.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 5 x 5 x a), b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consistent with City policies for infill development and efficient use of existing infrastructure. As discussed in the above air quality analysis, the APCD has provided comments on the project to address construction and operational phase impacts of the project (Appendix C). Compliance with recommended mitigation measure AQ-1 also includes measures to reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions which are also produced with operational and construction phase emissions discussed in the Air Quality analysis. These characteristics of the proposal coupled with the requirement to address APCD comments finds the project consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will result in less than significant impacts. Conclusion: a, b) Less than significant impact. 8.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 28 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 19,20 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x x x a)The proposed hotel and RV park use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No Impact. b)A Phase I environmental site assessment was prepared by Ceres Associates and 1s attached as Appendix G. Recommendations are included in the report which will require certain actions. Since the site previously had a service station use there may be underground tanks remaining in place. As an example, the site assessment recommends that ground penetrating radar (GPR) be utilized to determine if any underground tanks exist, and that sampling be conducted to assess if asbestos is contained in the remaining building on-site. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. c ), d) The proposed project is not within one quarter mile of an existing school and the project would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. No Impact. e), f), g) The project site is not within an airport land use plan and is not within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and would not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans. No Impact. i)The project site is not located within the wildland interface zone. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: a & c-h) Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 9.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would _ be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 29 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 groundwater table level ( e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? t)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 20.21 20,21 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x x x x x a), b) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. The existing on-site water well is proposed to be removed but could be used for landscape irrigation. No significant change is expected to the local groundwater table. The well site is down gradient from the rural upstream properties that rely on groundwater. No impact. c), d), e), t) 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. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off and the proposed project does not increase impervious surface area. If applicable, plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. The project will be subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. These regulations address both water quantity and water quality. The project will be required to retain and/or treat the runoff from the impervious surfaces including parking areas, drive aisles, and roofs. A water quality upgrade is expected from this previously developed site. City Engineering Standards address point source controls for solid waste and materials storage areas. Less than significant impact. g), h), i) The project site is located within the I 00-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 JOO-year floodplain that are not located within the Mid-Higuera or special Floodplain Management Zone have no significant effects on flood elevations provided design criteria of the plan are met. Furthermore, the project is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations (flood ordinance). The engineer ofrecord has modeled the project to show that the structures are located outside the SFHA and that the project will not impact adjoining properties. A Letter of Map Change will be processed as a condition of building permits. The project will be required to have a finished floor elevation of at least 1-foot above the defined 100-year flood elevation at the time, or for ATTACHMENT 1 Page 30 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated commercial buildings within the central business district the building can be built at present grade with incorporation of FEMA "flood-proofing" measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The new structures and improvements will be located away from the top of creek bank in accordance with the Creek Setback Ordinance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation 19,22 of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 19,22 natural community conservation plan? Evaluation x x x a), b), c) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the General Plan since the site is designated for Tourist Commercial land uses by the General Plan which the proposed visitor-serving development is consistent. The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 11.MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: No Impact. 12.NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 23,24 standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne 23,24 vibration or ground-borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 23,24 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the _ project? x x x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 31 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 e)For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x x a), b) The site is located adjacent to Highway 101, the principal noise source affecting existing and future noise conditions in the vicinity. Due to existing noise from Highway 101, the project site is exposed to noise levels in the 60-70dB range. The General Plan Noise Element lists the acceptable range of noise as up to 60 db without the need for any specific noise studies or mitigation. Hotels and motels are noise sensitive uses as designated in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 decibels ( dB) are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB is acceptable for indoor areas. Outdoor noise levels in the 60-70 dB range are classified as "conditionally acceptable". This means that development may be permitted provided it is designed to meet acceptable (for the proposed land use) noise exposure levels. Due to existing and projected noise levels emanating from Highway 101, in previous approvals for the site, the applicant was required to prepare a noise study to evaluate mitigation strategies for meeting interior and exterior noise standards. The noise study was prepared for a similar, but somewhat different hotel use, by Donald Asquith, PhD, and is attached as Appendix H. The study notes how the freeway noise source varies in elevation above the site from west to east. The northbound on-ramp from Monterey Street is approximately 5 feet higher at the westerly end of the site, increasing to 15 feet at the easterly end. While noise exposure from the highway is still significant, this grade differential from the noise source does reduce the traffic noise levels from what they would otherwise be if the noise source was at the same elevation as the project site. Outdoor spaces that are created within the project site should be designed to consider the freeway noise and exposure of visitors to the noise. For outdoor areas, similar to previous approvals, proposed buildings are sited such that outdoor areas are situated on the opposite side of proposed structures which will attenuate freeway sound levels to acceptable outdoor noise levels. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques for the motel units, according to the noise study and consistent with the City Noise Guidebook. City staff also visited the project site on December 17, 2015, measured noise from the freeway with a sound meter and found the noise levels to be consistent with the prior Asquith study. Recreational vehicle parks are not listed in the General Plan Noise Element as Noise Sensitive uses. For the RV park portion of the project it can be anticipated that recreational vehicle travelers would anticipate freeway noise at this location as it is somewhat common that RV parks are located adjacent to freeways and major roadways. It is not anticipated that RV travelers would have the same expectation of interior noise reduction or quiet outdoor or indoor noise levels as motels or hotel accommodations. Less than significant impact. Noise increases resulting from the proposed project c), d) The hotel and RV park uses are not anticipated to produce sound levels which would exceed thresholds of the General Plan noise element or Noise Ordinance. To a considerable degree, it can be anticipated that proposed structures will help buffer Highway 101 noise from the yards of the neighbors across San Luis Creek. In addition, parking areas for the motel use and RV parking are between 120 feet to 150 feet from the nearest residence on San Luis Drive, and further buffered by San Luis Creek and a heavily vegetated riparian corridor. In addition, Ordinance 1130 contains specific provisions to ensure compatible noise levels with residential uses across the riparian corridor which will be reviewed for conformance by the City Planning Commission. Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including groundbome 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. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 32 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated e), t) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, is not located within two miles of a public use airport, and is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 13.POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly x (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating x the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?x c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a)The project is proposed in an already urbanized area with existing roads and other infrastructure. The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. Less than significant. b), c) The project would not displace any existing housing or substantial numbers of people. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact 14.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance ob_jectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection?x b)Police protection?x c)Schools?x d)Parks?x e)Other public facilities?x The proposal is for a tourist-oriented land use which will not require the provision of public facilities such as parks or schools. There is also adequate capacity of water, sewer, police and fire protection to service the proposed development. The development will be subject to the standard traffic and water impact fees. Conclusion: No impact. 15.RECREATION. a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or x regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project_include recreational facilities or require the x construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a), b) The project does not include permanent residential units and the transitory nature of the hotel guests and RV park use should not place an additional substantial burden on nearby residential facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would be accelerated. No Impact ATTACHMENT 1 Page 33 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 Conclusion: No impact 16.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b)Conflict_with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ( e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ( e.g. farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Project Traffic Impact Sources 27 25, 26,27 Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x x x x x a), b) The General Plan Circulation Element identifies Monterey Street as an arterial road and adopts level of Service D (LOS D)as the maximum acceptable level of traffic congestion during PM peak hour conditions outside the downtown. The Circulation Element does not prescribe any modifications to Monterey Street northeast of its intersection with Grand Avenue. Higgins Associates prepared a traffic impact study (TIS) on the more intensive but similar motel project at this site, approved in 2003. (See Appendix I, attached.) The TIS evaluated how traffic from the project would affect the operation of nearby intersections. According to the report, full development of the motel would generate approximately 1, 148 vehicle trips per day, with 29 trips entering the project site and 52 trips departing during the AM peak hour, and 39 trips entering and 35 trips departing during the PM peak hour. The TIS forecasted how this additional traffic would be distributed to the following intersections and evaluated its impact on the traffic level of service (LOS). (The traffic impacts of the current, proposed project will be significantly less based on an average daily trip generation of 4 75 trips, according to the Omni Means draft Technical Memorandum dated November, 2015. See Appendices, attached.) 1.Monterey Street & U.S. 101 NB On/Off Ramps at Project Driveway 2.Monterey and Garfield 3.Monterey Street and Buena Vista 4.Buena Vista and Garfield 5. Buena Vista and U.S. 101 Southbound Off Ramp 6.Monterey Street at Apple Farm Inn Driveway 7.Monterey Street at La Questa Motor Inn Driveway The TIS concluded that under "existing + Project" conditions, area intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (generally at LOS C or better), in compliance with Circulation Element standards. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 34 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Cumulative Traffic Impacts: The prior traffic impact study also considered the prior project's contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at build-out of the City's general plan land uses. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis showed that intersections 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 listed above will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during AM and PM peak hours. For intersection 2 (Garfield @ Monterey), the Garfield approach to Monterey would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, without that project's traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization would not meet Caltrans warrants but that actual conditions should be monitored as traffic conditions change to determine the future need for a signal, or possibly all way traffic controls. Under build-out conditions, the Buena Vista approach to the southbound U.S. 101 off ramp (intersection 5, above) would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, without project traffic being added. The TIS concluded that signalization of this intersection does not meet Caltrans warrants, but like the Garfield intersection, monitoring should be undertaken and signalization may be warranted in the future. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. (Note: This project will pay city Transportation Impact Fees as required by ordinance. Revenues from these fees are used to pay for mitigating area-wide traffic conditions as those mitigations become necessary. Payment of the fee constitutes this project's fair share contribution toward mitigating potential, future substandard traffic conditions.) Traffic Geometrics Concerns d)Access to the Motel Inn site is challenging due to its immediate proximity to the northbound on ramp and southbound off ramp of Highway 101. Therefore, a traffic study was conducted by Omni-Means (November, 2015) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed new traffic to the area and identify the most reasonable measures to mitigate road and driveway geometric issues. The study was conducted in partnership with Caltrans. The study recommends: (1) restricting southwest (SW) left turns for approximately 120 feet of the Northbound (NB) 101 off ramp; (2) providing a west-bound (WB) left turn refuge/acceleration lane for hotel traffic; (3) realigning the Monterey Street curb line; and (4) making minor adjustment to affected motel driveways along Monterey Street. A conceptual graphic of the recommended mitigation is shown below. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 35 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Source: Omni-Means Mitigation Measure: MM-I Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as recommended in the traffic study which is depicted above, and as approved by the City and Caltrans. Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation. c)The project would not have any effect on air traffic patterns. No Impact. e)The site has been reviewed by City emergency services and found to comply with requirements for emergency access. No impact. 17.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro·ect: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable x Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 28 x or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water x drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 28 x from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate x ca_pacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to ATTACHMENT 1 Page 36 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER# 2363-2015 the provider's existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Sources Potentially Significant Issues 29 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated x x a)b) c) The City Water Resource Recovery Facility and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer laterals to convey wastewater to the sewer main that parallels the project's western property line. All on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Resource Recovery Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of future development. The site includes existing pubic water and sewer mains in easements along the northern and western property lines. This water main is the transmission water main from Reservoir 1. Proposed development at the site shall be sited outside of these easements. Storm drainage facilities in the vicinity are adequate to serve the proposed project and no expansion is required which could result in significant environmental effects. Less than significant impact. d)Water demand from the project was anticipated as part of General Plan build out. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the 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 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the 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.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or x x x ATTACHMENT 1 Page 37 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated indirectly? 19.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a)Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. None. b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. NIA c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. 20.SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 1130, 1989 2. Project Plans 3. Municipal Code 4. Response Letter from Air Pollution Control District (APCD), 2015 5. APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook 6. Ecological Analysis of Apple Farm II, 8/20/02, Levine-Fricke 7. City of San Luis Obispo Creek Setback ordinance (Section 17.16.025 of the Zoning Regulations) 8. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, 2006 9. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory, December, 1983 10. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Guidelines, 2010 11. Historical Resources Inventory of Property, Bertrando, September 2000 12. Historic American Building Survey (HABS) of the Motel Inn, August 2004 13. Archaeological Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, January 2002 14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, 1995 15. Extended Phase I Testing Report, Bertrando, 2002 16. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, State Geologist (Alquist-Priolo Map), 1990 17. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984 18. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Ceres Associates, October, 1999 19. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, 2014 20. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005C) 21. Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan, Above Grade Engineering, San Luis Obispo, November 2015 22. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 23. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element & Guidebook 24. Noise Investigation , Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 38 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 25. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9 th Edition, 2012 26. Motel Inn Traffic Analysis, Higgins Associates, March 2002 27. Traffic Report, Omni-Means, November 2015 28. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations 29. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, 1994 Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: AppendixH: Project Plans Not Used Air Pollution Control District Letter Dated November 17, 2015 Ecological Analysis of San Luis Obispo Creek, Levine-Fricke, May 2002 and USFWS Protocol Survey, Levine-Fricke, June 2003 Historic American Building Survey of Former Motel Inn, 2004 (with limited attachments) Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Report, Bertrando & Bertrando, 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Ceres Associates Noise Study, Donald Asquith, PhD, March, 2001 No Impact Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study, OMNI-MEANS, Nov. 2015 & Higgins Associates, 2002; (with limited attachments) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure AO-I: Prior to issuance of building permits, all m1t1gations and recommended actions from the November 17, 2015 APCD letter commenting on the Motel Inn project shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. � Monitoring Program A0-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-I: The project shall include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWWP) to address erosion control and shall also incorporate the following measures for work in and around the riparian corridor: a.No heavy equipment should enter flowing water. b.Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor. c.Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas. d.All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction. e.All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system. � Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed by the City's Community Development and Public Works Departments, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 39 of 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 2363-2015 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Plans submitted for Building Permit Application shall include a creek restoration and enhancement plan identifying the removal of non-native vegetation within the creek bank and replacement with appropriate native trees, shrubs and groundcovers. >--Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: Final plans shall be reviewed by the City's Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications to the creek restoration and enhancement plan as necessary to ensure that an appropriate mix of plantings, in type, size and quantity is proposed, and that best practices are utilized while working within the creek corridor. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits a monitoring plan in conformance with requirements of City Archaeological Preservation Program Guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. The monitoring plan shall be submitted by a City approved subsurface archaeologist and all monitoring and construction work shall be carried out consistent with the approved monitoring plan. In the event excavations or any ground disturbance activities encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources, or cultural materials, then construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures or mitigation in conformance with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on all relevant sheets with ground disturbance activities with clear notes and callouts. >--Monitoring Plan, CULT 2: All mitigation measures and the monitoring plan shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. The name and contact information for the monitor shall be clearly indicated within construction plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Phase I environmental site assessment prepared by Ceres Associates to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. All contamination issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief prior to construction. >--Monitoring Plan, HAZ-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations in the Phase I ESA shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Any contaminations issues must be presented to the Community Development Director and Fire Chief before further action. Mitigation Measure: TT-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the roadway channelization project as generally described above (Transportation & Traffic Section #16 of the Initial Study), and as approved by the City and Caltrans. >--Monitoring Plan, TT-1: All mitigation measures including the recommendations of the Omni Means Report (November 2015) shall be included in construction plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Compliance with the Omni Means Report and roadway design will be verified through the building permit process and with final inspections by City staff. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 40 of 143 Historic American Building Survey of the Motel Inn (Milestone Mo-Tel) 2223 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo CA 1.Architectural History 2.Reproductions of Historic Photos 3.Photo-documentation of Existing Conditions 4.As-Built Drawings (24 x 36 on mylar) Historic Documentation .... -��.. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 41 of 143 Significance In 1982, the Motel inn was recorded as Number 0138-03C as part of the historic resources inventory of the City of San Luis Obispo. At the time, only the restaurant/lobby building was considered, and it was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places [City of San Luis Obispo 1983]. Further research conducted as part of a restoration and reconstruction project (slated to begin in 2003), assigned the property a State Historic Resources Number (P-40-041013) and included the bungalow units behind the main building [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000]. On the basis of standard criteria for cultural resource significance [Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 , Title 14 CCR Section 4852], the Motel Inn is significant because it: 1)is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and cultural heritage. The Motel Inn was the first venue to combine the automotive convenience of the auto camps, courts, and cabins with amenities of the hotel, thus creating the concept of the motel. The Motel Inn was also the first to use the word motel, coined from mdor hotel. 2)is assoc iated with the lives of persons important in our past. Arthur Heineman, the Pasadena architect and developer of the Motel Inn, was a contemporary of Greene and Greene, and was well known for his Craftsman Style residences and as an early developer of the bungalow court concept. 3)Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value. The Motel Inn combines classic features of a Spanish Colonial/Mission Revival Style with the bungalow court concept. Although not a sterling example of period architecture, it is distinctive, and it represents the beginning of the use of flamboyant and colorful architecture to attract the attention of the touring motorist. History For a general history of the Motel Inn property, including a discussion of the development of the motel concept, refer to the Historic Resource Inventory Report filed by Betsy and Ethan Bertrando on September 2000. Architectural History Charles Hamilton of the Hamilton Hotel chain originally hired Arthur and Alfred Heineman to design a new motor hotel based on the bungalow court concept. The development was financed by Harry Elliot, who partnered with Hamilton, the Heineman brothers, and attorney John H. Alvord to create the Milestone Interstate Corporation, which was to develop a series of motels in California [Krieger 1988]. The Milestone Mot-tel was designed by Arthur Heineman, in association with his brother Alfred Heineman. The Heineman brothers came ta California from Chicago in 1894, and became involved in architecture primarily as developers. Although neither had any real training in architecture, they became designers and builders of housing in Southern California. Although Arthur became a registered architect, the unofficial designer was Alfred; the brothers became known as Arthur S. Heineman, architect, and Alfred Heineman, Associate. [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000: 12]. The draftsman of the project was Roy Sutherland, the engineer was Bill Morris [Henry 1957]. The General Contractor on the project was Maino Construction, plumbing was ATTACHMENT 1 Page 42 of 143 2 by Union Hardware and Plumbing Company, electrical was by Valley Electric (15,000 feet of conduit was installed). Project landscaper was Shurragar, the "well-known firm of florists and landscapers" [Daily Telegram 1925). At the time, AW. Shurragar had a florist shop at 1416 Monterey Street (Bertrando and Bertrando 2000: 14]. The Milestone Mo-Tel opened on December 12, 1925 at a construction cost of $80,000 [Jackson 1993]. but was not completely finished until fall of 1926 [Krieger 1988]. The Milestone Motel was the first and only motel built out of a proposed chain of eighteen, spaced along the California coast a day's drive apart. These motels were to be an entirely new form of accommodation, featuring the motoring convenience of the automobile camp with amenities of the hotel, including "free maid service, and restaurant and commissary," along with new amenities such as "laundry and dry yard, private garage for each car, "fix-it" garage and racks, and children's playgrounds" [Milestone Interstate Corporation 1925: 2] As originally built, the Milestone Mo-Tel consisted of a lobby and restaurant connected by a covered walkway. The lobby contained a large fireplace and a desk made of copper bound by wrought iron straps to simulate a Spanish chest [Daily Telegram 1925J. Between the mafn building and the creek, 15 bungalow units were clustered around a courtyard. The original courtyard was planted with grass and featured a palm frond-covered walkway connecting the restaurant and lobby with the bungalow nearest the creek (see photo Motel Inn Bungalow Court 1926}. Each bungalow consisted of 4 standard units that could be paired into a "sitting room apartment" for two couples (see Bungalow Plans 4 of 6). Each unit had a shower or bathtub, a toilet, a washbasin, a phone connected to a switchboard in the lobby, and central heat. The bungalows were constructed of 4" gypsum blocks (known as "key tfle") and plaster, with wood framing of flat roofs. The bungalows also featured clay tie trim, "little Spanish lanterns" by each door, and wood sash windows with iron grille work. Most bungalows also had one or two attached shed-roof garages {see attached 1926 Bungalow Court photos) [Sanborn 1926; Daily Telegram 1925]. Two "deluxe" apartments were situated on a second floor above the lobby and restaurant respectively. In back of the bungalows, along the creek, were a series of "hotel rooms" primarily for "motel aids and chauffeurs", now offices for the adjacent Apple Farm. The eastern end of the hotel unit building was occupied by laundry and linen storage, while further east was a repair garage, now used for storage. Two long garages for additional cars were located along the creek west of the "hotel rooms" [Sanborn 1926; Daily Telegram 1925]. To further cater to the motoring tourist, the Milestone Mo-Tel had its own gas station situated east of the restaurant in what is now a parking lot [Sanborn 1926]. Other amenities added in the 1920s included a miniature golf course along the creek east of the bungalows (see attached Miniature Golf photo ca. 1930) and a riding stable [Stephens 1985; Read 1988]. The restaurant was enlarged and bathrooms added [see Construction History Drawing]. In 1932, the Milestone Interstate Corporation made a large addition to the restaurant, expanding part of the ramada toward Monterey Street to create a lounge [see Construction History Drawing]. This addition was undoubted ly made to accommodate the growing popularity of the restaurant. Unfortunately. by August of that year, the Milestone Interstate Corporation was bankrupt, and the Milestone M<> Tel was lost to foreclosure. It remained closed until 1937 [Ceres 1999:9; Peters 1991]. In 1937, the property was purchased by the Motel Inn Corporation, and in 1938 the Motel Inn was listed as such, along with the Motel Service Station. at 2125 and 2145 Monterey ATTACHMENT 1 Page 43 of 143 3 Street respectively [Ceres 1999:9]. The Motel lnn was sold again in 1939 to Joseph and Lilyan Raphael, and in 1942 to Richard Guest and Violet Peck Guest [Peters 1991]. After the Guests purchased the property, they made some changes. They filled in the rest of the ramada between the main building wings to create a larger lounge and expanded restaurant, probably due to growing demand from Camp San Luis (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing). In 1944, the Motel Inn was sold to George H. Jovick, and in 1947 it was sold to John W.and Lurene Fisher, who kept the property until 1955 [Peters 1991] .. Despite the continuous ownership during this period, an ad in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune in 1949 stated that the Motel Inn Dining Room would be closed for four days for redecoration and would open the next week under new management [San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1949:5). This may refer to the expansion of the restaurant area to include Bungalow K [Sanborn 1954]. In addition to this mystery, Polk's Business Directory of 1950 listed the Motel Inn at 2125 Monterey and "Tessyman's Motel Inn" at 2145 Monterey Stre et [Ceres 1999: 10]. In 1955, the Fisher's conveyed 2/3 interest of the property to Courtney and Eleanor Moore, and 1/3 to Volney P. Bell and Hope Bell. The following year, all interest in the property passed to the Moore's. During the Moore's ownership, many changes were made to the Motel Inn. The service station was torn down, the miniature gold course and riding stables were removed, and a swimming pool was added to the courtyard [Bertrando 2000:14; Peters 1991; Reed 1988:np]. By 1957, the apartment in the northwest comer of the property had been converted into a radio station for KVEC, and the restaurant building had absorbed Bungalow L as well as K to create conference, meeting, and banquet facilities (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing) [Ceres 1999: 1 O; Bertrando 2000: 14}. It is also likely that the shed garages attached to some of the bungalows were taken down during this time, since a few (but not all) are shown on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 1954. In 1959, the Moore's conveyed a portion of their interest in theMotel Inn to Allen and Margaret Calkins [Peters 1991]. In the 1960s, the Calkins placed their stamp on the Motel Inn with addition of extensive signage, neon, (see Motel Inn 1960s brochure), and the development of a lunch patio by the pool, featuring a curvy fiberglass roof with tear-drop shaped edges [Giovanni 1987:17]. By 1970, both Courtney Moore and Allan Calkins had died, leaving the Motel Inn in the ownership of Margaret Calkins and Crocker-Citizen National Bank [Peters 1991 J. By 1974, a storage shed had been built in the southwest corner of the property, the area in back of the lounge and lobby had been filled in to expand the lounge area (see Motel Inn Construction History Drawing), and the KVEC radio station had relocated elsewhere [Bertrando 2000:14; Ceres 1999:11). Changes to the Motel Inn under the Calkins were the last major architectural changes made. In 1974, Margaret Calkins died and her interest was sold to Stanley A. Genest and V.E. Genest. In 1980, Crocker-Citizens Bank sold their interest to the Genests, and the following year the property was sold to Milton E. and Betty R. Grau, the last owners to actually operate the Motel Inn, which finally closed in 1990 [Bertrando 2000:14; Ceres 1999:12; Peters 1991]. Current Conditions The Motel Inn was built in a Spanish Coionial Style with Mission Revival elements, featuring plaster walls and red tile roof. The most dominant design attribute is a large tower with a copper dome. This tower, along with the a smaller "bell tower" and the short arcade in front of the lobby, recall the Mission Santa Barbara and other California missions. Design details included plaster scroll work on the towers, and at some of the windows and entrances. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 44 of 143 The roof line of the main restaurant/lobby building is very complex, consisting of multiple gables and parapets generated by the somewhat organic growth of the building over time. 4 The associated bungalows have flat roofs with some tile mansard edges, and are built of an unusual building material called "key tile." Key tile consists of 4" cube blocks of gypsum, which were stacked like bricks to create the structural walls. No reinforcement was used, and in many cases no mortar was even used. The cubes were stacked not in a running bond like brick, but in simple linear columns. Although most of the wood and wrought iron work present during the historic period are long gone, a few of these original details remain. Remaining details include the wrought iron at the Manager's Apartment and some of the wooden brackets the bungalow entries. Unfortunately, almost all of the original wood-frame divided casement windows have been replaced by picture windows or Jalousie windows. Although some of the existing shrubs and trees predate the 1950s, little if any of the original 1920s landscaping remains [Bertrando and Bertando 2000: 14; Foote 2000]. The earliest reports of the Motel Inn describe a "center park of lawn and shrubs" shown in the 1926 photos [Daily Telegram 1925). Later references mention citrus and kumquat trees [Dart 1978], but the exact dates of planting are unknown. The existing citrus tree all appear to be too small to have been planted in the 1920s or 1930s [Foote 2000}. Some newspaper stories about the Motel Inn in 1970s and 1980s mention arbors overgrown with ivy, while other describe the grounds as planted with oleander, hydrangeas, banana trees, oaks, citrus, and kumquats [Bertrando and Bertrando 2000:14]. Photographs of the poolside area in the 1960s show a decidedly tropical theme with fems, banana trees, and papyrus (see attached photos 1960s). Structurally, the bungalows are in very poor condition, lacking reinforcement, ties to foundation or in some cases any foundation at all. The flat roofs have leaked, damaging the woods framing and causing the collapse of much interior plaster. Structural problems are also apparent at the lobby, with exposed decayed beams and bowed exterior walls. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 45 of 143 References Cited and Consulted Anonymous 1925 "Guests Welcomed at Milestone Inn: Motel Opens for Service to the Motor Public." San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925, pp. 1,4. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Anonymous 1925 "Guests Welcomed at Milestone Inn: Motel Opens for Service to the Motor Public.· San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, December 12, 1925, pp. 1,4. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Automobile Club of Southern California 5 1927 Auto Camps, Courts, and Camp Grounds of California. Automobile Club of Southern California, Los Angeles. Belasco, Warren James 1979 Americans on the Road from Autocamp to Motel, 1910-1945. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge. Bertrando, B. and E. Bertrando 2000a Historical Resource Inventory for 2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. The Motel Inn Complex (P-40-041013) {Milestone Mot-tel). On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara. 2000b Primary Record P-40-041013 On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Central Coast Informat ion Center, Santa Barbara. Ceres Associates 1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Apple Farm Inn, 21015-2223 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California. On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Dart, Louisiana Clayton 1978 Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, San Luis Obispo. Foote, David 2000 Inventory and Evaluation of Existing Trees at the Motel Inn Site. Report on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Giovanni, Joseph 1987 "The First Haven for Man and His Auto," New York Times, Home Section, July 9, 1987, p. 17. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Heineman, Arthur 1925 The Milestone Marks the End of a Perfect Day. Prospectus for the Milestone Interstate Corporation, National City Bank Building, Los Angeles. On fife, B. Bertrando, San Luis Obispo. Henry, Bill 1957 "By the Way with Bill Henry." Los Angeles Times. June 11, 1957, np. Copy on file, King Ventures. San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 46 of 143 Jackson, Kristin 1993 "The World's First Motel Rests Upon Its Memories." The Seattle Times, April 25, 1993, pp. K1, K10. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Krieger. Dan 1988 "Times Past: Mot-Tel, San Luis Obispo's Motel Inn May Have Been First." The Telegram-Tribune, October 22, 1988, p. 23 (Focus Section). Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Milestone Interstate Corporation 1925 The Milestone Marks the End of a Perfect Day. Prospectus, Milestone Interstate Corporation, Los Angeles Patton, Phil 1986 "America's Home Away From Home is Still a Good Motel." Smithsonian, March 1988, pp. . Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Peters, Nick (Subdivision Manager, Cuesta Title) 6 1991 Chain of Title of the Motel Inn. On file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo and Cuesta Title, San Luis Obispo. Reed, Christopher 1988 "Motoring Milestone." London-Manchester Guardian, January, 1988, np .. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Roth, Matthew W. 2000 "Roadside Dream: The World's First Motel Opened a New Chapter in California Car Culture." Westways, May/June, 2000, 16 .. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Sanborn Insurance Co. 1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. On file, Bertrando and Bertrando, San Luis Obispo and King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. 1954 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. On file. Bertrando and Bertrando, San Luis Obispo and King Ventures. San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo, City of. 1983 Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey, Vols. 1,2, and 3. On file, Planning Department, City of San Luis Obispo, CA and Kennedy Library, California Polytechic, San Luis Obispo. Stephens, Dan 1985 "The First Motel Marks Sixtieth Year." The Telegram-Tribune, December 12, 1985, pp. A1, A3. Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. Warnack, James 1925 "Hostelry Chain for Motorists." Los Angeles Times, January 18, 1925, np Copy on file, King Ventures, San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 47 of 143 Page 48 of 143 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 83-ROOM HOTEL, INCLUDING 29 "BUNGALOW" GUESTROOM BUILDINGS, FOUR SMALL OUTBUILDINGS, POOL AREA, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, ON THE MOTEL INN PROPERTY; ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 MONTEREY) BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Email: woetzell@slocity.org APPLICANT: Motel Inn, L.P. REPRESENTATIVE: Studio Design Group Architects RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s historical preservation polices and standards. 1.0 BACKGROUND In 2016 the Planning Commission approved a project for redevelopment of the Motel Inn site with a hotel and restaurant, with accommodations provided in several “bungalow” buildings, spaces for recreational vehicle (RV) camping, and pre-sited Airstream trailers. The project was found by the Cultural Heritage Committee to be consistent with the City's historical preservation policies and standards. Subsequent minor modifications to the project were approved in 2017 by the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission. Prior Advisory Body review is summarized below, with links to Advisory Body Materials (Agenda Reports, Meeting Minutes, and adopted Resolutions) provided within the table1: Table 1: Prior Project Review Meeting and Date Action Cultural Heritage Committee January 25, 2016 (ARCH-2363-2015) Adopted Resolution CHC-1000-16 Hotel project: 52 rooms, 24 RV hookups Architectural Review Commission March 21, 2016 (ARCH-2363-2015) Adopted Resolution ARC-1002-16 Hotel project: 55 rooms, RV park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces Planning Commission March 23, 2016 (USE-1035-2015) Adopted Resolution PC-1004-16 Use Permit (Special Considerations Overlay Zone); Hotel project: 55 rooms, RV park with 23 RV/Airstream trailer spaces, 10% parking reduction request 1 Advisory Body materials are available in the Archive: opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=43 Meeting Date: 6/27/2022 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 45 minutes Page 49 of 143 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 Community Development Director May 22, 2017 (ARCH-3741-2016) Approved by Administrative Action Design review of a modification to project; recreate Motel Inn and Restaurant along with other motor court amenities Planning Commission September 27, 2017 (USE-0580-2017) Adopted Resolution PC-1010-17 Modification to a previously approved Use Permit (USE- 1035-2015) for the Motel Inn Project: re-configure site design to accommodate Airstream trailers, a restroom building, bocce court, associated parking, landscaping, and site improvements (Special Considerations Zone) The applicant presented a revised project design to the Committee in 2021, in which the proposed bungalow buildings were replaced by 33 "A-Frame" guestroom buildings, and more pre-sited Airstream trailers were provided in replacement of the RV parking spaces. The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project on June 28, 2021 2 and recommended that the Community Development Director find the project to be inconsistent with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance because the proposed structures failed to preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property.3 The Committee provided additional guidance to the applicant, should the applicant decide to bring a revised project back to the Committee for continued review. The project design has been revised in response to the Committee's guidance, such that all guestrooms are now provided within 29 bungalow buildings of a Mission Revival Style, with no RV spaces or Airstream trailer accommodations proposed (see Project Plans, Attachment B). The project architect has provided a Project Description (Attachment A), depiction of exterior colors and materials (Attachment C), and a comparison of the revised design with both the approved project design and the prior “A-Frame” proposal presented to the Committee in 2021 (see Attachments D and E). 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The project site is a 4.19-acre parcel on the south side of Monterey Street at its intersection with U.S. Highway 101. The highway and its northbound onramp travel along the northern edge of the site. San Luis Obispo Creek flows along the south and east sides of the property, with a low-density residential neighborhood, situated along San Luis Drive, across the creek from the site. Tourist-serving businesses (e.g., Apple Farm Inn, La Cuesta Inn) operate to the west of the site, within a concentration of lodging and restaurants at the northern end of Monterey Street. The property was developed with the Milestone Motel, built in 1924 -1925, designed by architects Alfred and Arthur Heineman in a Mission Revival architectural style, and claimed as the first place in the world to call itself a “motel” (see Historic Resources Inventory, Attachment F). 2 See CHC Agenda Report at http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=143889 3 See CHC Meeting Minutes at http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=145353 Page 50 of 143 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 It was included as a Master List Resource in the listing of historically significant properties resulting from the City’s 1983 Historic Resources Survey (Resolution No. 5197). Most of the original motel complex (most recently known as the Motel Inn), which had been significantly altered and no longer held historic significance, was demolished in the early 2000s due to extensive deterioration. The remaining historic portions consist of a façade wall from the original restaurant and portions of the lobby building which include a three - tiered bell tower with a copper dome (Figure 1, below). 2.2 Project Description The applicant proposes to develop the property with a n 83-room hotel comprised of a restaurant and lobby building, 29 bungalow buildings providing guest accommodation, four maintenance and housekeeping outbuildings, with pool, garden and gathering area amenities (see Project Description, Attachment A and Project Plans, Attachment B). The project design currently proposed under this application is a revision of the approved project design (see Background section, above), which eliminates the RV and Airstream components, along with a larger lobby and guest room building, and instead provides guest rooms exclusively in small site-built bungalow structures. In addition, a vegetated screening wall is sited along the eastern half of the site, adjacent to Highway 101, for attenuation of highway noise (comparison with prior approval is provided in Attachments D and E). 3.0 EVALUATION New construction located on historically listed sites is subject to review by the Cultural Heritage Committee (Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.010.030 (C)), following the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG § 3.2). In addition, such work must conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards). The Committee will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the consistency of the proposed project with applicable historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines, and may recommend conditions of approval as appropriate. Figure 1: Motel Inn - Remnant Facade (left) and belltower lobby Page 51 of 143 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 3.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.3.1 Historic Resources outside Historic Districts Listed Historic Resources located outside of historic districts shall be subject to the same protection and regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts. 3.2.2 Architectural compatibility The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, [and] standards, ... New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed ... The property is not located within a designated Historic District but is included in the Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource, with two surviving remnants of the former Motel Inn present on the site: a portion of the lobby bu ilding with a three- tiered bell tower and a portion of the façade of the original restaurant building. As noted in plans, the design of the restaurant and lobby building does not change from the approved project design and this component of the project is not within the scope of proposed revisions. Architectural Compatibility. The remnant portions of the lobby and restaurant façade exhibit characteristics of the Mission Revival style in which the Motel Inn was originally designed, predominantly of smooth stucco, with multi-gabled red tile roofs, arched window openings, and colonnade and arcade features. These elements are also incorporated into the design of the proposed one- and two-story bungalow buildings (see Elevation Drawings in Section A of Project Plans, Attachment B), which is nearly identical to the bungalow design for the approved project that was reviewed by the Commission in 2016 and found to be compatible with the character of the surviving remnants of the Motel Inn. Under this revised project proposal, with the RV spaces and Airstream trailers eliminated, the Mission Revival bungalow design is carried out throughout the entirety of the project, providing a cohesive architectural character. Figure 2: Mission Revival "Bungalow" guest room buildings Page 52 of 143 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 3.2 Secretary of Interior’s Standards Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Recommended Not Recommended Building Site Identifying, retaining, and preserving features of the building site that are important in defining its overall historic character. Removing or substantially changing buildings and their features or site features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the property so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction that are compatible with the historic character of the site and preserves the historic relationship between the building or buildings and the landscape. Introducing new construction on the building site which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, material, or color, which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which damages or destroys important landscape features The restaurant façade and bell-tower lobby building are the sole surviving remnants of the Mission Inn, and they will be retained and incorporated into the project design, without alteration to the features themselves, to preserve what remains of the property’s historic character. Use of the site for tourist accommodations is revived by the proposal. As discussed above, the revised project design exclusively utilizes a Mission Revival style for all the new bungalow buildings throughout the development, consistent and compatible with the character of those surviving remnants. Utilizing similar smooth stucco materials, tile roofing, and deep-set window openings and arched doorways, and one- and two-story in size, the new bungalow buildings do not introduce any visually incompatible elements, consistent with the above standards and recommendations. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted on prior approval (March 23, 2016) of the project by the Planning Commission. As revised, the project remains consistent with the adopted MND because the changes are primarily architectural in nature and do not result in a change in use or intensification in scale of the project as previously assessed in the Initial Study associated with the MND. An Addendum to the Initial Study and MND, reflecting the minor revisions to the project description will be considered by the Planning Commission with their final action on the revised project design. Page 53 of 143 Item 4a ARCH-0327-2021 (2223 Monterey) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding th e consistency of the project, as revised, with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, with any recommended conditions of approval necessary to ensure such consistency. 5.2 Continue consideration of this item, with direction to staff and applicant on p ertinent issues and concerns. 5.3 Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent with historical preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Project Description (ARCH-0327-2021) B - Project Plans (Excerpts) (ARCH-0327-2021) C - Exterior Colors and Materials (ARCH-0327-2021) D - Comparison with Prior Approval (Studio Design Group) (ARCH-0327-2021) E - Prior Plans and Sections (ARCH-0327-2021) F - Historic Resources Inventory (ARCH-0327-2021) Page 54 of 143 June 9, 2022 Walter Oetzell Assistant Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn (2223 Monterey Street) Dear Mr. Oetzell, Enclosed are revised plans for the Motel Inn project for consideration under Moderate Architectural Review as a modification to the previously approved USE-0580-2017 permit. The Motel Inn is a new hotel honoring the history and Mission Revival architecture of the original inn that was built on the site in 1925. The proposed hotel maintains portions of the design from the original historic inn such as a bungalow court and the remaining existing historic structures including the bell tower, while updating the design to meet current standards and trends. The Motel Inn will feature guest rooms in one and two story bungalows, a pool, garden and gathering areas located on the interior of the site. The proposed plans comply with Ordinance 1651 by adhering to creek setbacks, minimizing building openings facing the creek, focusing active uses in the center of the site, proposing low-scale development and providing screening between the buildings and creek. The permitted Restaurant Building that incorporates the existing historic structures remains largely unchanged and will serve as the hotel Lobby/Café. It was not a part of the original application or a part of this revised application. Revisions from the previous Use Permit include exchanging the 2-story Guestroom/Lobby Building for additional 2-story bungalow guest units. The previously proposed airstream units have been eliminated in favor of single-story bungalow guest units arranged around a court on the east end of the site. All improvements are now proposed to be permanent structures per CBC and permitted under City of SLO jurisdiction. •Previously approved application: (55) guestrooms in Bungalows and Hotel Lobby Building, (26) guest Airstreams and (1) spa Airstream. Total of 81 guestroom units. •Revised application: (83) guestrooms in one and two story Bungalows. Refer to Exhibit A (attached) for additional project data comparisons. ATTACHMENT A Page 55 of 143 June 8, 2022 ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification 2 Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, SDG Ariana Melendez Project Architect ATTACHMENT A Page 56 of 143 June 8, 2022 ARCH-0321-2021, Motel Inn ARC Modification 3 EXHIBIT A – Project Comparison Table PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017) CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2022) SITE PLAN 2-story lobby building (with guestrooms)N/A (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Restaurant - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (10) 2-story bungalows (15) 2-story bungalows (27) Airstreams with decks (14) 1-story bungalows (4) small outbuildings (4) small outbuildings (2) pool areas (1) pool area SQUARE FOOTAGE 33,724 SF (Lobby building, outbuildings, & bungalows) 45,000 SF (Bungalows & Outbuildings) 6,696 SF (Airstreams) N/A 10,750 SF (Restaurant - not a part) 9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part) 51,170 SF (Total) 54,000 SF (Total) UNIT TYPE Mix of hotel rooms, freestanding bungalows, & Airstreams All bungalows UNIT COUNT 81 83 PARKING 121 required/121 provided* 99 required/101 provided* ARCHITECTURE Site-built structures in Mission Revival style plus Airstreams Site-built structures in Mission Revival style HEIGHT 33'-0" (2-story lobby building) 28' (2-story bungalows) CREEK SETBACK 20'-0" 20'-0" (No change) CREEK ORDINANCE 1130/1651 No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek Outdoor recreation activities located on the interior of the site Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Split rail fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Windows facing the creek have been minimized (and significantly reduced from previous approval) Glazing facing the creek will be non-operable with anti-glare tint *Previous approval parking calculation included a full restaurant in the historic infill structure. The current submittal assumes a smaller "café" in its place, with fewer parking spaces required. ATTACHMENT A Page 57 of 143 Page 58 of 143 I 'i ' ,-1 I, I . I-I I I I i • ·, I I .. , 1 1 , .. , -1-I , ,-, 1 , I , ,-OT--E�-L' 1 1-·:_ -.l.n_ 11, : ' ' ' I . ', 1 - ', 1' ; I I I I I )I 1-' ___ I _ I , I _ 1 I 1_.1l __ . 1�'. ' • Building & Safety Division community oevelcpmtnt ,1.t P�Strm Sltl LvhOtllb;po, CA13401.J21a. Clean Energy Choioe Program for New BuildJngs Building Ptrmit Certlflaite of Compliance 1'l80S 781,7110F tQS,)8:J '7182 CLEAN ENERGY CHOICE PROGRAM FOR NEW BUILDINGS PLANNING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT EffECTM DATE: September 1, 2020 APPUCABLE PROJE·CTS: All Nf:W Rttidtnti;,l fr4 Non,Re,sidtndal � lk.nldings APPI.ICABU CODES: 2019 ct!)(;, CEC. C8C. and SlOMC INSTRUCTIONS: Complete the statement f0tm belOw .lnd pleue indudt the smeme-nt on lhe plans in both the pt.inning entltlemenl applkatlon and building permit submlttal. A physJQI signature or OocuSlgn a� .cceptable methods of sig,11ng. THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE ENERGY REACH CODE. Cxdinan<e No. 1684 {SLOMC 15.04.110) Choost o� of lM folf.owlno: D Tile project has chosen 1he *All·Electrk "' building design. Ii] The project has chosen the "Mixed-Fuer building design. Signature '""T:::... <j2___ Position/fitfe ...Ai.CJ:Ul.ECt Date 6ll8/21 ff)( comptian<:e lnsttucilon.s, please visit the followina website: www.st><.lty.otg/deantntrgyc.hOlct 2125 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, California Vicinity Map ·�- '\' ··"'� /' ;, -----:/.l., Parkinz Requirements \. ., 6UNGALOW GUESTROOMS (83): 83 RESTAURANT (1,700 SF 6111/100 SF): 17 MEETING ROOM 11 000 SF O 11100 SF): 10 PARKING REQ'D: 110 101. Ml)(£D-USE PARKING REDUCTION ·IJ TOTAL PARKING REQ'D: 99 PARKING PROVIDED: 101- NORTH ""INCLUDING (10) COMPACT SPACES, (7) ACCESSl6LE EV READY SPACES (10� OF REQ'D): 11 TOTAL INCL. (1) VAN & (1) STANDARD ACCE5Sl6LE EV CAPA6LE SPACES (25� OF REQ'D): 2e TOTAL 61CYCLE PARKING: 1110 GUE5TR00M5 (50� LONG TERM, 50� SHORT TERM) (4) LONG TERM, (4) 5HORTTERM MOTORCYCLE: 1/20 CAR 5PACE5: (5) SPACES Project information PROJECT ADDRESS: 2125 MONTEREY 5TREE1' SAN LUIS 0615PO, CA 93401 APN: APPLICANT: ZONE: LOT COVERAGE: 001 ·075·022, 023 MOTEL INN L.P. PO 60X 12910 SAN LUIS 0615PO, CA 93406 C·T·S 75� (ALLOWED) 20� (PROPOSED) OCCUPANCY: R·l (EXISTING) R·l (PROPOSED) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V·6 FIRE PROTECTION: &UILDING HEIGHT: ALLOWA6LE AREA: FIRE SPRINKLERS PER NFPA 13 C6C CHAPTER 7A STANDARDS (WITH EXCEPTION OF GLAZING) 45'·0"/ 2·5TORY (ALLOWED) 33'·0"/ 2·5TORY L066Y/CAFE 7,000 5.F. WI NFPA13R SPRINKLERS 21,000 5.F. WI NFPA 13 SPRINKLERS PER cec TA6LE 506.2 Building & Guestroom Information MAINTENANCE OUT6UILDING5 2,000 SF 6UNGALOW5 (29 WI 83 TOTAL GUE5TROOM5) 43,000SF L066Y/RESTARAUNT • NOT A PART 90005F TOTAL AREA: 54,000 SF Sheet Index G·l.O COVER SHEET A·l.1 AREA PLAN A·1.2 PARTIAL SITE A·l.3 PARTIAL SITE A·2.0 2·5TORY 6UNGALOW5 A·Z.1 2·5TORY 6UNGALOW5 A·2.2 2·5TORY 6UNGALOW5 A·2.3 2·5TORY 6UNGALOW5 A·2.4 1·5TORY 6UNGLAOW A·2.5 1·5TORY 6UNGLAOW A·2.6 2·6ED 6UNGALOW A·3.0 SITE SECTION A-4.0 PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN L·1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L·2 PLANT PALETTE, NOTES, WATER USE L·3 TREE INVENTORY PLAN C·l.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C·l.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C·2.1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C·2.2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 5·2.0 SOUND WALL SECTIONS PREVIOU5 ARC 5ET INCLUOEO FOR REFERENCE Al.ID PREVIOUS DESIGN OVERLAY A·l.2 PARTIAL 5ITE A·l.3 PARTIAL 5ITE A·4.0 5ITE 5ECTION A·4.I 5ITE 5ECTION ARC MODIFICATION a.;;. r ... knll: Shciri Nwnbc:r. i I illOTEL InnSanwuOb�.c.Jifonu• ! 2 i Cover Sheet G-1.0 •1&Utll•11•141@§1 ».:s .. W. Cii C (Cljl•llJQI ARCMllECT$.INC �·-...--111_...,....,. __ ........... ,,,.,Jl,,Ul)ooq.:Ql(K.P ....... mc,\N("""'------....... ..,_ ... .,.""-""''IP-•r,f,.-1,...:1-<1>11-•�-.. _.....-f._/l trvll!Uot.SIO,ICIICll.l'#tJIIPfflCI\.II< ATTACHMENT B Page 59 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 60 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 61 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 62 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 63 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 64 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 65 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 66 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 67 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 68 of 143 ATTACHMENT BPage 69 of 143 % $( #+ ( #&( *$* " -&!'#&" # $ "$#" " ""(&- "'$ " #-"(&-$( # "&#)"$## 2/ 2 #(() 2/ 2 ')" + ( #)" &' +"&&''&(( &(&) !!& 2( "# !$## ')& (-"+ ( (' ( &+(&#)"( " &"$( #+ ( #&( *$* " & '$ "(&+ ( '$ !""#$-(& "&+(&#)"( " )" (2'$& *($( # &(&) !!& )' &&'' &(()& $'(& "$( +- "#()' "( *'&"$ "( "'+ ( "& '( '# " "((#$#& " + ( $ "(' "( *'&"$ "( "' #"' #$ , '( "(&'(#&! " $& " #( ' "+ ( "#$-' (&(-$ ! " ( "'$' "' ' "(+"( '(#& )'#( ' ( "+ ( !#&#"(!$#&&- !"& "$( +-' ( &#) "( !(&"'"#&( *$( #'+ ( '! $& *($( #'''&#! ) #+*& #)'+(&()&'# !"('"'$ !"(&'& #(( &#) #)(( $&#$&(-( $ "($ ((#"' '('##! "( #"# '(#& -' " "( #&" "( *"! (&&""'$ ' ATTACHMENT BPage 70 of 143 #(" #!!#""!' .+)# ''& $( #"" &)()'1!& "2!& "'(&+&&-(& 0#, #+& "& ' & (&)''$' (&)'#&" !#" ! &) (# )&#$1'+" 2&) ( ''# * 0#, * &) ( ''*& (-(& '(" #"&(& '"#, 0#, ! & ' & )$& (#&!$ #" ,"& "' '"&- ' "$ ! 2( #" $ !!! (' (& "( #'1!#& "2!#& " #)'( 0#, &" -# &'(&#! " (*'&$!-&( 0#, #+& "'' $(#$ - # ! #"(& 0#, ! #+& " &"! !#' # &" ! "#$-' #+& "$ '( ""' ' "'$ '( 0#, # #& ! !! ')) "('#" )!* # " #( ')) "( #++(&)' '(!#"1 (( # "2+&#(( &)' & #+&'&"&#&#"(& "( " &) 1'' )2 ) , - ! )&-'(&$ *'#"-!)' $#" (*'*&&")#"-!)' $ "(# )&#$1 (( # 2+&# * * +&# *$ ((#'$#&)!1' *&' "2' *&' " # ) ) ! )$& (#&!$ #&! )! (*'"+. " , # #&) "($&)")'1& ("( (2&# " &&- )& )$& (#&!&#'1 &2 &&#'' ! *& #)' #+&'' * '$'' #+& " #++(&)'+'(& " 1!#&" " (2#'( &#'!&- *& ( *' !" "("!#"(* "' '(& " "(" + ( #+&'&#'!& ")'# " ' (*'&#'!&- #+& " #++(&)'&#'1 #+&&$(2 #+&&$(&#' ! #+& " ! # )!1!##"' "2-&&#+ - #+ #+&'" #."( #' (*' "&##$+ #+& " #++(&)'#&- "*&'$ ! ! &'' "( " $ # )*& & #($# & #+& " #++(&)' *") '$' *"& $)&$ #+&' #!"& #" # 1&.2&.!(&)' &"# " & '1"("" 2#-#(&)' '$& " (&#! '&)( # (#-#" &&& '& !")' #&" 1*'2#&&- &#)"#&!& ''") ")!& #+& ")&&"( #+& "+)# '+(&)' '' ( #"'# "'$'$ ' ') (# $ "( - && ( #"+(&"'#$ "('$ '* #$-( )" *&' (-# #&" ##$&( *,("' #" #&" $&(!"(#+(&&'#)&' !"#$%&'()*+,# " ( #"$() "'$$ "#")&&"(+ ( ( $ "( "" && ( #"#"'(&)( #"#)!"('$ " "'( ( #"& ('$ ( #"'""#('%) '( '$&# ('#"+ !&'( # #+ ")&&"(+(&#"'&*( #"( "# #-"!( ## # ' )( .( #"#'((#( &( && ( #"#"(&# &' #+ "#&$& ' #" "&!"( +(&' ) " " -&#.#"' )'#& $(-$"#&! &#'$&-'-'(!'#" - "(&($ "(' "$ "($ ((' *"#&!(#& ($& +(& "&%) &!"('+ ( " -&#.#"&#)$ $ "(' "'( + ( !# '()&&("( *'# !"!"('" "'(&#"&##("$ "(&#+( + ( ( )'# ''+(& 0$!) "# $ "(' "'"$ "( "&' " ( "*$#&( #")'# #++(&)'$ "(' $ "(!(& +' #'"#& ('#!$( (-+ ( ( !&#! &# !( #" ( #"'#( & #""' ((# &"#+ "(# &"#&#) (#" ( #"' #"* (-'&" "$ ( '"#*& ((&( *"'' && ( #"'-'(!' ' "#&!, !)!+(& "-"' " )")(#!( #"(&# & #+$&*"( #"* " #+ #" '#&()&" &&#)"#*&&'& $(-$'-'(!' )'+ &$$&#$& ((&'' && (#"'$&() &'-'(!' $ "(!(& %)"( ( '"&&( *'$ ( #"'' (( '"!(& " ( #"'+ (&! """#(#"( #"'(&)( #"&+ "' ! " # $ % # #! ! ATTACHMENT BPage 71 of 143 Page 72 of 143 A. SW-6385 "Dover White" Flat Exterior Finish Main Plaster Body EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS B. SW-7542 “Naturel” Flat Exterior Finish Cast stone trim and mouldings C. SW-7515 “Homestead Brown” Flat Exterior Finish Exposed timber throughout D. TBD - Dark Gray Pre-finished Surface Window exteriors F. Traditional Spanish Red 2-part clay tile non-mudded San Luis Obispo, California Apr 4, 2022E. SW-7675 “Sealskin” Semi-Gloss Exterior Finish Wrought iron railings and trim ATTACHMENT C Page 73 of 143 Page 74 of 143 3/31/22 PREVIOUS APPROVAL (2017)PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL (2021) for reference only CURRENT SUBMITTAL (2022) 2-story lobby building (with guestrooms)N/A N/A (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Restaurant - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (E) historic building & façade w/infill (Lobby/café - not a part) (10) 2-story bungalows (33) A-Frame guest units (15) 2-story bungalows (27) Airstreams with decks (43) Airstreams with decks (14) 1-story bungalows (4) small outbuildings (2) Outbuildings + Maintanence Bldg (4) small outbuildings (2) pool areas (1) pool area (1) pool area 33,724 SF (Lobby building, outbuildings, & bungalows) 24,910 SF (A-Frames & Outbuildings)45,000 SF (Bungalows & Outbuildings) 6,696 SF (Airstreams)8,901 SF (Airstreams)N/A 10,750 SF (Restaurant - not a part)9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part)9,000 SF (Lobby/Café - not a part) 51,170 SF (Total Gross)42,811 SF (Total Gross) or 16% reduction 54,000 SF (Total Gross) or 5.5% increase UNIT TYPE Mix of hotel rooms, freestanding bungalows, & Airstreams Mix of A-Frame guest units and Airstreams All bungalows UNIT COUNT 81 76 83 PARKING 121 required/121 provided [1]76 required/82 provided [2]99 required/101 provided [3] ARCHITECTURE Site-built structures in Mission Revival style plus Airstreams Prefabricated A-Frame units and Airstreams. Site- built maintanence bldgs in Mission Revival style. Site-built structures in Mission Revival style HEIGHT 33'-0" (2-story lobby building)20'-0" (A-Frames)28' (2-story bungalows) CREEK SETBACK 20'-0" 20'-0" (No change)20'-0" (No change) No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek No entrances facing the creek Outdoor recreation activities located on the interior of the site Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Outdoor recreation activities have been moved further from the creek and are shielded by bungalow units Split rail fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Solid 6’ tall landscaped wood fence proposed at top of bank Windows facing the creek have been minimized (and significantly reduced from previous submittal) All glazing facing the creek will be non-operable with anti-glare tint All glazing facing the creek ordinance zone will be non-operable with anti-glare tint SITE PLAN SQUARE FOOTAGE [1] Previous approval parking calculation included a full restaurant, open to the public, in the historic infill structure. [2] 2021 submittal assumed the cafe served the hotel guest only and was not open to the public (requiring no additional parking spaces). [3]The current submittal assumes a smaller "café", open to the public, with fewer parking spaces required than the previous approval. CREEK ORDINANCE 1130/1651 ATTACHMENT D Page 75 of 143 Page 76 of 143 San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaThese drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.Previous Design OverlaySheet Contents:Sheet Number:Date: 7/21/15File name: Motel Inn 1.11.vwxAA4.0AA4.0BA4.0BA4.0AA4.1 Jul 21, 2015APPROVED 2003 PLAN INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ATTACHMENT EPage 77 of 143 APPROVED PC (10/4/17) INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEATTACHMENT EPage 78 of 143 APPROVED PC (10/4/17) INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEATTACHMENT EPage 79 of 143 APPROVED PC/ARC 2016 INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEATTACHMENT EPage 80 of 143 APPROVED PC/ARC 2016 INCLUDED FOR REFERENCEATTACHMENT EPage 81 of 143 Page 82 of 143 �or. No. OJ.36-03CS1>1t1 ot C.;iillfoml• - The DEPARTMENT OF PARKS,-, ·�I'" Ag,n,cy .'ECAEATION HASS __ HAER __ NR .-.3- SHL _ Loe ___ UTM: A 10/713950/3907670 a HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY c IDENTIFICATION 1.Common name: --�M�o::.:t�e�l:....:I�n�n::,.... ________________ _ 2. Historic name: Milestone Mota:!, Inn 3.Street or rural address: ____ 2""2 ... 2 ... J1..-1,t1.i.A.ulu.Jti..e-....r,..e.;z.Y--------------------,--------- Cit>{1,..., _ __..s�ai.Di.......i.LiwU..i,i..;;$1-).Q,1.1.bL,1L.,;:$u,0,1J,I"") ------Zip 93401 County San Luis Obispo 4.Parcel number: ____ 0_4_-�S�l�L_-�0�9---..--------------------------------------- 5.Present Owner: __________ _,M�i=-· l=t_C�r=-a=u,__ ___________ Address: 2 22 3 Monterey C'itY San Luis Obispo Zi 93401 0 ---------------ip ----wnership is: Public x______ Privat� ------ 6.Present Ui.e: __ .,.p""o""t..liae'-'J..._ ___________ origlnal use: _ _:.ff:.::o::.:t:.:e:.:l::..... _____________ _ DESCRIPTION 7a. An:hit9Ct!Jral stvle: Mission Revival 7b. Briaffy describe tht preHntphysical description of ttle site or nructure ar1d describe any major alteratlcns from iu original ccrtdltian: This Mediterr�ean style/Spanish Revival building has rnultip_le gables and red tile roofs and parapets. There is a tower with a copper dome on top.Significant of the style, front windows are J/3 square windows with woodframing. There are arched single paned windows. Roof qables have detailed central vents. scroli work along towers and entrances. The structure is brick and stucco. There is also a short colonade and arcade in the front fa�ing facade. 8.Construction date: Estimated ___ FacruaJ 1924-25 9.Arehitec:t Alfred andArthur H:!.ereman Unknown 10. Builder __________ _ 1 t. Approx. praperoi, size (in feat) Frontage 3QO' Oepth--6.CO' o, approx. acreage ______ _ 12.Oate(s) o1 snclo51?d pt,0�09r;ph(s} December 1982 ATTACHMENT F Page 83 of 143 13.Condition: Excellent __ Good _x__ Ftir _ DettTiorated _ No tor 14.Alterations:Buoga low court remade] ed 15.Surroundings: (Check more than ona if necessary) Open land __ Scattered I Residential __ Industrial __ Commercial _x_ Other: hpteJ s and motels 16.Threats to site:Nona known_x_Private development_ Zoning_ Vandalism_ Public Works prefect_ Oth,r: 17.Is the structure: On its original sita7 Y!i&Mo11ed7 __ _ Unknown?�--� 18.Related features:-------------------------------------- SIGNIFICANCE 1 a. Briefly stata his1oric:al and/or a�chitectur;u importance (include dates. evenu. artd per,ons assaciated with the slta.J The Motel Inn was built in 1924-25. Originally cal.led the Milestone Motel, local stories claim that it was the first place in the wor:ld to call itself a "motel�� .Alfred Heineman, the brother of Arthur Heineman, designed this distinguished Mission Revival bungaloid. Arthur Heineman has been caJ.led the "Inventor of the California Bungalow Court." Although the building has been remodeled over the years , its dome shaped tower, smooth pla·ster walls make it San Luis Obispo's finest example of the Mission Revival which pez:meated much'of California building traditions in the first twenty or thlrty years of this century. Locaticmal sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): 20.Main thema of tha historic resciurce: {If more than one is checlced, ·number in order of importance.) iNORTH 21. 22. Architea1.u·11 l Arts & Laisure ------ Economic/lndUStrial __ Exi::,lomion/Sfftlement ---- Govemm,mt Military --------- Religion Social/Education ------ Sources (Ust bookJ, documents, surveys, i,ersonal intarvlews and their datet). Gebbhard, R. and Winter, D. A. "Guide to Architectu,re in Los Angeles and southern California, 1977 Date form prooared June 30, 198:L 8 (name)!U.storic Res. Survey Scaffav . 1 City of Sa.n Luis obispo rgamzat on.,,.-,,,_..,.... __ ....,... ________ _ Address: P.O. Box 321 City San Luis obispo Zlp __ 9_J_4_0_I_ Pttone: ___ C_B_O_S_)_S_4_I_-_I_O_O_o _________ � ATTACHMENT F Page 84 of 143 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT – ARCH-0023-2022 (446 DANA) BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Email: woetzell@slocity.org APPLICANT: James Cooley, Dana Street, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Danciart, AIA, Danciart Architecture RECOMMENDATION Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01). 1.0 BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing a new two-story residential building (see Project Plans, Attachment A) with landscaping and new parking spaces, on property within the Downtown Historic District. As provided by the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (§§14.01.030(B)(7) &(C)(4)), the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) is tasked with providing a recommendation to the Community Development Director on whether the proposed project is consistent with historical preservation policies for alterations and additions involving properties within historic districts. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The project site is a half-acre residential parcel on the north side of Dana Street, at its westerly terminus, west of Nipomo Street. It is developed with two multi-unit residential buildings and associated site improvements including a parking area interior to the site and a two-car carport at the Dana Street frontage. It is within a smaller residential section of the Downtown Historic District that includes a spectrum of architectural forms and styles from the mid-19th century to the 1920s (see District description, Attachment B) representing several different periods of development in the City. Three properties in the 400 block of Dana Street are included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources: a Spanish Colonial Revival residence at 469 (Contributing List); the Rosa Butron Adobe at 466 (Master List); and a Craftsman residence across the street at 441 (Contributing List, formerly 465 Dana). None of the remaining properties in the immediate vicinity, including the subject property, are included in the Inventory. Meeting Date: 6/27/2022 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 45 minutes Page 85 of 143 Item 4b ARCH-0023-2022 (446 Dana) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 The property is developed with two apartment buildings: a single-story building along the street frontage, built in 1955; and a two-story building added at the rear corner of the property in 1965 (see Figure 1 above). Each building accommodates four apartments, for eight apartment units in total on the site. Both are constructed of concrete block, with the two-story rear building faced with wood panel siding. The buildings exhibit a functional and conventional appearance without strong expression of a particular architectural style. 2.2 Project Description As depicted in the Project Plans (see Attachment A) the applicant proposes to further develop the property by constructing a new two-story residential structure, accommodating an Accessory Dwelling Unit and a two -bedroom dwelling, at the southeast corner of the property, along with landscape improvements around the new building and expansion of the parking area to provide additional parking spaces. Fiber - cement siding in a horizontal orientation and plaster siding are the dominant exterior materials used in the design, complemented by wood fascia, trim board, an d stairs. The new building is rectangular in form with a pitched roof of asphalt shingle with “kicker” brackets decorating the front gable. Windows are rectangular in form, with vertically - oriented sash windows used on the street elevation and “sliders” on the less visible portions of the building. Figure 1: Subject Property (430-446 Dana) Figure 2: Proposed new residential building Page 86 of 143 Item 4b ARCH-0023-2022 (446 Dana) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 3.0 EVALUATION General Plan policies for preservation and protection of historical resources are implemented by the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and its supporting Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG). New structures in historic districts are to be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character and with nearby historic resources (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines §3.2.1 & 3.2.2), and proposed new construction must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties1 (HPPG §3.1.1). 3.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Program Guidelines2 Construction in Historic Districts § 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 character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. § 3.2.2 - Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. The proposed project is set back 10 feet from the front property line, consistent with development standards applicable to the Medium-High Density (R-3) Residential Zone and does not block views of any adjac ent historic resource. The front façade is oriented toward the street, presenting a front entry accessed by steps through a decorative porch. It is two stories in height, comparable to that of buildings adjacent to, and across the street from, the subject property, and compatible with the one- and two-story building height prevailing in the District. The new building is of a conventional residential form and style, utilizing traditional window patterns, stucco siding materials, and wood trim and decoration around windows, under the front gable, and around the body of the building. Project plans depicting these elements provide a basis for finding the proposed project to be architecturally compatible with nearby historic resources and with the character of th e residential features of the Downtown Historic District, without sharply contrasting with, or visually detracting from their historic character. 1 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation Services, 2017 2 The Ordinance and Guidelines are available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation/historic-preservation Page 87 of 143 Item 4b ARCH-0023-2022 (446 Dana) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 3.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on preservation, rehabilitation, and preservation of historic buildings, including approaches to work treatments and techniques that are either consistent (“Recommended”) or inconsistent (“Not Recommended”) with the Standards, specific to various features of historic buildings and sites. In this case, as the property itself is not a listed historic resource, guidance from this document is limited mainly to that regarding “Setting,” relevant to the relationship of new construction to a district or neighborhood. Setting (District / Neighborhood) Recommended Not Recommended Designing adjacent new construction that is compatible with the historic character of the setting that preserve the historic relationship between the buildings and the landscape. Introducing new construction into historic districts which is visually incompatible or that destroys historic relationships within the setting, or which damages or destroys important landscape features. As discussed above, the proposed project appears to be architecturally compatible with the character of the Downtown Historic District and with listed historic resources in the vicinity. It is not expected to have any effect on historic relationships within the district or on important landscape features. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed new, two-story residential building is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review, as Infill Development (Guidelines § 15332). The proposed development is consistent with the Medium -High Density Residential designation of the property, applicable General Plan policies, and with the standards and land use limitations set out in Zoning Regulations for the Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) Zone. The site measures less than five acres in area, is located within City limits, s ubstantially surrounded by urban uses, and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Approval of the multi-family residential project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City's historical preservation policies, with a ny suggested conditions of approval necessary to achieve such consistency. 5.2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant. 5.3. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent with historical preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency. Page 88 of 143 Item 4b ARCH-0023-2022 (446 Dana) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Project Plans (ARCH-0023-2022) B - Downtown Historic District (HPPG) Page 89 of 143 Page 90 of 143 These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of Peter Danciart, AIA. All designsand other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used otherwise without the expressed written permission of Peter Danciart, AIA. 1 7 5 0 P R E F U M O C Y N. R D. # 4 6S A N L U I S O B I S P OC A L I F O R N I A 9 3 4 0 58 0 5 . 7 0 4 . 5 1 4 2 P E T E R @ D A N C I A R T . C O MW W W . D A N C I A R T. C O MDANA ST. PROJECT446 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBIPSO, CA 934012102© 2022D A N C I A R TA R C H I T E C T U R ET-1.0PLANNING SUBMITTAL04 JAN 22P R O J E C T N U M B E RS H E E T N U M B E RD A T E S S H E E T N A M E PLANNING SUBMITTAL #231MAR 22 APN:002-401--001TITLE SHEET33D U P L E X - A . D . U . VICINITY MAPSITEAGENCIES & UTILITIESCITY OF SLO BUILDING990 PALM STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-781-7170CITY OF SLO PLANNING990 PALM STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-781-7172COUNTY HEALTHP.O. BOX 1486, SLO805-781-5500CITY OF SLO POLICE DEPT.1042 WALNUT AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-781-7317UNDERGROUNDSERVICES1-800-642-2444CITY OF SLO PUBLIC WORKS955 MORRO SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-781-7200PG & E406 HIGUERA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-546-5210CITY OF SLO FIRE DEPT.2160 SANTA BARBARASAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-781-7380AT&T196 SUBURBAN ROADSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-546-7003THE GAS COMPANY833 MARSH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO,CACHARTER COMMUNICATIONS270 BRIDGE STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805-544-2688D A N A S T R E E T P R O J E C T446 DANA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401PROJECT DIRECTORYDANCIART ARCHITECTURE1750 PREFUMO CANYON ROAD #46SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405CONTACT: PETER DANCIART, AIA, LEED APPH: 805-704-5142E-MAIL: PETER@DANCIART.COMCA LIC #: C32076ARCHITECTOWNERDANA STREET, LLC6407 PORTOLAATASCADERO, CA 93422CONTACT: JAMES COOLEYPH: 805-674-3584LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTFIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC187 TANK FARM ROAD, SUITE 230 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401CONTACT: LINDSAY CORICA ASLA CA NO. 6359PH: 805.781.9800E-MAIL: LINDSAY@FIRMACONSULTANTS .COMABBREVIATIONSN(N) NEWN.G. NATURAL GRADEN.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACTNTS NOT TO SCALEOO/ BOARDO.C. ON CENTERO.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETEROPNG. OPENINGORIG. ORIGINALOZ. OUNCEPPERP. PERPENDICULARPL. PLATEP. LAM. PLASTIC LAMINATEPLY. WD. PLYWOODPR. PAIRPROJ. PROJECTP.S.F. POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOTP.S.I. POUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPVMT. PAVEMENTP.T.D.F. PRESSURE TREATED DOUG FIRQQT. QUARTQTY. QUANTITYRR. RISERRAD. RADIUSRD. ROADREF. REFRIGERATORREINF. REINFORMENTREQ. REQUIREDRM. ROOMR.O. ROUGH OPENINGR.T.S. REFER TO STRUCTURALSSCHED. SCHEDULES.C. SOLID CORESECT. SECTIONSHWR. SHOWERSNG CYL DB SINGLE CYLINDER DEADBOLTSHT. SHEETSIMM. SIMILARSPEC(S). SPECIFICATION(S)SQ. SQUARESQ. FT. SQUARE FEETS.S. STAINLESS STEELST. STREETSTD. STANDARDSTL. STEELSTOR. STORAGESTRUCT. STRUCTURESYM. SYMBOLTT. TREADT.O.C TOP OF CONCRETE/CURBTO.C.B. TOP OF CATCH BASINTEL. TELEPHONETEMO. TEMPERATURET&G TONGUE AND GROOVETHK. THICKTOIL. TOILETT.O.P. TOP OF PAVEMENTT.O.S. TOP OF SLABT.O.W. TOP OF WALLTV TELEVISIONTYP. TYPICALUUNFIN. UNFINISHEDU.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEUR. URINALVV. VENTV.C.T. VINYL COMPOSITION TILEVENT. VENTILATE, VENTILATINGVERT. VERTICALV.G.D.F. VERTICAL GRAIN DOUG FIRV.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELDV.T.R. VENT THRU ROOFWW.C. WATER CLOSETWD. WOODW.H. WATER HEATERW.I. WROUGHT IRONWOM. WOMENW.P. WATERPROOFINGWSCT. WAINSCOTW/ WITHW/O WITHOUTWV WATER VALVEACRONYMSA.N.S.I. AMERICAN NATIONALSTANDARDS INSTITUTEA.S.T.M. AMERICAN SOCIETY FORTESTING AND MATERIALSC.B.C. CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODEI.C.B.O. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEOF BUILDING OFFICIALSN.F.P.A. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIONASSOCATIONO.S.H.P.D. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETYAND HEALTH ACTU.F.C. UNIFORM FIRE CODEW.I.C. WOODWORK INSTITUTEOF CALIFORNIAAA/C AIR CONDITIONINGA.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOORALT. ALTERNATEAMT. AMOUNTAPPROX. APPROXIMATEAVG. AVERAGEBBD. BOARDBTWN. BETWEENBLDG. BUILDINGBLK. / BLKG. BLOCK / BLOCKINGCC.F.M. CUBIC FEET PER MINUTECHG. CHANGEC.I. CAST IRONCLR. CLEAR/CLEARANCECLG. CEILINGCENTERLINEC.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNITCOL. COLUMNCONC. CONCRETECONSTRCONSTRUCTIONC.O.T.G. CLEAN OUT TO GRADECTR.CENTERCU. FT. CUBIC FOOTCU. IN. CUBIC INCHCU. YD. CUBIC YARDDDBL.DOUBLEDEG. DEGREEDEPT. DEPARTMENTDIAG. DIAGONALDIA.DIAMETERDIM.DIMENSIONDIV.DIVISIOND.S.DOWNSPOUTDW.DUMBWAITER / DOWNSPOUTE(E)EXISTINGEA.EACHELEC. ELECTRICELEV. ELEVATION / ELEVATORENCL. ENCLOSUREEQ.EQUALEQUIP. EQUIPMENTEXIST. EXISTINGEXT.EXTERIORFF.DFLOOR DRAINF.B.O. FURNISHED BY OWNERF.GFINISH GRADEF.H.FIRE HYDRANTFIN.FINISHFLR.FLOORFLUOR. FLUORESCENTF.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETEF.O.F. FACE OF FINISHF.O.M. FACE OF MASONRYF.O.S. FACE OF STUDFS.FINISH SURFACEFT.FOOTFTG.FOOTINGGGA.GAUGEGAL.GALLONGALV. GALVANIZEDGYP.GYPSUMHH.B.HOSE BIBBHDR. HEADERHRDW. HARDWAREHORIZ. HORIZONTALHP.HORSE POWERHT.HEIGHTII.D.INSIDE DIAMETERIN.INCHINFO. INFORMATIONINSUL. INSULATIONINT.INTERIORJJAN.JANITORJCT.JUNCTIONJT.JOINTKKIT.KITCHENLLAV.LAVATORYLB,POUNDL.F.LINEAL FOOTLIN.LINEARLT.LIGHTLT.WT. LIGHT WEIGHTMMAX. MAXIMUMM.B.MACHINE BOLTM.C.MEDICINE CABINETMECH. MECHANICALMED. MEDIUMMEZZ, MEZZANINEMFR. / MFGR. MANUFACTURERMIN.MINIMUMMISC. MISCELLANEOUSMTL.METALCLCODE COMPLIANCECODES: ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CODES: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODETITLE 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE NFPA NATIONAL FIRE CODESORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOALL OTHER CODES ADOPTED BY THE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVERTHIS PROJECTSAN LUIS OBISPON.T.S.SHEET INDEXTITLE SHEET / NOTEST-1.0GROUND FLOOR PLANA-1.09 SHEETSTOTALARCHITECTURALUPPER FLOOR PLAN A-1.1NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-9.1NEW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-9.0EXISTING SITE PLAN C-0.0SITENEW SITE PLAN C-1.0GRADING PLAN C-2.0LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1LANDSCAPESITE SUMMARY ________________BUILDING SUMMARY ________ ________PROJECT STATISTICSLOCATION:434 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ZONE:APN:SITE AREA:OCCUPANCY:CONSTRUCTION:NUMBER OF STORIES:R-3-H002-401-001± 23,140 SQ FT (.48 ACRES)R-3TYPE V-B, SPRINKLERED TWOBUILDING AREA:NEW USE:MULTI-FAMILY - (2) UNITS: 2 BEDROOM - 1 BATHGROUND LEVEL UNIT IS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (A.D.U.)60% MAX. 13,884 SQ.FT. MAX. SITE COVERAGE:BUILDING COVERAGE:A.D.U. APARTMENT UNITAPARTMENT UNITDECKTOTAL (N) CONDITIONED SPACE:846 SQ. FT.894 SQ. FT.165 SQ. FT.6,657 SQ.FT. (48% COVERAGE)(E) ONE STORY BUILDING:2,760 SQ. FT.(E) TWO STORY BUILDING:1,109 SQ. FT.(E) BALCONY & STAIRS (+30 A.N.G.): 239 SQ. FT.(E) STORAGE STRUCTURE: 422 SQ. FT.(E) CARPORTS:1,002 SQ. FT.(N) TWO STORY DUPLEX: 846 SQ. FT.(N) PORCH & STAIR (+30 A.N.G.): 36 SQ. FT.(N) STAIR (+30 A.N.G.): 78 SQ. FT.(N) UPPER LEVEL DECK: 165 SQ. FT.1,740 SQ. FT.LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CY SLO PTN BL 60EXISTING USE:MULTI-FAMILY - (2) UNITS: 2 BEDROOM - 1 BATH(6) UNITS: 1 BEDROOM - 1 BATH24.5% 5,671 SQ.FT. (EXCLUDING SETBACK AREA) LANDSCAPE COVERAGE:PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTHE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A NEW TWO STORY DUPLEX IN AN EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX OF THREE STRUCTURES. A ONE STORY BUILDING WHICH INCLUDES TWO (2) BEDROOOM UNITS AND TWO (1) BEDROOM UNITS. A TWO STORY BUILDING WITH FOUR (1) BEDROOM UNITS. THERE IS ALSO AN EXISTING STORAGE STRUCTURE AND TWO CARPORTS.THE NEW DUPLEX BUILDING CONSISTS OF A 846 SQUARE FOOT (2) BEDROOM A.D.U. UNIT ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND A 894 SQUARE FOOT (2) BEDROOM UNIT WITH AN 165 SQUARE FOOT DECK ON THE UPPER LOWER. THE PROJECT ALSO CONSISTS OF NEW PARKING SPACES WHICH REQUIRES THE DEMOLITION AND RE-CONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING LAUNDRY AREA.DENSITY20 UNITS PER ACRE20 X .53 = 10.6 DENSITY UNITS ALLOWED1 BEDROOM < 600 SQ.FT. = .5 DU1 BEDROOM > 600 SQ.FT. = .5 DU2 BEDROOM = 1 DUEXISTING DENSITY(6) 1 BEDROOM < 500 SQ.FT. = 3 DENSITY UNITS(2) 2 BEDROOM > 600 SQ.FT. = 2 DENSITY UNITSTOTAL = 5 DENSITY UNITS (EXISTING)10.6 - 5 = 5.6 DENSITY UNITS AVAILABLETHEREFORE 5.6 DU = 11 STUDIO OR 1 BEDROOMS < 600 SQ.FT.FLOOD ZONEFLOOD ZONE:AEFLOOD ELEVATION: 183.00'FLOOR ELEVATION: 1 FOOT ABOVE FLOOD ELEVATIONFLOOR ELEVATION: 184.00'FLOOD PROOF WALLS TO 184.00'PARKING TABULATIONREQUIRED PARKING: DWELLING UNITS: .75 SPACES PER BEDROOMGUEST SPACES: 1 PER 5 UNITSPROVIDED PARKING ON SITE:(6) 1 BEDROOM = 6 SPACES(2) 2 BEDROOM = 4 SPACESTOTAL = 10 SPACES8 UNITS = 1 GUEST SPACE REQUIRED11 SPACES REQUIREDREQUIRED PARKING: DWELLING UNITS: .75 SPACES PER BEDROOMGUEST SPACES: 1 PER 5 UNITSPROVIDED PARKING ON SITE:EXISTING PARKING(6) 1 BEDROOM = 6 SPACES(2) 2 BEDROOM = 4 SPACESSUBTOTAL = 10 SPACESNEW PARKING(1) 2 BEDROOM= 2 SPACES(1) 2 BEDROOM ADU= 0 SPACESSUBTOTAL = 12 SPACES10 UNITS = 2 GUEST SPACES14 SPACES REQUIREDPROVIDED PARKING ON SITE:15 SPACES PROVIDEDEXISTINGNEWSECTION 17.73.030SECTION 17.70.040ATTACHMENT APage 91 of 143 CWCWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOT OT OT SSSSWWWWWWWHDYHDYWVWVSGVGVOP/OTOP/OTOP/OT OP/OTOP/OTWWWWWWN 39°27'16" E 370.94'-M [N37°25'50"E 370.85'-R1] [N37°25'00"E 370.87'-R2]S 52°05'03" E 151.27'-M [S54°01'00"E 151.00'-R2]D A N A S T R E E TGRASSGRASSGRASSGRASS(E) GRASS(E) GRASSEXISTINGMULTI-FAMILYSTRUCTUREEXISTING2 STORYMULTI-FAMILYSTRUCTUREEXISTINGCARPORTS T E N E R C R E E K30' 30'[258.19-Dd1][151.31'-Dd2]EXISTINGHOUSES T E N E R C R E E K3P-38"LOGATE30"TREE20"STUMP6"TREE4P-24"AVOCADO22"TREEGATE4"COELEC. PANEL WITH2 ELEC. METERSSPIGOTLATTICE FENCE4"PVCGMELEC. BOXHANDRAIL, ABOVELATTICE FENCEWMWMWM(E) 3/4" WMSPIGOTSPIGOTGAS METERS4"COMAIL BOXFENCEELEC. PANEL W/4 METERSS 50°29'36" E 15.00'-M[S52°34'10"E 15.00'-R1]4"PVCOVERHANG(E) ONE BEDROOM UNIT(1) 2 BEDROOM (1) 2 BEDROOM(E) LAUNDRY AREA430 DANA ST.432 DANA ST.434 DANA ST.438/444 DANA ST.(E) ONE BEDROOM UNIT(E) PARKING(E) CONCRETE PAVINGGRASSGRASS(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKINGCREEK FLOW LINETOE OF BANKTOP OF BANK(E) CONCRETE PAVING(4) 1 BEDROOM UNITS436 DANA ST.180.0'HIGH POINT1234568(E) PARKINGSPACE(E) PARKINGSPACE10910'-0"FRONT SETBACK20'-0"CREEK SETBACKEXISTINGSTORAGE(E) PARKINGSPACE7TRASH RECYCLETRASH RECYCLEOP/OTGGGGGGGGG GSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS GGGGGG3 (N) 15 GALLON STREET TREE@ 35' LINIER OF FRONTAGE PER STANDARDS #8010 AND SS SS SSG (E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALLDEMO PORTION OF WALL AND ROOFThese drawings are instruments of service and are the property of Peter Danciart, AIA. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used otherwise without the expressed written permission of Peter Danciart, AIA. 1 7 5 0 P R E F U M O C Y N. R D. # 4 6S A N L U I S O B I S P OC A L I F O R N I A 9 3 4 0 58 0 5 . 7 0 4 . 5 1 4 2 P E T E R @ D A N C I A R T . C O MW W W . D A N C I A R T . C O MDANA ST. PROJECT446 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBIPSO, CA 934012102© 2022D A N C I A R TA R C H I T E C T U R EPLANNING SUBMITTAL04 JAN 22C-0.0P R O J E C T N U M B E RS H E E T N U M B E RD A T E S S H E E T N A M E APN:002-401--001EXISTINGSITE PLAN3EXISITING SITE PLANSCALE:1" = 10'= RETAINING WALL= SEWER MANHOLE= WATER VALVE= FIRE HYDRANT= JOINT POLEJP= GUY WIRE= POWER POLE= GAS METERGM= WATER LINE= CENTERLINE OF ROAD= SEWER LINE= TREE DRIP LINESS= OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE= OVERHEAD ELECTRIC & TELEPHONE LINE= FENCE LINE= EDGE OF PAVEMENT= GAS LINEGPP= ASPHALT CONCRETE= BOTTOM OF CURB AT DRIVEWAY OPENING = CONCRETE EDGE= DROP INLET= EDGE OF PAVEMENT= FINISH FLOOR= FLOW LINE= FLOW LINE OF ASPHALT BERM= CONCRETE= GROUND= GAS METER= GAS VALVE= INVERT= POWER POLE= SEWER= STAIRS= TOP OF BERM= TOP OF CURB= TOP OF GRATE= TOP OF SLOPE= TOE OF SLOPE= TOP OF WALL= TOP OF CURB AT DRIVEWAY OPENING = WATER METER= WATER VALVEACBX CONC DI EP FF FLFLACBFSGDGM GVINVPP SS STRTBRM TC TGTOP TOETWTX WM WV = APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEHDYSWVOP/OTOTATTACHMENT APage 92 of 143 CWCWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOT OT OT SSSSWWWWWWWHDYHDYWVWVSGVGVOP/OTOP/OTOP/OT OP/OTOP/OTWWWWWWN 39°27'16" E 370.94'-M [N37°25'50"E 370.85'-R1] [N37°25'00"E 370.87'-R2]S 52°05'03" E 151.27'-M [S54°01'00"E 151.00'-R2]D A N A S T R E E TGRASSGRASSGRASSGRASSEXISTINGMULTI-FAMILYSTRUCTUREEXISTING2 STORYMULTI-FAMILYSTRUCTUREEXISTINGCARPORTS T E N E R C R E E K30' 30'[258.19-Dd1][151.31'-Dd2]EXISTINGHOUSES T E N E R C R E E K3P-38"LOGATE30"TREE20"STUMP6"TREE4P-24"AVOCADO22"TREEGATE4"COELEC. PANEL WITH2 ELEC. METERSSPIGOTLATTICE FENCE4"PVCGMELEC. BOXHANDRAIL, ABOVELATTICE FENCEWMWMWM(E) 3/4" WMSPIGOTSPIGOTGAS METERS4"COMAIL BOXELEC. PANEL W/4 METERSS 50°29'36" E 15.00'-M[S52°34'10"E 15.00'-R1]4"PVCOVERHANG(E) ONE BEDROOM UNIT(1) 2 BEDROOM (1) 2 BEDROOM430 DANA ST.432 DANA ST.434 DANA ST.438/444 DANA ST.(E) ONE BEDROOM UNIT(E) PARKING(E) CONCRETE PAVINGGRASSGRASS(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKING(E) PARKINGCREEK FLOW LINETOE OF BANKTOP OF BANK(E) CONCRETE PAVING(4) 1 BEDROOM UNITS436 DANA ST.180.0'HIGH POINT123468(E) PARKINGSPACE(E) PARKINGSPACE10910'-0"FRONT SETBACK20'-0"CREEK SETBACKEXISTINGSTORAGE(E) PARKINGSPACE7OP/OTGGGGGGGGG GSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS GGGGGG3 (N) 15 GALLON STREET TREES (TYP) @ 35' LINIER OF FRONTAGE PLANT PER STANDARDS #8010 AND #8220 SS SS SSG (E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALL(E) CONCRETE RETAINING WALLGGGGGGTTOOO///PPOOOGG0100SPASCPCEEP(A)RPEIRPNKANRGIN9SPASCPCEEP(A)RPEIRPNGKANRGINGG4O4C44O"OEE(())AEEPRRAAAKKNNRRNNGGPPNN""SSAG44CAEECCCCOOC999EE(())AAEEPPRRAKAAKKNNRRNNGGKGGPPNNSSAAAEECC1100OOOOOOOOPPPPP/////OOOOOOOTTT GGGGGGGG(E)EPPEAAA(KAAAE)RRPPPGGKKAANNNK444GGSS"GGAOOCCCPCC444EAAAOOEOOO99999GG EE)PPPEEAA(KKAE)IIRRRPGKKAAANNKGGGIISSGGPPCCPPEAAEE00000GGG OOOPPPPPP/////////OOOOOOOOTTTTT GGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOCCCCCC""444444GG OOOOOOOOOPPPOOPPO///OOPP//OOPP OOOO//OOPP//OOOPPOOTT//OOTTT//OOTTT/TT//TGGGGGGGGGGGGNNNNNNKKKKKKKEEKKEERRERRCCRRCCAACAAAAGGGAAAAGGAAAGAAAAGGAAAA99GGPPA99GGPPPP9NNPPPP99NNP99NNSS999SS))S))KK))KKEEKKEEKKEEKKEE(((KKEE((RRE((RRCCRRCCAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA00AAAA00PPA00PPPPPPPPPSSSS))S))))EEEEEE(((((((GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG((((((EE((EEEEEEE)))))))))PPPPPPPPAAAAASSAAASSSAASSSAAAPPAAAPPPRRPPPRRRAARRRRAAAAAAKKKAAKKKKAAA99AAA999KKCC9999KKCCC99(((CCC99((EE99E((EEEEEEEEEEENNN)NNN))G))GGG))GGGGGPPGGPPPPPPPAAAAASSAAAASSSAASSSAAAPPAAAPPPRRPPPRRRARRRAAGGKKAAAGGGKKKAAGGGKKKAAAGGGGGGKKAAGGGGGGKKKCCGGGKKKCC000GGGCCCC000GGGEE00EEEEEEENNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG444444""44""CCCCCCCOOOOOOOGGGG OOOOOOO //OOP//OOOPP//OOOP/P/OOOPP////OOPPP//OOP/P/PP///PP//OP//OOO///OOO/OOTOTOOTTTOOTTTOTTTTTTT (N) PARKING12(N) PARKING13ENTRYNEW 2 STORYSTRUCTURE(1) 2 BEDROOM UNIT - ADU(1) 2 BEDROOM UNIT(E) PARKING5(N) PARKINGSPACE115'-0"SIDEYARD SETBACK TO13' HIGH± 18'-5 3/8"(N) POROUS PAVERS1.5 CU.YD.TRASH1.5 CU.YDRECYCLE(N) PARKINGSPACE14(N) PARKINGSPACE15(N) LAUNDRYAREASIDEYARD SETBACK TO18' -22' HIGH7'-0"± 16'-0"ELEC. PANEL W/ 2 METERS(N) CONCRETE HARDSCAPE(N) CONCRETE HARDSCAPE(N) CONCRETE HARDSCAPE(N) WOD STAIRS (NO STORAGE UNDER STAIRS)(N) WOOD FENCE AND GATEGAS METERSGVLANDSCAPE STRIPLANDSCAPELANDSCAPELANDSCAPE(N) CMU WALL9'x18'-5"9'x18'-5"9'x18'-5"9'x18'-5"9'x18'-5"96 GAL.GREENWASTE(N) LANDSCAPE METER, AS REQ'D.(E) 5/8" METER, RESIZE AS REQ'D.These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of Peter Danciart, AIA. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used otherwise without the expressed written permission of Peter Danciart, AIA. 1 7 5 0 P R E F U M O C Y N. R D. # 4 6S A N L U I S O B I S P OC A L I F O R N I A 9 3 4 0 58 0 5 . 7 0 4 . 5 1 4 2 P E T E R @ D A N C I A R T . C O MW W W . D A N C I A R T . C O MDANA ST. PROJECT446 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBIPSO, CA 934012102© 2022D A N C I A R TA R C H I T E C T U R EC-1.0PLANNING SUBMITTAL04 JAN 22P R O J E C T N U M B E RS H E E T N U M B E RD A T E S S H E E T N A M E PLANNING SUBMITTAL #231MAR 22 APN:002-401--001SITE PLAN3SITE PLANSCALE:1" = 10' = RETAINING WALL= SEWER MANHOLE= WATER VALVE= FIRE HYDRANT= JOINT POLEJP= GUY WIRE= POWER POLE= GAS METERGM= WATER LINE= CENTERLINE OF ROAD= SEWER LINE= TREE DRIP LINESS= OVERHEAD TELEPHONE LINE= OVERHEAD ELECTRIC & TELEPHONE LINE= FENCE LINE= EDGE OF PAVEMENT= GAS LINEGPP= ASPHALT CONCRETE= BOTTOM OF CURB AT DRIVEWAY OPENING = CONCRETE EDGE= DROP INLET= EDGE OF PAVEMENT= FINISH FLOOR= FLOW LINE= FLOW LINE OF ASPHALT BERM= CONCRETE= GROUND= GAS METER= GAS VALVE= INVERT= POWER POLE= SEWER= STAIRS= TOP OF BERM= TOP OF CURB= TOP OF GRATE= TOP OF SLOPE= TOE OF SLOPE= TOP OF WALL= TOP OF CURB AT DRIVEWAY OPENING = WATER METER= WATER VALVEACBX CONC DI EP FF FLFLACBFSGDGM GVINVPP SS STRTBRM TC TGTOP TOETWTX WM WV = APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEHDYSWVOP/OTOTATTACHMENT APage 93 of 143 Dana St. ProjectEXHIBITL1448 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401JOB NO:22152MODIFIED:1/3/22Schematic Landscape PlanÀUPDFIRMA CONSULTANTS, INCLandscape ArchitecturePlanningEnvironmental StudiesPrincipal: Lindsay Corica ASLACA Registration No. 6359Phone: 805.781.9800 187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230San Luis Obispo, CA 93401firmaconsultants.comHNEW 2 STORYSTRUCTURELIMIT OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE,REFER TO SHEET C-1.0 FOR EXISTINGAND PROPOSED PARKING SPACESEXISTINGMULTI-FAMILYSTRUCTUREEXISTING 2 STORYMULTI-FAMILY STRUCTUREPROPOSED PLANT MATERIALTREESLagerstroemia x 'Natchez'/ White Crape MyrtleMagnolia 'Little Gem' / Little Gem MagnoliaSHRUBS AND GRASSESPhormium 'Evening Glow' / New Zealand Flax HybridRhaphiolepis indica 'Eleanor Tabor' /Indian HawthornGROUNDCOVERSPenstemon pseudospectabilis / Desert BeardtongueSalvia greggii 'Furmans Red' / Autumn SageSenecio mandraliscae / Blue ChalksticksWATER CONSERVATION NOTESPlanting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. The following factors have been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape:1. Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either low-precipitation spray heads, bubblers, or drip emitters, or a combination thereof. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones.2. Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather conditions change.3. Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance.4. All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout.5. Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants with similar water needs.6. Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) prepared by the University of California Cooperative extension, February 1992. All plant materials proposed are selected for low to moderate water needs in this climate.PTTTTLaLaLaLaMMMMSTotal Landscape Area: 889 Square FeetNORTH10'0SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"5'10'20'30'Plant MaterialsATTACHMENT APage 94 of 143 These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of Peter Danciart, AIA. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used otherwise without the expressed written permission of Peter Danciart, AIA. 1 7 5 0 P R E F U M O C Y N. R D. # 4 6S A N L U I S O B I S P OC A L I F O R N I A 9 3 4 0 58 0 5 . 7 0 4 . 5 1 4 2 P E T E R @ D A N C I A R T . C O MW W W . D A N C I A R T . C O MDANA ST. PROJECT446 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBIPSO, CA 934012102© 2022D A N C I A R TA R C H I T E C T U R EPLANNING SUBMITTAL04 JAN 22P R O J E C T N U M B E RS H E E T N U M B E RD A T E S S H E E T N A M E PLANNING SUBMITTAL #231MAR 22 A-9.0APN:002-401--001EXTERIORELEVATIONS31/4" = 1'- 0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:11ELEVATION REFERENCE NOTES2233445566778899101011111212131314141515161616161717ADDRESS NUMBERS18181818GSM GUTTER, PAINT TO MATCH ADJ. COLOR, TYP.ASPHALT ROOFINGSOLID WOOD DOOR, TEMP. GLAZING.GSM DOWN SPOUTS - CONNECT TO TIGHT LINED ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM - PAINT TO MATCH ADJ. COLOREXTERIOR PLASTER SIDING - INTEGRAL COLOR - LIGHT DASH OR STEEL TROWEL SMOOTHVINYL DUAL PANE WINDOW, INSTALL PER MFR. SPECS. - WHITE2X WOOD TRIM - PRIMED & PAINTEDWOOD FENCE - PAINT AS REQUIRED - MATCH (E)(E) GRADE2X WOOD FASCIA - PRIMED & PAINTED2X WOOD KICKERS - PRIMED & PAINTEDFUTURE PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS, NOT A PART OF THIS PERMITWOOD STAIRS - PAINTED+42" RAIL WITH 2X6 WOOD CAP & 4X4 VERT. POSTS AND 1/4" S.S. CABLE RAILS, TYP.EXTERIOR FIBER CEMENT SIDING, ALT. EXPOSURE 8" & 6", PAINTED, TYP.EXTERIOR PLASTER O/ CONCRETE STEM WALL - INTEGRAL COLOR - HEAVY DASHWOOD FENCE @ STAIRS - PAINTEDAF.F.184'-0"T.O.P. 8'-1"PROPERTY LINE9TYP.17TYP.124F.F.193'-3 3/4"T.O.P. 8'-1"DBASE FLOOD ELEVATION183'-0"1'-0"EAST ELEVATION13TYP.11TYP.10TYP.8TYP.2TYP.1TYP.4TYP.7TYP.5TYP.BASE FLOOD ELEVATION183'-0"MAX. ROOF HEIGHT215'-0"AVG. NATURAL GRAFE180'-0"35'-0"ROOF HEIGHT205'-11"25'-11"2F.F.184'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION214T.O.P. 8'-1"F.F. T.O.P. 8'-1"BASE FLOOD ELEVATION183'-0"599TYP.33TYP.1111TYP.1010TYP.88TYP.22TYP.11TYP.44TYP.77TYP.55TYP.1'-0"1313TYP.1515TYP.1414TYP.66TYP.1818TYP.EXTERIOR FINISHES:ROOFING:MANU: MALARKEY ROOFING "HIGHLANDER" OR EQUALTYPE/COLOR: ASPHALT SHINGLE / WEATHERED WOODPAINT:MANU: MERLEXTYPE/COLOR: CYRSTAL WHITE, X-50(VERIFY) - LIGHT DASH OR SMOOTH FINISHR-1S-1WINDOW:MANU: ANDERSEN OR ARCHITECT APPROVED EQUALTYPE/COLOR: 100 SERIES / WHITEW-1PAINT:S-2MANU: SHERWIN WILLIAMSTYPE/COLOR: SW 7008 ALABASTERPAINT:P-1MANU: SHERWIN WILLIAMSTYPE/COLOR: SW 7006 EXTRA WHITEPAINT:P-2MANU: MERLEXTYPE/COLOR: CAMARELLO, P-192 - HEAVY DASH FINISHMAXIMUMBUILDING HEIGHT:BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION-RESIDENCE:HIGHEST N.G. + LOWEST N.G. 180.0' + 180.0'2= 180' + 35.00' = 215.0'ACTUAL HEIGHT:205.92' ≤ 215.0' THEREFORE O.K.2= AVERAGE (E) GRADE215.0' 180.0' + 25.92'" = 205.92'35' HEIGHT RESTRICTION:ROOF HEIGHT COMPLIANCE ATTACHMENT APage 95 of 143 These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of Peter Danciart, AIA. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used otherwise without the expressed written permission of Peter Danciart, AIA. 1 7 5 0 P R E F U M O C Y N. R D. # 4 6S A N L U I S O B I S P OC A L I F O R N I A 9 3 4 0 58 0 5 . 7 0 4 . 5 1 4 2 P E T E R @ D A N C I A R T . C O MW W W . D A N C I A R T . C O MDANA ST. PROJECT446 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBIPSO, CA 934012102© 2022D A N C I A R TA R C H I T E C T U R EA-9.1PLANNING SUBMITTAL04 JAN 22P R O J E C T N U M B E RS H E E T N U M B E RD A T E S S H E E T N A M E PLANNING SUBMITTAL #231MAR 22 APN:002-401--001EXTERIORELEVATIONS31/4" = 1'- 0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSCALE:WEST ELEVATION1DF.F.184'-0"AT.O.P. PROPERTY LINE8'-1"124(F)F.F.193'-3 3/4"T.O.P. 8'-1"(F)(F)HEATPUMPBASE FLOOD ELEVATION183'-0"HWH7'-1"1'-0"4TYP.9TYP.13TYP.1TYP.2TYP.15TYP.6TYP.7TYP.8TYP.42" MIN.3TYP.18TYP.11TYP.BC1F.F. 184'-0"NORTH ELEVATION2T.O.P. 48'-1"2F.F. T.O.P. 8'-1"BASE FLOOD ELEVATION183'-0"INSTANTANEOUSHWHHEATPUMP5INSTANTANEOUSHWHHEATPUMP99TYP.33TYP.1111TYP.1010TYP.88TYP.11TYP.44TYP.77TYP.55TYP.1313TYP.1515TYP.1414TYP.66TYP.1818TYP.11ELEVATION REFERENCE NOTES2233445566778899101011111212131314141515161616161717ADDRESS NUMBERS18181818GSM GUTTER, PAINT TO MATCH ADJ. COLOR, TYP.ASPHALT ROOFINGSOLID WOOD DOOR, TEMP. GLAZING.GSM DOWN SPOUTS - CONNECT TO TIGHT LINED ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEM - PAINT TO MATCH ADJ. COLOREXTERIOR PLASTER SIDING - INTEGRAL COLOR - LIGHT DASH OR STEEL TROWEL SMOOTHVINYL DUAL PANE WINDOW, INSTALL PER MFR. SPECS. - WHITE2X WOOD TRIM - PRIMED & PAINTEDWOOD FENCE - PAINT AS REQUIRED - MATCH (E)(E) GRADE2X WOOD FASCIA - PRIMED & PAINTED2X WOOD KICKERS - PRIMED & PAINTEDFUTURE PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS, NOT A PART OF THIS PERMITWOOD STAIRS - PAINTED+42" RAIL WITH 2X6 WOOD CAP & 4X4 VERT. POSTS AND 1/4" S.S. CABLE RAILS, TYP.EXTERIOR FIBER CEMENT SIDING, ALT. EXPOSURE 8" & 6", PAINTED, TYP.EXTERIOR PLASTER O/ CONCRETE STEM WALL - INTEGRAL COLOR - HEAVY DASHWOOD FENCE @ STAIRS - PAINTEDEXTERIOR FINISHES:ROOFING:MANU: MALARKEY ROOFING "HIGHLANDER" OR EQUALTYPE/COLOR: ASPHALT SHINGLE / WEATHERED WOODPAINT:MANU: MERLEXTYPE/COLOR: CYRSTAL WHITE, X-50(VERIFY) - LIGHT DASH OR SMOOTH FINISHR-1S-1WINDOW:MANU: ANDERSEN OR ARCHITECT APPROVED EQUALTYPE/COLOR: 100 SERIES / WHITEW-1PAINT:S-2MANU: SHERWIN WILLIAMSTYPE/COLOR: SW 7008 ALABASTERPAINT:P-1MANU: SHERWIN WILLIAMSTYPE/COLOR: SW 7006 EXTRA WHITEPAINT:P-2MANU: MERLEXTYPE/COLOR: CAMARELLO, P-192 - HEAVY DASH FINISHATTACHMENT APage 96 of 143 38 5.2.2 Downtown Historic District Setting The Downtown Historic District encompasses the oldest part of the City of San Luis Obispo and contains one of the City’s highest concentrations of historic sites and structures. The historic Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa is at the geographic and historic center of the district, which is bounded roughly by Palm and Marsh Streets on the north and south, Osos and Nipomo Streets on the east and west, plus Dana Street as the northwest corner. Although some structures date to the Spanish and Mexican eras (1772-1850) and the American pioneer settlement era (1850s- 1870), the majority of surviving structures date from the 1870s to the 1920s. The district is comprised of two subdivisions: the Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded 1878 and the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded in March of 1873. The Downtown Historic District has an area of 61.5 acres and in 2010 includes 98 designated historic structures. The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors along Monterey, Higuera, Chorro, Garden and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. Commercial structures were laid out in a regular grid pattern, with buildings set at the back of sidewalks and relatively narrow (60 foot right-of-way) streets. The resultant narrow streets and zero building setbacks reinforce the district’s human scale and vibrant Main Street image. Site Features and Characteristics Common site features and characteristics include: A.Buildings located at back of sidewalk with zero street and side setbacks B.Finish floors at grade C.Recessed front entries oriented toward the street D.Front facades oriented toward the street E.Trees placed at regular intervals along the street Architectural Character Built during the San Luis Obispo’s boom time circa 1870s-1910s (when the Town’s population increased over 800 percent from 600 people in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910), the district’s commercial architectural styles reflect the increasing wealth of the times. Architectural styles present in the Downtown District include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque structures, and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were designed by outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles), the majority of Downtown buildings were designed and built by local builders, including the Maino family, John Chapek, 721, 717 and 715 Higuera Street, North Elevation ATTACHMENT B Page 97 of 143 39 Doton Building, 777 Higuera Street, North Elevation and Frank Mitchell. Predominant architectural features include: A. One to two stories (occasionally three) B. Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as dentils, brackets and molding D. First floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing street. In multi-story structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double hung, wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy” buildings forms F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies I. Use of transom windows above storefronts Individually Contributing Elements in the Downtown District Not all historic resources in the Downtown Historic District were built during the district’s period of significance of 1870-1930. These buildings generally do not exhibit the signature architectural elements described above but do contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo in their own right based on age, architectural style or historical association. By virtue of their significance, these resources also merit preservation. For example, the Doton Building is an example of Streamline Moderne architecture from the 1930s. This building was placed on the Master List as a significant resource due to its craftsmanship and the rarity of this particular style in San Luis Obispo. Additional examples include the Laird building at 1023 Garden. Built in the 1880s, the Laird building is one of the City’s last remaining Pioneer False front buildings. The Golden State Creamery building at 570 Higuera is historically significant to San Luis Obispo for its association with the Smith Building and Union Hardware Building, 1119 and 1129 Garden Street, East Elevation ATTACHMENT B Page 98 of 143 40 dairy industry, an industry integral to the City’s development. Non-Contributing Elements in Downtown Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the district fall into this latter category. Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include: A. Buildings setback from street or side property lines B. Building height, form or massing which contrasts markedly with the prevailing 2-3 story pattern C. Wood, metal or other contemporary material siding, or “faux” architectural materials or features. D. Asymmetrical arrangement of doors and windows E. Raised, non-recessed or offset street entries to buildings Residential Although the majority of the Downtown District is commercial, within the district is a smaller residential section, primarily along Dana Street and also down Monterey Street to the west of the mission. This subsection includes a spectrum of settlement from the mid 19th century to the 1920s. Lots were generally platted in regular grids, although curved along Dana to accommodate the creek. Site features and characteristics- Residential: 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 facades oriented toward the street The architectural styles in the residential area of the Downtown district are varied and 756 Palm Street, South Elevation 1010 Nipomo Street, South and West Elevations ATTACHMENT B Page 99 of 143 41 represent several different periods of development in San Luis Obispo. The oldest, vernacular Adobe, dates back the early pioneer period. The Rosa Butrón de Canet adobe at 466 Dana is from this period and is one of the few surviving adobes in San Luis Obispo. Folk and High Victorian structures built during the population influx at turn of the twentieth century. Finally, Spanish Revival, a style that achieved popularity in San Luis Obispo during the housing boom of 1920s and 1930s which was itself funded in part by the maturation of war bonds from World War I. Architectural features- Residential: 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. 469 Dana Street, North Elevation ATTACHMENT B Page 100 of 143 42 *** Murray Adobe, 474 Monterey Street; Anderson House, 532 Dana Street; Hotel Wineman, 849 Higuera Street; 762 Higuera Street ATTACHMENT B Page 101 of 143 Page 102 of 143 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY DWELLING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DWELLING BEHIND THE PATRICK & CATHERINE MCHENRY HOUSE (CONTRIBUTING LIST RESOURCE) IN THE MILL STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT; ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 PALM) BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Email: woetzell@slocity.org APPLICANT: Richard Diel REPRESENTATIVE: Nelson R. Bernal RECOMMENDATION Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance , including any recommended conditions of approval to ensure such consistency. 1.0 BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to demolish a small one -bedroom dwelling unit at the rear of the property and construct a new two-story dwelling in its place (see Project Description, Attachment A and Project Plans, Attachment B). The property is within the Mill Street Historic District and is also included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing List Resource. The applicant has included with this application an evaluation of the property’s history, including discussion of its historical character (see Historical Significance Information, Attachment C). As provided by §14.01.030(C)(4) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Committee will review new construction in historic districts and on historically listed properties. In addition, the project involves demolition of a small apartment at the rear of the property, and pursuant to §14.01.030(B)(7) the Committee is asked to consider whether demolition of the structure is consistent with City policy. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The subject site is a residential parcel measuring 8,235 square feet (0.18 acre) in area, located on the north side of Palm Street, about 50 feet west of Johnson Avenue. It is located in the Mill Street Historic District a residential neighborhood developed at the turn of the 20th century, with the majority of the existing buildings dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance (see description of District, Attachment D). Meeting Date: 6/27/2022 Item Number: 4c Time Estimate: 45 minutes Page 103 of 143 Item 4c ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 The majority of historic homes are more modest residences, built by local builders, and the District encompasses many different architectural styles, including revival styles popular at the turn of the twentieth century, such as Neo -classic Row House, Victorian, Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from more than one style. In 1910 the primary dwelling on the site was built (see Figure 1 below). The applicant’s historical significance information describes the building: In 1910 James M. Akin built this house to a pattern from a source unknown for Irish-born rancher and hotelier Patrick McHenry and his wife Catherine. It embodies the character-defining features of what Virginia McAlester characterizes as asymmetric Colonial Revival, I characterize as Streamline Colonial; is associated with a historically significant builder; and possesses high artistic values. (Papp, pg. 2) City permit records for the property list a permit for conversion of a storage building into a dwelling unit, finalized in 2006 and associated with the address 1260 Palm, corresponding to the small building directly behind the Patrick and Catherine McHenry House. At the very back of the property, is a small dwelling at 1258 Palm, described in City records as Mission Revival in style (see Historical Preservation File, Attachment E).. The property was designated as a Contributing List Resource in the Invento ry of Historic Resources compiled after completion of the City’s first historical survey in 1983. The property appears under the address 1264 Palm Street in the most recent comprehensive list of historic resources adopted by the City Council (under Resolution 6424, adopted in April 1988), with neither 1258 nor 1260 Palm listed in the Inventory. It has not been included in any subsequent Inventory listing actions since that time. Figure 1: Sanborn Map (1926), left; Patrick and Catherine McHenry House (right) Page 104 of 143 Item 4c ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 2.2 Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the small Mission Revival dwelling at the back of the property (1258) and construct a two-story dwelling in replacement. Fiber-cement siding in a horizontal orientation is the dominant exterior material used in the design. This material is also used for trim (“Hardi-trim”) around the building corners, windows, and doors. The new building is generally rectangular in form, apart from a small offset at the west and north sides to accommodate the required setbacks for the upper story of the building. A pitched roof is sheathed with composition shingle and detailed with wood fascia. Windows are rectangular in form, vertically-oriented sash windows, except for two picture windows on the upper level of the front elevation. 3.0 EVALUATION It is the policy of the City that significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated, and to ensure that new buildings are compatible with architecturally and historically signif icant buildings. General Plan policies for preservation and protection of historical resources are implemented by the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and its supporting Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG). New structures in historic districts are to be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character and with nearby historic resources (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines §3.2.1 & 3.2.2), and proposed new construction must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties1 (HPPG §3.1.1). 1 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation Services, 2017 Figure 2: 1258 Palm (left), 1260 Palm (right) Page 105 of 143 Item 4c ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 3.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Program Guidelines2 Definitions Historic Resource: any building, site, improvement, area or object of aesthetic, architectural, cultural, historic or scientific significance, and which is included in, or potentially eligible for local, State or National historic designation. Primary Structure: the most important building or other structural feature on a parcel in terms of size, scale, architectural or historical significance, as determined by the Committee Construction in Historic Districts § 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 character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. § 3.2.2 - Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. Primary Structure and Builder. This property is listed in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing List Property. Historical Significance Information provided by the applicant (Attachment C) describes the architectural style and significance of the Primary Structure on the property, the Patrick and Catherine McHenry House, asserting that it “is the most sophisticated and best-preserved exemplar of Streamline Colonial in the Mill Street Historic District”: Flanking Tuscan entry columns; elegantly curving wraparound portico of four additional columns, enclosed balustrade, and separate cornice; muscular bay window offering counterpoint to the portico; plain and recessed frieze topped by a roof cornice; and central hip and corniced dormer on the hip and corniced roof […] combine for an imposing effect … (Papp, pg. 5) 2 The Ordinance and Guidelines are available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation/historic-preservation Page 106 of 143 Item 4c ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 Biographical information provided about James M. Akin, the builder, establishes his significance as a local contractor and builder “well known as the contractor in 1907 -1908 of the new Baptist Church at Pacific and Osos” along with several other notable local examples of artfully designed Colonial Revival cottages (Papp, from pg. 2). 1258 Palm. The architectural style of the small stucco building at the rear of the property (at 1258), proposed to be demolished, is also discussed and compared to local exemplars of the Mission Revival style, including several within the Mill Street Historic District (Attachment C, from pg. 6), with attention to defining characteristics of the style including roof forms and use of tile roofing material, treatment of parapets, arched forms, door and window patterns, and ornamental accents (see description of style, Attachment F). Ultimately, the building is found to have no historic or architectural significance, and is not currently qualified as a Contributing List Resource: The absence of a building permit in historic files leaves builder and architect unknown; it does not appear to be the work of a master (14.01.070.A). The stud and stucco construction was widespread and was not used here in any notable, “embodying” way. The economical box form was also widespread and is undistinguished. Though modest cottages can possess ambitious style, this is not one these … (Papp, pg. 13) New Construction. The proposed new construction is sited at the rear corner of the property and conforms to development standards applicable to the Medium-High Density (R-3) Residential Zone. It does not block views of any adjacent historic resource, and visibility of the building from the street is substantially occluded by the building’s location at the back of the site and the rise of the site from the street. It is two stories in height, comparable to that of one- and two-story buildings adjacent to the subject property and within the Mill Street Historic District. A conventional residential form and style is exhibited, utilizing traditional window patterns, fiber cement board siding and trim materials, and wood fascia. Project plans depicting these elements provide a basis for finding the new construction to be architecturally compatible with the architectural and historical character of the subject property, nearby historic resources, and the character of the Mill Street Historic District, without sharply contrasting with, or visually detracting from their historic character. Page 107 of 143 Item 4c ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 3.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on preservation, rehabilitation, and preservation of historic buildings, including approaches to work treatments and techniques that are either consistent (“Recommended”) or inconsistent (“Not Recommended”) with the Standards, specific to various features of historic buildings and sites. In this case, as the property itself is not a listed historic resource, guidance from this document is limited mainly to that regarding “Setting,” relevant to the relationship of new construction to a district or neighborhood. Setting (District / Neighborhood) Recommended Not Recommended Designing adjacent new construction that is compatible with the historic character of the setting that preserve the historic relationship between the buildings and the landscape. Introducing new construction into historic districts which is visually incompatible or that destroys historic relationships within the setting, or which damages or destroys important landscape features. Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or landscape features which detract from the historic character of the setting. Removing a historic building, a building feature, or landscape feature which is important in defining the historic character of the setting. As discussed above, the proposed new construction appears to be architecturally compatible with the character of the Mill Street Historic District and with listed historic resources in the vicinity, including the Primary Structure on the site. It is not expected to affect historic relationships within the district or on important landscape features. The Historical Significance Information provided by the applicant demonstrates that the Patrick and Catherine McHenry House is the Primary Structure, the historic building, on this site, and that the small Mission Revival dwelling at 1258 Palm can be considered “non-significant” and not important in defining the historic character of the District. Figure 3: Proposed new dwelling, left and front elevations Page 108 of 143 Item 4c ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Construction of a new single-family dwelling is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review, as New Construction of Small Structures (Guidelines § 15303 (a)). 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City's historical preservation policies, with any suggested conditions of approval necessary to achieve such consistency. 5.2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant. 5.3. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent with historical preservation policies, citing specific a reas of inconsistency 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Project Description – (Nelson R. Bernal) B - Project Plans – Diel Residence (NRB Drafting Services, Inc.) C - Historical Significance Information (James Papp, PhD) D - Mill Street Historic District (HPPG) E - Historical Preservation File (1264 Palm) F - Spanish Eclectic Style (HPPG) Page 109 of 143 Page 110 of 143 ATTACHMENT A Page 111 of 143 ATTACHMENT A Page 112 of 143 N36°21'16"W 149.68'N36°21'16"W 149.71'N55°38'0"E 55.00'N55°38'0"E 55.00'(E) PARKINGSPACE 1(E) 2 BEDROOM RESIDENCE(1264 PALM)CONVERT UNITTO GARAGE(1260 PALM)(E) CONC. DRIVEWAY(E) CONC. WALKWAY(E) CONC. WALKWAY(E) CONC. WALKWAY(E) CONC. SIDEWALK16'-6"5'-6"25'24'-4"(E) NEIGHBORING SHED(E) NEIGHBORING CONC. DRIVEWAY(E) FENCE(E) 1-BEDROOM RESIDENCETO BE REMOVED5'10'(E) CORRUGATED STEELGARAGE TO REMAIN(E) DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO REMAIN(E) WATER LINE(E) 3-ELECTRICMETERS TO BERELOCATED(E) GAS METERTO BERELOCATED(E) GAS(N) GAS LINE(N) ELECTRIC LINE(E) ELECTRIC LINE(E) ELECTRIC LINE5%5%5%2%2%2%STOCKPILE AREAPER DETAIL (7/EC-1)INSTALL CONC. WASHOUTPER DETAIL (8/EC-1)10'20'30' TO CENTER60' TOTAL ROAD EASEMENT11'-2"3'-6"FACE OF CURB(E) 8"ØAPPLE TREE(E) 58" WATER METER(N) 1" WATER METERHP=276.5'FG=276.7'LP=274.8'FG=275.4'23'(N) WATER LINETRASHCONTAINERSTRASHCONTAINERS(N) PAVERSFG=275.8'FG=275.8'(E) 8'x10' GARDEN SHEDTO BE REMOVED(E) FENCE(E) FENCE(E) RETAINING WALL(E) RETAINING WALLD.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(E) C/O(E) C/O7' TOUPPERFLOOR12' TOUPPERFLOOR(E) C/O(E) C/O(E) SEWER LINE(E) ASPH. DRIVEWAY(N) 2-BEDROOMRESIDENCE(1258 PALM)FF=277.4'TRASH CONTAINERS3'TO ROOF OVHGTOROST.SITEUS HWY 101MONTEREY ST.CALIFORNIA BLVD.MILL ST.SANTA ROSA ST.PALM ST.CSCOVER SHEET/ SITE PLANEC-1EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILST-24 .1 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS/REACH COMPLYT-24.2 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS/REACH COMPLYGC-1.1 GREEN CODE REQUIREMENTSGC-1.1 GREEN CODE REQUIREMENTSLNG LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONSA-1PROPOSED FLOOR PLANA-2 BUILDING SECTIONSA-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-4 ELECTRICAL PLANM-1 MECHANICAL PLAND-4 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSS-1 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTESS-2 STRUCTURAL PLANSS-2.1 DECK PLAN & DETAILSS-3 FOUNDATION PLAN & DETAILSS-4 STRUCTURAL SECTION & DETAILSS-5 STRUCTURAL SECTION & DETAILSS-6 STRUCTURAL SECTION & DETAILSS-7 STRUCTURAL DETAILSS-8STRUCTURAL DETAILSFLOOR PLAN SQ. FOOTAGE:(N) RESIDENCE:1244 SQ. FT.(N) DECK:98 SQ. FT.PROJECT TEAMOWNERDRAFTSMANNRB DRAFTING, INC.2121 PINE STREET, SUITE A(805) 237-3746(805) 237-1368 FAXPASO ROBLES, CA 93446MR. RICHARD DIEL1264 PALM STREET (805) 610-7843SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 944011258 PALM STREETCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOCOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOAPN #: 001-221-017NUMBER OFORIGINALS IN SETTHESE RECORD DOCUMENTS HAVE BEENPREPARED BASED UPON INFORMATION SUBMITTED,IN PART, BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATIONIS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NRB IS NOTRESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACCURACY, NOR FORERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEENINCORP'D INTO THESE DOCUMENTS AS A RESULTREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-211" = 10'-0"SITE PLANGENERAL GRADING PLAN NOTES:1. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C.B.C. ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPT.2. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHEDULING A PRE-CONSTRCUTION MEETING WITH THE CITY AND OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED AND ARRANGEMENT FOR INSPECTION.3. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.6. ESTIMATED EARTH QUANTITIES: CUT: 45 CU YRDS FILL: 45 CU YRDS7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL AT ALL TIMES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING SURVEY MARKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL SUCH MONUMENTS OR MARKERS SHALL BE RESET AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE.9. ALL TOP SOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED FOR LATER DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LOTS AND SLOPES. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES ARE TO BE PLANTED OR HYDROSEEDED AFTER COMPACTION TO PREVENT EROSION.10. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS WORKING WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL HAVE AN APPROPRIATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE, A LOCAL BUSINESS LICENSE, AND SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.11. SLOPES OF ALL CUT SURFACES TO BE NO LESS THAN 2 HORIZ. TO 1 VERT. ALL FILL SURFACES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 SLOPE. ALL FILL SHALL HAVE 90% COMPACTION.VICINITY MAPCOVERSHEETW.W-GENERAL NOTES:1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITYWORKMANSHIP. ALL WALLS SHALL BE PLUMB AND TRUE.ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE SECURE ACCORDINGTO ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES OR ASSPECIFIED HEREIN OR AS PER THE 2019 EDITION OF THECALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE.2. NRB ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY CHANGES,ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DEVIATIONS BY THE OWNER ORCONTRACTOR, EITHER INTENTIONAL OR ACCIDENTAL.3. THE OWNER IS ADVISED THAT THESE DRAWINGS ANDASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE THE ONLYMEDIUM AVAILABLE TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF NRBAND CANNOT BE ASSUMED ALL-INCLUSIVE WITH REGARDTO SUCH.4. IN ALL CASES, NOTED DIMENSIONS SHALL SUPERSEDESCALED DIMENSIONS.5. CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITHMATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES.6. "OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE" MANUAL SHALL BEPLACED IN THE BUILDING THAT CONTAINS THEAPPLICABLE ITEM LISTED IN CGBSC. (PROVIDE COPY ORTEMPLATE OF MANUAL)7. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF THEPROPERTY CORNERS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THEBUILDING INSPECTOR AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDATIONINSPECTION.8. GRADING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY HALLINGEOTECHNICAL, JOB NO. H-211437, DATED AUGUST 18,2021 AND FILED WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.UTILITY NOTES:1. PROVIDE WATER PRESSURE REGULATOR FOR NEWCONSTRUCTION.2. THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR RISERS SHALL BE 1" IN DIAMETER.MATERIALS TO BE USED MAY BE SCHEDULE 8O PVC OR TYPE LCOPPER PIPE.3. PROVIDE NEW SEWER LATERAL WITH CLEANOUT 2 FEET MIN.FROM BUILDING.4. HOSE BIBS AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALL HAVE APPROVEDBACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES.5. WATER PRESSURE IN BUILDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO 80 PSI ORLESS. PRESSURE REGULATOR IS REQUIRED.6. WHERE APPLICABLE, PROVIDE BACK WATER VALVE ON THESEWER LATERAL WHEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING FIXTURESHAVE FLOOD RIMS LOCATED BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THENEXT UPSTREAM MANHOLE COVER.7. IF DRAIN LINES WITHIN THE BUILDING ARE LOWER THAN THESEWER MAIN, AN EJECTOR SUMP PUMP MAY BE REQUIRED.8. THE NEW WIRE SERVICES SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND INACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODES AS AMENDEDLOCALLY. EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUND PLACEMENT OF THEUTILITIES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.9. THE EXISTING SEWER LATERAL(S) MAY BE NECESSARY TO BETELEVISED AND APPROVED FOR RE-USE OR SHALL BEABANDONED AT THE CITY SEWER MAINLINE POINT OFCONNECTION IN AN APPROVED MANNER TO THE SATISFACTIONOF THE UTILITIES DIRECTIOR.PLANS PREPARED BY:NRB DRAFTING, INC.2121 PINE STREET., SUITE APASO ROBLES, CA 93446PH (805) 237-3746 FX (805) 237-1368NRB DRAFTING, INC. TAKES NO LIABILITY FOR INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY THE OWNER IN THE PREPARATION OF THESECONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. THE OWNER HAS APPROVEDTHIS SET OF PLANS AND AGREED THAT THIS STRUCTURE ISBUILDABLE ON SAID LOT.THE DRAFTSMAN DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THESE PLANSOR THE SPECIFICATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ARESUITABLE, WHETHER OR NOT MODIFIED FOR ANY OTHERSITE THAN THE ONE FOR WHICH THEY WERE SPECIFICALLYPREPARED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BERESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ONTHE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED IN LETTER OFANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONSSHOWN BY THESE DRAWINGS. THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINALOR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THEENGINEER.ALL DRAWING AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREINCONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THEDRAFTSMAN AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THEDRAFTSMAN.OCCUPANCY: R-3TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VBHEIGHT: ±27'-11"AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER: YES FIRE ZONE-HIGHSTORIES: TWO ZONING: SZ-R3HLOT SIZE: 0.18 ACDESIGNER NOTESHEET INDEXAREA CALCSBLDG CODE DATACODE ANALYSISPROJECT DATAALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE:2019 California Energy Code (CEnC)2019 California Residential Code2019 California Electrical Code2019 California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Code2019 California Mechanical Code2019 California Plumbing Code2019 California Reference Standards Code2019 California Building CodeAS WELL AS ALL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO LAND ANDBUILDING ORDINANCES AND GREEN BUILDINGSTANDARDSDEFERRED SUBMITTAL/SEPARATE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR:PHOTOVOLTAICFIRE SPRINKLERSDEMOLITION OF EXISTING RESIDENCENOTE:1. REMODELING PRE-1978 STRUCTURES WITHOUT USING LEADSAFE WORK PRACTICES IS A VIOLATION OF THECALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105256.CONTRACTORS, REMODELS AND PAINTERS AREREQUIRED TO USE "LEAD-SAFE" WORK PRACTICESPURSUANT TO TITLE 17, CALIFORNIA CODE REGULATIONSSECTION 36050. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS KNOWN TOCONTAIN LEAD-BASED PAINT MUST BE DEPOSITED AT ANAPPROVED LOCATION. CONTACT UTILITIESCONSERVATION AT (805) 781-7213.2. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO SATISFACTIONOF CITY SAN LUIS OBISPO.3. CONSTRUCTION NOISE WILL COMPLY WITH MUNICIPALCODE SECTION 9.12 AND IS LIMITED TO THE HOURSSPECIFIED IN THE NOISE REGULATION.ENGINEERH.F. MAGER411 GRAVES AVENUESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405(805) 541-219322CONSTRUCT A NEW 2-STORY RESIDENCE.SCOPE OF WORKENERGY CALCSCARSTAIRS ENERGY FORMSP.O. BOX 4736(805) 904-9048SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403FIRE SPRINKLERSSHAFFER FIRE PROTECTION3559 S. HIGUERA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401(805) 594-1916SOIL ENGINEERHALLIN GEOTECHNICALP.O. BOX 1897ATASCADERO, CA 93423(805) 975-7361JOB #:H-211437GRADING:CUT: 45 CU YDS ±FILL: 45 CU YDS ±MAX DEPTH OF CUT = 24"MAX DEPTH OF FILL = 24"PERCENT OF NATURAL GRADE: 3%AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 1O00 SQ.FT.IMPERVIOUS AREA: 800 SQ. FT.STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS1. THIS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IS SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS OF CBC SECTIONS 1704 AND 17052. SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT2.1. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PER SECTIONS 1704 AND 17052.2. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDING PAD PREPARATION3. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEAPPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THIS STATEMENT AND CBC 1704.74. THE OWNER WILL RETAIN AND DIRECTLY PAY FOR THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ASREQUIRED IN CBC SECTION 1704.1SCHEDULE OF INSPECTION, TESTING AGENCIES, AND INSPECTORSTHE FOLLOWING ARE THE TESTING AGENCIES AND SPECIAL INSPECTORS THAT WILL BE RETAINED TOCONDUCT THE MAJORITY OF THE TESTS AND INSPECTION ON THIS PROJECTRESPONSIBILITY:FIRM CONTACT INFORMATION:1. GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTIONSHALLIN GEOTECHNICALP.O. BOX 1897ATASCADERO, CA 93423(805) 975-7361SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONSNOTATION USED IN TABLEC INDICATES CONTINUOUS INSPECTION IS REQUIREDP INDICATES PERIODIC INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED.THE NOTES AND/OR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHOULD CLARIFYTABLE 1704.7 - INSPECTION OF SOILS1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW FOOTINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIREDBEARING CAPACITY2. VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHEDPROPER MATERIAL3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF CONTROLLED FILL MATERIALS4. VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESS DURINGPLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF CONTROLLED FILL.5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONTROLLED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THATSITE HAS BEEN PREPARED PROPERLYPCXXXXXPROJECT STATISTICSSITE SUMMARYSITE AREA: 8,233 SQ. FT.EXIST. LOT COVERAGE: 30.2% (FOOTPRINT= 2,486 SQ. FT.)NEW LOT COVERAGE: 32.7% (FOOTPRINT= 2,693 SQ. FT.)MAX. LOT COVERAGE: 50% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BASED ON GROSS LOT AREAACTUAL LANDSCAPECOVERAGE: 19.2% LANDSCAPE COVERAGEACTUAL HARDSCAPECOVERAGE: 50.8% HARDSCAPE COVERAGE (4,186 SQ. FT.)BUILDING SUMMARYUSE: SINGLE FAMILY 2-BEDROOM RESIDENCEOCCUPANCY: R-3CONSTRUCTION: TYPE VB, FIRE-SPRINKLERS REQUIREDALLOWABLE DENSITY: 20 UNITS/ACPROPOSED DENSITY: 1264 PALM: 2 BEDROOMS = 1.0 UNITS 1258 PALM: 2 BEDROOMS = 1.0 UNITSTOTAL:2.00 UNITSNUMBER OF STORIES: TWO, ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE= 21'-2"AVERAGE NATURALGRADE: HIGH ELEV= 276.5 + LOW ELEV= 274.8/2 = 275.65 275.65 + 21.16 = 296.81EXISTING PARKINGSPACES:2 UNCOVERED, 1 COVEREDPARKING SPACESPROVIDED: 2 COVERED PARKING SPACES 1 & 2 FOR 1260 PALM NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR 1264 PALM (EXISTING NON-CONFORMING)ALLOWABLE MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT: 25'-O"FOOTPRINT AREA: PERMEABLE DECK 60SQ.FT. LOWER FLOOR 659 SQ.FT.UPPER FLOOR490SQ.FT.PUBLIC WORKS NOTES:1. NO CONTOURS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN FOR STRUCTURE ON SITE ISEXISTING, NO GRADING REQUIRED. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOTBE CONSTRUCTED AS A GRADING PLAN.2.PROVIDE A MINIMUM SETBACKS PER CITY ORDINANCE.3. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT TIME OFFOUNDATION INSPECTION WITH THE MARK OF A LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR. ANY EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS SHALL BEPROTECTED IN PLACE OR SHALL BE TIED OUT BY THESURVEYOR AND THEM REPLACED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.4. DRIVEWAY APRON SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY STREETSTANDARDS.5. FINISH GRADE AROUND THE STRUCTURE SHALL SLOPE AWAYFROM THE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION. ALL SURFACE ANDSUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNED AT LESS THAT 2%SHALL HAVE FINAL GRADIENTS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSEDSURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTIONSAPPROVALS.6. ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER &SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED ORREPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKSDIRECTOR.7. A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN SHALL BESUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE.8. THE ADJOINING STREET AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE CLEANED BYSWEEPING TO REMOVE DIRT, DUST, MUD, AND CONSTRUCTIONDEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.9. ALL MITIGATION MEASURES, CONDITIONS, AND/OR CODEREQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVALSSHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS CORRECTION LISTWHETHER OR NOT REITERATED HEREIN.10. HISTORIC, UNIQUE, OR UNUSUAL SIDEWALK FEATURES SHALL NOTBE REMOVED, REPLACED, OR ALTERED WITHOUT SPECIFICAPPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEENGINEER'S STANDARD'S UNIFORM DESIGN CRITERIA PER PAGE4 OF THE STANDARDS. HISTORIC FEATURES NOT OTHERWISEPROPOSED TO BE RETAINED SHALL SHALL BE APPROVED FORREMOVAL OR ALTERATION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDIRECTOR.11. ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ORWITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENTEDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS. THE CURRENT ADOPTED STANDARDS AREDATED MAY 2018.12. CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT 781-7554WITH AT LEAST 48 HOUR NOTICE FOR ANY REQUIREDENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION OR FINAL INSPECTION.13. A SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANYWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS,OR FOR CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. WORK REQUIRINGAN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TODEMOLITIONS, UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICELATERALS, CURBS, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAYAPPROACHES, SIDEWALK UNDER-DRAINS, STORM DRAINIMPROVEMENTS, STREET, TREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURBRAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION ORCONSTRUCTION STAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.14. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE CITYARBORIST FOR THE PROPOSED TREES TO BE REMOVED.CONTACT THE CITY ARBORIST AT (805) 781-7023 TOCOORDINATE A SITE INSPECTION AND TO VERIFY TREEREMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE TREEREMOVAL PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED PRIOR TO BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUANCE.15. HAND DIGGING IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF TREES TOREMAIN; ANY EXPOSED ROTS SHALL BE OSERVED BY THE CITYARBORIST BEFORE REMOVING. CONTACT CITY ARBORISTBEFORE COMMENCING WITH CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, OREXCAVATIONS.16. (1) 15-GALLON STREET TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH 35 LINEALFEET OF FRONTAGE OR FRACTION THEREOF. TREE SPECIESAND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PER CITYENGINEERING STANDARDS.17. THE EXISTING SEWER LATERAL WAS REPLACED TO CITY MAIN INMARCH 2017, PERMIT # ENCR-0300-2017NOTE:ALL EXISTING DRAINAGEPATTERNS SHALL REMAINATTACHMENT BPage 113 of 143 24'-0"22'-0"AREAS:GARAGE528SQ. FT.(E) 4030 HSDBL GLZ(E) 3010 HSDBL GLZ(E) 2868 SC(E) 2868 SC(E) 2668 HCMIR(E) BATHTILE8'CONC.STOOP(N) STORAGETILE8'(N) GARAGE CONC15'-0" x 20'-8" x 8'(N) SHOP CONC7'-4" x 10'-7" x 8'REMOVE (E) BAY(N) 2668 HC(N) 9070 GARAGE DOOR(E) 4030 HSDBL GLZ(E) 4030 HSDBL GLZ(E) 3010 HSDBL GLZ(E) 2868 SC(E) 2868 SC(E) 2668 HC(E) 2468 HCMIR(E) BATHTILE8'(E) 6040 HSDBL GLZB/I BENCHCONC.STOOPCONC.STOOP(E) STORAGETILE8'(E) STUDIO TILE15'-0" x 20'-8" x 8'UPPERS REFUPPERS(E) KITCHEN TILE7'-4" x 10'-7" x 8'24'-0"22'-0"AREAS:LIVING528SQ. FT.FLOORPLANGAB1/4" = 1'-0"--1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLANWALL LEGEND(E) WALL TO REMAIN(E) WALL TO BE REMOVED(N) 2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C.(N) 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.WHPLAN LEGENDTOILETPAPERDISPENSERTUB SHOWERCOMBOOPTIONALSOAKINGSINKDRYER WASHERWATERHEATER ONPLATFORMTUB ONPLATFORMGLASSSHOWERWATERCLOSETBUILT INMICROWAVEDOUBLESINK W/DISPOSALLAVATORY22 X 30ATTICACCESSCONDENSER ONCONCRETE PADUNDER COUNTERDISHWASHERRANGE W/OVEN & HOODREFRIGERATORELEC.METERMIRRDBLOVENFAUMIRCODOUBLEOVENBUILT-INSHOWERTANK-LESSWATERHEATERWALLMOUNTEDMIRRORFORCED AIRUNIT INATTICWINDOWDOORSLIDING / BI-PASSDOORSBI-FOLD DOORSE.G.) 3068 SCTYPEWIDTH (FT.-IN.)HEIGHT (FT.-IN.)AAWDREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-211/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING STUDIO FLOOR PLANATTACHMENT BPage 114 of 143 AREAS:LOWER FLOOR659SQ. FT.UPPER FLOOR490SQ. FT.TOTAL1149 SQ. FT.DECK60SQ. FT.S&P4068 BI-PASSS&P2668 HCS&P8068 BI-PASS2668 PKT3068 SCUP3050 SHDBL GLZW/DSPLITLINENBEDROOM 1 CAR11'-11" x 9'-8" x 9'BEDROOM 2 CAR11'-9" x 11'-10" x 9'BATH TILE9'ENTRY CAR5'-0" x 13'-4" x 9'27'-0"25'-6"CONC.STOOP21'-0"4'-6"25'-6"27'-0"6'-6"20'-6"HALL CAR9'3068 HC3050 SHDBL GLZ2650 SHDBL GLZ3050 SHDBL GLZ12'-212"5'-0"8'-1"4'-3"3'-912"2'-612"12'-012"2'-912"5'-812"1'-8"9'-012"5'-2"3'-6"9'-3"5'-512"AA-2AA-2LINE OFFLOOR ABOVEBA-2BA-26'-5"14'-7"5'-9"3'-1112"10'-112"LINE OFDECK ABV1031041A-11101061122' MIN.30" MIN.3068 FR (T)CONC.STOOP3068 PKT3068 PKT3068 PKTUPPERS LINENAREAS:LOWER FLOOR659SQ. FT.UPPER FLOOR 490SQ. FT.TOTAL 1149 SQ. FT.DECK 60SQ. FT.DWDNPDR TILE10'3068 SCKITCHEN TILE13'-2" x 9'-6" x 10'A ALIVING TILE17'-7" x 15'-7" x 10'DECK25'-0"23'-6"UPPERS19'-0"18'-6"2650 SHDBL GLZ2650 SHDBL GLZ2650 SHDBL GLZ4050 FXDDBL GLZ7050 FXD W/ VENTSDBL GLZPANTRYUPPERSUPPERS11'-10"11'-3"5'-2"13'-2"4'-3"3'-912"6'-6"5'-6"LINE OF WALL BELOWUPPERSBAR +36"4'-312"AA-2AA-2BA-2BA-23'-312"6'-512"3'-1112"1'-4"LINE OF WALL BELOW2'-0"2'-0"2468 HC18'-012"10'-1112"4'-0"4'-6"1'SLOPETO DRAIN1021051081091A-13'-0"3'-4"106107REFFLOORPLANGAB1/4" = 1'-0"--1/4" = 1'-0"LOWER FLOOR PLANWALL LEGEND(E) WALL TO REMAIN(E) WALL TO BE REMOVED(N) 2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C.(N) 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.WHPLAN LEGENDTOILETPAPERDISPENSERTUB SHOWERCOMBOOPTIONALSOAKINGSINKDRYER WASHERWATERHEATER ONPLATFORMTUB ONPLATFORMGLASSSHOWERWATERCLOSETBUILT INMICROWAVEDOUBLESINK W/DISPOSALLAVATORY22 X 30ATTICACCESSCONDENSER ONCONCRETE PADUNDER COUNTERDISHWASHERRANGE W/OVEN & HOODREFRIGERATORELEC.METERMIRRDBLOVENFAUMIRCODOUBLEOVENBUILT-INSHOWERTANK-LESSWATERHEATERWALLMOUNTEDMIRRORFORCED AIRUNIT INATTICWINDOWDOORSLIDING / BI-PASSDOORSBI-FOLD DOORSE.G.) 3068 SCTYPEWIDTH (FT.-IN.)HEIGHT (FT.-IN.)AAWDREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-211/4" = 1'-0"UPPER FLOOR PLAN1. ALL EXTERIOR HEADERS ABOVE OPENINGS SHALL BE 6 x 10 #1 DFUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INTERIOR HEADER SHALL BE 4 x 8 #2 DFUNLESS NOTED.2. ALL INTERIOR PLUMBING WALLS RECOMMENDED TO BE 2x6 STUDS@16" O.C.3. PROVIDE FIRE STOPS IN CONCEALED SPACES OF STUD WALLSINCLUDING SPACES @ CEILINGS & FLOORS AND IN OPENINGS AROUNDDUCTS, PIPES. CHIMNEYS AND SIMILAR OPENINGS WHICH ALLOWPASSAGE OF FIRE.4. SHOWER AREA WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A SMOOTH NON-ABSORBENT. HARD SURFACE TO A HEIGHT OF 70" ABOVE DRAIN INLET.5. ALL FIREPLACES SHALL HAVE APPROVED COLLAPSIBLE METAL ORGLASS DOORS AND OUTSIDE COMBUSTION AIR. OUTSIDE COMBUSTIONAIR IS NOT REQUIRED ON INTERIOR FIREPLACES INSTALLED OVERCONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE. MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION GUIDETO BE ON-SITE FOR INSPECTION.6. ALL SOLID FUEL BURNING APPLIANCES (STOVES/FIREPLACES) FORWHICH A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED AFTERFEBRUARY 1,1994 MAY BE INSTALLED ONLY IF "EPA" CERTIFIED ASRECOGNIZED BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (COUNTYBOARD OF SUPERVISOR) ACPD 504.7. FLOOR LEVEL CHANGE AT DOORS NOT TO EXCEED 12".8. PROVIDE EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR OR WINDOW FROM SLEEPINGROOMS. NET CLEAR WINDOW OPENING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 5.0SQ. FT. MIN. NET OPENING HEIGHT DIMENSION, 24" CLEAR; MIN. NETOPENING WIDTH DIMENSION, 20" CLEAR FINISHED SILL HEIGHT. MAX. 44"TO THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING.9. OCCUPANCY SEPARATION BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE SHALL BE OF12" GYPSUM BOARD CONSTRUCTION ON THE GARAGE SIDE. CBCA. FIREWALL IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND FROM FLOOR TO ROOFSHEATHING PROVIDED A COMPLETE SEPARATION BETWEEN THEGARAGE AND SFD OR THE CEILING AND ALL BEARING WALLS OFCEILING ARE REQUIRED TO BE COVERED WITH FIRE RATEDDRYWALL.B. WHEN THE CEILING IN THE GARAGE IS REQUIRED TO BE ENTIRELYPROTECTED, THE WALLS, BEAMS OR POSTS SUPPORTING THECEILING ARE TO BE PROTECTED WITH EQUIVALENT FIRERESTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTION. CBCC. IF THE SEPARATION IS A FLOOR-CEILING ASSEMBLY. THE CEILINGAND ALL SUPPORTING ELEMENTS AND POSTS MUST BE FIREPROTECTED AND JACKETED FOR PROTECTION AGAINSTMECHANICAL DAMAGE 704.2.5 AND 6.10. SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS. UNIT SKYLIGHT SHALL BETESTED BY AN APPROVED INDEPENDENT LABORATORY, AND SHALLBEAR A LABEL IDENTIFYING MANUFACTURER, PERFORMANCE GRADERATING, AND APPROVED INSPECTION AGENCY TO INDICATECOMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AAMA/WDMA/CSA101/I.S.2/A440. [§ R308.6.9 CRC]11. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS, GLAZED DOORS, AND GLAZEDDOORS SHALL BE DUAL-GLAZED UNITS WITH A MINIMUM OF ONETEMPERED PANE OR SHALL BE GLOSS BLOCK UNITS OR SHALL HAVEA FIRE-RESTRICTIVE RATING NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. GLAZINGFRAMES MADE OF VINYL SHALL HAVE WELDED CORNERS AND METALREINFORCEMENT IN THE INTERLOCK AREA.12. EXTERIOR DOORS AND EXTERIOR GLAZING SHALL COMPLY WITH CITYOF SAN LUIS OBISPO FIRE REQUIREMENTS.13. WHERE WOOD STRUCTURE MEMBERS SUPPORT A MOISTUREPERMEABLE DECK/BALCONY AND ARE PROTECTED BY A MOISTUREBARRIER SYSTEM, THE STRUCTURE SHALL PROVIDE DRAINAGE OFWATER THAT INFILTRATES THE MOISTURE PERMEABLE FLOORTOPPING. [§ 2304.12.2.5 CBC]14. WHERE BALCONY/DECK IS EXPOSED TO WATER AND STRUCTURALFRAMING IS PROTECTED BY A MOISTURE BARRIER, ALL ELEMENTSSHALL NOT BE CONCEALED UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED. [§110.3.8.1 CBC]FLOOR PLANKEYNOTES101 NOT USED102 42" HIGH STAINLESS RAIL SYSTEM W 4 X 4 WOOD POSTS @ 4'O.C. MAX103 VENT DRYER TO EXTERIOR, THROUGH ROOF IF NECESSARY104 TANK-LESS WATER HEATER, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURESSPECS.105 22" x 30" ATTIC ACCESS106 MINI-SPLIT UNIT, INSTALL PER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS107 NOT USED108 BUILT-IN CABINETS PER OWNER109 BAR COUNTER +36"110 HANDGRIP PER DETAIL111 TANK-LESS WATER HEATER, INSTALL PER MANIF.SPECIFICATIONS112 200 AMP ELECTRICAL PANEL113 PLUMB FOR SOFT WATER LOOP1WALL-MOUNT HANDRAIL112" O.D. PIPEHANDRAIL112" CLEAR.FINISH FACE OF WALL (WHEREOCCURS)212"112" O.D. HANDRAILPLATE ATTACHED TO WALL, &BLOCKING (WHERE OCCURS)112" O.D. HANDRAILPLATE ANCHORED INTO WALL34" MIN TO 38" MAXABV NOSINGSTAIRWAY NOTESNOTES:- USABLE SPACE UNDER STAIRS SHALL HAVE WALLS &SOFFITS (ON THE ENCLOSED SIDE) PROTECTED AS REQUIRED FOR 1 HOUR FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION. 2019 C.R.C.- STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF 36".RISE & RUN (SECTION I009.3)- THE LARGEST TREAD RUN WITHIN ANY FLIGHT OF STAIRSSHALL NOT EXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".- THE GREATEST RISER HEIGHT WITHIN ANY FLIGHT OF STAIRSSHALL NOT EXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".- PRIVATE STAIRWAYS SERVING AN OCCUPANT LOAD OFLESS THAN 10 MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AN 7.75"MAXIMUM RISE AND 10" MINIMUM RUN,HANDRAILS (SECTION 1009.10)- STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 1 HANDRAIL ANDHANDRAILS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON OPEN SIDES OFSTAIRWAYS.- THE TOP OF HANDRAILS BE PLACED NOT LESS THAN 34" OR MORE THAN 38" ABOVE THE NOSING OF TREADS. THEY SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STAIR. ENDS SHALL BE RETURNED OR SHALL TERMINATE IN NEWEL POSTS OR SAFETY TERMINALS.- HANDRAILS PROJECTING FROM A WALL SHALL HAVE ASPACE OF NOT LESS THAN 1-1/2" BETWEEN THE WALL ANDTHE HANDRAIL.- THE HANDGRIP PORTION OF HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BELESS THAN 1 ¼" OR MORE THAN 2" IN CROSS-SECTIONALDIMENSION OR THE SHAPE SHALL PROVIDE AN EQUIVILENTGRIPPING SURFACE. THE HANDGRIP PORTION SHALL HAVEA SMOOTH SURFACE WITH NO SHARP CORNERS.GUARDRAILSA. SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG OPEN-SIDED WALKINGSURFACES, INCLUDING STAIRS, RAMPS, AND LANDINGS,THAT ARE LOCATED MORE THAN 30" ABOVE THE FLOOROR GRADE BELOW AT ANY POINT WITHIN 36"HORIZONTALLY TO THE EDGE OF THE OPEN SIDE.B. SHALL HAVE A HEIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 42" MEASUREDVERTICALLY ABOVE THE WALKING SURFACE,ADJACENT FIXED SEATING, OR THE LINE CONNECTING THELEADING EDGES OF THE TREADS. GUARDS LOCATED ONTHE OPEN SIDE OF STAIRS MAY HAVE A HEIGHT NOT LESSTHAN 34".C. SHALL BE DETAILED SHOWING ADEQUACY OFCONNECTIONS TO RESIST THE LIVE LOADS PRESCRIBED INCRC TABLE R301.5D. OPENINGS BETWEEN RAILINGS SHALL BE LESS THAN 4". THETRIANGULAR OPENINGS FORMED BY THE RISER, TREADAND BOTTOM ELEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL AT A STAIRSHALL BE LESS THAN 6". GUARDS ON THE OPEN SIDES OFSTAIRS SHALL HAVE OPENINGS LESS THAN 4-3/8".1111ATTACHMENT BPage 115 of 143 6'-8"9'-1"FIN. FLR = 277.4'BOT OF HDRTOP PLATE6'-8"10'-1"FIN. FLRBOT OF HDRTOP PLATE4D-45D-43D-431351231027'-212"BUILDING HEIGHTAVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'2A-2TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR = 277.4'9'-1"6'-8"TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR10'-1"6'-8"3085121A-2TYP.27'-212"AVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'BUILDING HEIGHTLIVING6'-8"10'-1"FIN. FLRBOT OF HDRTOP PLATE6'-8"9'-1"FIN. FLR = 277.4'BOT OF HDRTOP PLATE30130230330430530951227'-212"BUILDING HEIGHTAVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR10'-1"6'-8"TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR = 277.4'9'-1"6'-8"31231151227'-212"AVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'BUILDING HEIGHTELEVATIONSGB1/4" = 1'-0"ELEVATION NOTESKEYNOTESREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-21RIGHT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"FRONT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"REAR ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"LEFT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"1. GLASS SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED ANDCOMPLY WITH CBC.2. ALL ROOFING MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 'A", ANDSHALL BE ICBO APPROVED.3. ROOF VALLEY FLASHING SHALL BE PROVIDED OFNOT LESS THAN 26 GALV. SHEET CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL AND SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST18" FROM THE CENTER LINE EACH WAY. SECTIONSOF FLASHING SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 24" FROMTHE CENTERLINE EACH WAY. SECTIONS OFFLASHING SHALL HAVE AN END LAP OF NOT LESSTHAN 4". ALTERNATIVELY, THE VALLEY SHALLCONSIST OF WOVEN ASPHALT SHINGLES APPLIEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'SPRINTED INSTRUCTIONS4. ATTIC INSULATION SHALL BE CONFINED SO AS NOTTO BLOCK EAVE OR CORNICE (ONE INCH MIN.CLEARANCE REQUIRED)5. ATTIC VENTS ARE TO BE PROTECTED WITHCORROSION-RESISTANT WIRE CLOTH SCREENING,HARWARE CLOTH, OR SIMILAR MATERIAL WITHOPENINGS HAVING A LEAST DIMENSION OF MINIMUM116" AND MAXIMUM 14". PER CRC R806.1ROOF GUTTER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER [§ R327.5.4]6. FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION IN ATTIC AREA (ATLEAST ONE HEAD) EMBER-RESISTANT VENTSYSTEMS FOR ATTIC AND UNDER7. WHERE THE ROOF PROFILE ALLOWS A SPACEBETWEEN THE ROOF COVERING AND THE ROOFDECKING, THE SPACES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTEDTO PREVENT THE INTRUSION OF FLAMES ANDEMBERS, BE FIRESTOPPED WITH APPROVEDMATERIALS OR HAVE ONE LAYER OF 72 POUNDMINERAL-SURFACE NONPERFORATED CAP SHEETCOMPLYING WITH ASTM D3909 INSTALLED OVERTHE COMBUSTIBLE DECKINGLIVING AND PORCH ATTIC VENTILATION REQUIREDROOF SQ. FT. =490/150 PER CRC R806.23.27000 SQUARE FT. X 144 SQ.IN.470.9 SQ. IN. FREE AREA REQ'DGABLE VENTSAT102 SQ. IN. 6" PIPESROOF VENTSAT105 SQ. IN.VENTILATION2 GABLE VENTS @ 102 SQ. INCHES = 204 SQ. INCHES3 ROOF VENTS @ 105 SQ. INCHES = 315 SQ. INCHES519SQ. INCHES PROVIDED* GABLE VENTS TO BE APPROVED "VULCAN VENT" MODEL VG1424FF* ROOF VENTS TO BE APPROVED "VULCAN VENT" MODEL VSB1212301 42" HIGH STAINLESS STEEL RAILING W/ 4 X 4PICKETS @ 4' O. C.302 ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION ROOF PEROWNER O/ 15# FELT-ELK "SIENNA SUNSET"303 2 X 4 HARDIE-TRIM @ ALL CORNERS ANDWINDOWS & DOORS-SHERWIN WILLIAMS "FAIRFAXBROWN"304 2 x 6 HEM FIR FASCIA-SHERWIN WILLIAMS"DOWNING SAND"305 HORIZONTAL HARDIE-BOARD SIDING PEROWNER O/ APPROVED BUILDINGPAPER-SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SHERATON SAGE"306 6 X 6 WOOD POST (TYPICAL)307 WATERPROOF DECK SURFACE "MIRA FELX II"OR EQUIVALENT, SLOPE TO DRAIN308 PROVIDE FLASHING @ ROOF-TO-WALLCONNECTION309 ROOF VENTS PER ATTIC VENT CALCS310 PROVIDE 'FIRE-RATED' APPROVED CONTINUOUSSOFFIT VENT @ UNDERSIDE OF ENCLOSEDFRAMING311 PROVIDE ALUMINUM GUTTERS ANDDOWNSPOUTS312 HARDIE-SOFFIT ON ALL EXPOSED EVES313 SOLAR PANEL LOCATION, DO NOT PENETRATEROOFATTIC VENT CALS11ATTACHMENT BPage 116 of 143 1 1264 Palm Street Evaluation of the 1983 Contributing Listing Certificate of Appropriateness of New Construction Summary Conclusion The proposal to replace a 1940s stucco accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with a new unit to house the property owner’s relative/caregiver presents three questions for the CHC: I. Following the 1983 Historic Resources Survey, was the property’s Contributing Listing of the primary dwelling, the 1910 McHenry House, or were the 1940s stucco ADU and 1950s concrete block garage (now an ADU) included in the property’s Contributing Listing? II. If the ADUs were included, do they currently qualify for Contributing Listing, or should they be removed from the list? III. If the stucco ADU and concrete garage/ADU are not historic, does the proposed new structure adhere to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation in terms of its compatibility and differentiation from the primary dwelling unit, the Contributing Listed McHenry House? The evidence of this report concludes that the 1940s stucco ADU and 1950s garage did not qualify for, were not processed for, and were not included in the list; that they do not currently qualify for historic listing; and that the proposed dwelling unit meets Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation both in the abstract and how the standards have been applied by the CHC and City Council in the Mill Street Historic District. Contents Summary Conclusion 1 I. 1264 Palm Street Structures A. 1910 Patrick & Catherine McHenry House 2 B. 1940s Stucco ADU 6 C. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU 11 II. Historic Resource Listing Qualifications, Historic Preservation Ordinance A. 1940s Stucco ADU 13 B. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU 13 III. Certificate of Appropriateness: Adherence to Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit 15 Conclusion 18 Submitted on behalf of Richard Diel, 1264 Palm Street, by James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian, Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards 7 June 2022 ATTACHMENT C Page 117 of 143 2 I.1264 Palm Street Structures | A. 1910 Patrick & Catherine McHenry House In 1910 James M. Akin built this house to a pattern from a source unknown for Irish-born rancher and hotelier Patrick McHenry and his wife Catherine. It embodies the character- defining features of what Virginia McAlester characterizes as asymmetric Colonial Revival, I characterize as Streamline Colonial; is associated with a historically significant builder; and possesses high artistic values. The most sophisticated example of Colonial Revival in the Mill Street Historic District and of Akin’s extant houses, it is nearly identical to the Old Town Historic District’s Master Listed Frank Anderson House and then–Contributing Listed, subsequently Master Listed Leonard Hill House, with far better integrity than the latter. It is clear why it attracted the windshield survey’s attention in 1983. The Daily Telegram described Akin in 1908 as “the well-known contractor and builder.”1 He had become well known as the contractor in 1907–1908 of the new Baptist Church at Pacific and Osos to a design by Los Angeles architect C. M. Brown, based on the twelfth century Eglise Saint-Hilaire de Melle in France (photo at right by Ian Young). This edifice was to become the last great wood building in San Luis Obispo: a tour de force of what would be called Carpenter Romanesque—if the Romanesque Revival style had lent itself to carpentry. The association of the Gothic with nineteenth- century religion and the technical difficulty of bending lumber to form Romanesque arches (the Baptist Church window arches require five to six boards compared to the Gothic windows’ two) resulted in few such churches in North America. 1.“Notable Event,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 26 Nov 1907; “New Baptist Church,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 5 Feb. 1908. ATTACHMENT C Page 118 of 143 3 Most of those are Catholic churches clustered in Canada, possibly using the Romanesque in attempt to distinguish themselves from the explicit Gothic aesthetic of Anglican colonial evangelism, and not adopting the heavier Richardsonian Romanesque that in the United States expressed itself through stone and brick. Examples of wood Romanesque are the Eglise Ste-Marie, Church Point [1903] and Eglise Saint-Alphonse-de-Liguori [1921], Mavilette in Nova Scotia; Eglise Saint-Georges [1929], Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie and Eglise Saint-François-Xavier [1939], Bassin in Quebec; and St. Alphonse Catholic Church, Manitoba [1886–1930]). James Akin received additional press in January 1910 for being elected a trustee of the local Carpenters’ and Joiners’ of America Union and in April of the same year for innovatively moving a house in San Luis Obispo with a traction engine.2 More practically, he must also have built a reputation for artfully designed Colonial Revival cottages that often hybridized some Craftsman elements. Extant examples include the Contributing List 1190 Buchon Street (1907) and 1053 Islay (1909), as well as the unlisted 1216 Buchon (1909), all of which expertly employed asymmetry in their façades and the first of which experimented with an angular wraparound portico—counterpoised to a bay window—that would become more independently and elegantly expressed on the McHenry House. Akin and Thurlow’s 1190 Buchon, the William Rouse House (1907), with bay window and pediment counterpoised to a angular wraparound porch J. M. Akin’s 1053 Islay, the J. B. Redew House (1909), counterposing a very slightly pushed out bay with a flat triplet window and pediment, a Japonesque arch between J. M. Akin seems to have had a sufficiently lucrative business to keep himself in the public eye through years of daily newspaper advertising. The partnership of James Akin and Leonard Thurlow ran display ads daily in the morning Tribune from January through October 1907. After the dissolution of that partnership, Akin ran near-daily display ads in the Telegram from 1 April 1908 to 28 December 1910 and in the morning Tribune from 5 June 1910 to 28 May 1911, as well as weekly ads in the weekly Tribune from 27 January to 20 June 1911. 2.“Carpenters and Joiners Hold Banquet,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 8 Jan. 1910; “Moving With Traction Engine,” weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune, 26 Apr. 1910. ATTACHMENT C Page 119 of 143 4 Akin’s ads in the Telegram in 1908 (left) made it clear that he provided not just construction but plans: rare documentation of a builder-architect in San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune announcement of 7 September 1910, the McHenry House (above) The Patrick and Catherine McHenry House is documented in the San Luis Obispo Building Permit Collection at Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives with an application date of 15 August 1910, with Akin as the petitioner and contractor, and also in an announcement in the morning Tribune on 7 September 1910. The anticipated cost was $2,200 according to the application and $2,000 according to the Tribune. McHenry’s choice of Akin to build the house is significant, for about the same time (permit application 3 September 1910) McHenry was employing John Chapek to add a third floor to his Commercial Hotel (on Monterey Street where the Fremont Theater is now). Chapek was a skilled builder-architect of suburban houses and had been the carpenter on this same model (built in reverse) for Leonard Hill in 1905. Patrick and Catherine McHenry were living at the Commercial Hotel (1910 US Census) until their own house was built. The McHenrys sold the house to the merchant P. L. Maggetti after five years, simultaneously trading the Commercial Hotel for “a valuable prune orchard” in San Jose and moving to the latter locale.3 Neither the McHenrys, who briefly inhabited the house, nor the Maggettis, who owned it for decades, are significant to the history of San Luis. Akin developed a number of lots, but his construction business dwindled in the late teens. The era of virtuoso carpentry was being diminished by the Minimal Traditional (which favored brick and stucco), along with concerns about fire safety. On 12 November 1920, the Tribune announced that Akin and family had sold their house at 1555 Higuera Street and were moving to Morgan Hill. Akin by then was about 65, and he would spend at least another twenty years as a fruit farmer, according to the 1930 and 1940 censuses. In San Luis Obispo, he left behind landmarks significant for their artful design and execution. 1983 Survey and Contributing Listing Priscilla Graham,4 who surveyed the lot in 1983, perceived the significance of 1264 and did a thorough job completing the Architectural Report, answering seventeen out of twenty-four questions; recording design, materials, and integrity; and including thirteen lines of narrative on physical appearance. What I will refer to as Streamline Colonial is a style innovated by McKim, Mead, and White in the 1883–1884 Alice and Julia Appleton House (Lenox, MA) and 1885–1886 H. A. C. 3.“Buys McHenry Home,” morning San Luis Obispo Tribune, 30 July 1915. 4.Priscilla Mann Graham (Mrs. Myron Graham), MLS, 1915–2012; reference librarian at Cal Poly’s Robert Kennedy Library. ATTACHMENT C Page 120 of 143 5 Taylor House (Newport, RI), after the firm had been designing Colonial Revival in Shingle style for about five years. The Appleton and Taylor Houses substituted clapboard for shingle, thus adding a linearity to the minimalism, planarity, and curvilinearity of Shingle Colonials. Virginia and Lee McAlesters’ A Field Guide to American Houses distinguishes separate asymmetric modernizing and symmetrical traditionalizing trends, but in reality these are indistinguishable as the style is adopted and adapted for suburban bungalows in the 1890s and 1900s. The term Streamline Colonial better distinguishes the 1890–1910 suburban style from later Colonial Revivalisms with alternative aesthetics. In short, 1264 Palm Street is the most sophisticated and best preserved exemplar of Streamline Colonial in the Mill Street Historic District. Flanking Tuscan entry columns; elegantly curving wraparound portico of four additional columns, enclosed balustrade, and separate cornice; muscular bay window offering counterpoint to the portico; plain and recessed frieze topped by a roof cornice; and central hip and corniced dormer on the hip and corniced roof—all noted by Graham—combine for an imposing effect that is nonetheless streamlined of the Queen Anne elements in transitional buildings like its near neighbor, the busy 1889 Righetti House (e.g., with non-classical jerkinhead gables and double columns, below left) and the staidness and awkward cramming of Colonial reference in William H. Week’s 1902 Crocker House (below right, both in 1904 photographs from the Fire Department’s Souvenir of San Luis Obispo). As the district’s primary Streamline Colonial, with the added historic association builder- architect James Akin and excellent integrity in all seven aspects—the McHenry House is clearly qualified for Master Listing, which the owner intends to pursue. Triplets: Master List Leonard Hill House (1144 Buchon) and Frank Anderson House (1345 Broad) and Contributing List Patrick and Catherine McHenry House ATTACHMENT C Page 121 of 143 6 I. 1264 Palm Street Structures | B. 1940s Stucco ADU The stucco ADU behind the Greek Revival 1248 Palm and Streamline Colonial 1264 Palm In contrast to the McHenry House, the 1940s stucco ADU was not qualified for the Contributing List in 1983 due to insufficient age; not surveyed to the established criteria; does not resemble in sophistication or articulation Mission Revival houses that were definitively added to the Contributing List 1983; and resembles box-type structures that were excluded from the list. A separate 1264½ address for the ADU sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t show up on Contributing List documentation of the 1983–1987 era, resulting in confusion over whether it was Contributing Listed or simply on the same lot. Age No permit or newspaper documentation of this 20 x 22’ building exists,5 but we can ascertain construction between 1 Feb. 1937 (when it is absent from the US Army aerial photo below left) and 16 June 1941 (when it appears in the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph aerial photo below right, as a small dark rectangle upper left). (Palm Street runs along the bottom of the photos, Johnson top to bottom at center. 1264 is far left.) 5. Permits issued to P. L. Maggetti in 1917 for part lot 6, block 38 match the house and garage at 1270 Palm Street; a 1936 permit for a 10 x 20’ galvanized iron structure ominously referred to as “residence, wood shed” matches the dimensions of a building behind and perpendicular to the McHenry House that was demolished in the late 1960s. ATTACHMENT C Page 122 of 143 7 This puts the stucco ADU between 42 and 46 years old when Graham surveyed it, below the minimum 50-year standard for historic listing—unless “it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance” (Historic Preservation Ordinance 14.01.070). There was no such demonstration in this case. Historic Resources Survey In the Architectural Worksheet, designed for a single structure, Graham filled in the addresses for 1264 (the McHenry House) and 1264½ (the stucco ADU) but the data only for 1264—until the final two questions, 23 and 24 at the bottom of the second page, on “architectural style(s)” and “present physical appearance of the structure.” There she noted briefly (in four lines to 1264’s thirteen) that the secondary unit was a Mission Revival stucco house with a flat roof, “espanalade” (faux espadaña?), tile shelf above the door, and windows with 6/1 and 4/1 lights. Unlike with 1264, she included no discussion of integrity. The 1940s Stucco ADU compared with Contributing List Mission Revival in the Mill Street Historic District Four street-front Mission Revival buildings without ADUs or garages were definitively added to the Contributing List in the Mill Street Historic District on 16 August 1983. These include • 1367 Mill (built by C. O. Dyer for E. H. Abrams, 1924) • 862 and 872 Toro (built by H. B. Rogers for L. C. and Julia Bell in 1925) • 778 Toro (builder unknown, extant by the 1926 Sanborn map) 1367 Mill, front and Pepper Street façades 778 Toro 862 and 872 Toro, 1964. Photo: Jean Martin. ATTACHMENT C Page 123 of 143 8 Each of these is a complex articulation of Mission Revival structural form with post–World War I Art Deco and Pueblo Revival influences, expressed in porticos, columns, and arches evoking the mission corredor; interplay between the shaped parapets of the central block and those of the extensions; extensive detail such as molded stucco coping and low-pitched tile canopies; and carefully designed layout. 1367 Mill has a broad entry porch two-fifths the width of the house with a square frontal arch rounded at the corners and echoing side arches. 778, 862, and 872 Toro all have near- full-width front porticos. 862 and 872 have four square columns and central entries, and 778 has three columns and an asymmetric entry. The front facades of 862 and 872 originally had faux espadaña centers and tourelle corners squared off as simple rectangular protrusions, echoed by tourelle corner projections on their porticos. (Unfortunately, recent “restoration” has removed the espadaña projections on each and added stepped tourelle corners on the main structure of 872.) 778 has stepped espadaña and tourelle projections echoed in the front and right balustrades of the portico, though the portico cornice is flat. 1367 does not have an espadaña projection, but its tourelle corner projections are sufficiently complex without it, given that a single parapet follows the main block, porch projection on the Mill Street façade, and French window recess on the Pepper Street façade. All four buildings have molded stucco coping on the parapets of the main structures and porch and porticos. This is consistent with Mission Revival aesthetics from the beginning, in Page Brown, A. C. Schweinfurth, and Bernard Maybeck’s California Pavilion at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. Another consistent Mission Revival character-defining feature was low-pitched tile roofs. Since these are all flat-roofed buildings, 1367 Mill employs a wraparound three-tile-deep canopy above its entry porch and front windows, with an additional one in the French window recess. 862 Toro does (and 872 Toro did) employ wraparound two-tile-deep canopies on their front porticoes, and only 778 innovatively uses no tile at all. The symmetry of 1367 Mill and 862 and 872 Toro is achieved with matching flanking windows, the asymmetry of 778 Toro with a tripartite window in counterpoint to the doorway. These were all primary, street-facing buildings. It would be possible to argue that the stucco ADU at 1264 Palm embodies a later era of Mission Revival. For instance, E. D. Bray’s 1929 Righetti Apartments (below), placed on the Master List in 1983, have tile instead of molded stucco parapet coping, as well as tile shelf projections above entryways. ATTACHMENT C Page 124 of 143 9 Above: Righetti apartments, rear façade, corredor effect of the garages. Above right: Contributing List 1347 Palm (ca. 1927– 1937); below right: carved cantilevers at 1347 rear, probably originally unpainted The coping tiles, however, are perpendicular to the walls, imitating a roof edge, and the projections are aesthetically and practically substantial (three tiles deep) and supported by carved wood knee brackets. Bray also uses a square arch with rounded corners and flanking round arches, all topped by a low-pitched tile roof with projecting beam ends, as the entry to frame his courtyard. He employs further flanking arched window insets and tile shelf projections above windows on the Palm Street façade; low-pitched tile roofs on the height changes as the complex descends the hill; and a line of seven segmental arches for garages and a central entry on the rear façade, which fulfill the aesthetic of the corredor even in a modern, utilitarian, and economical context. It is an aesthetically sophisticated arrangement for lower-income housing, as is the duplex at 1347 Palm, dating about the same time as the Righetti Apartments (both built after the 1927 Frank Aston panorama from Terrace Hill in the Bennett-Loomis Archives). 1347 was added to the Contributing List only in 1987. With neither tile nor molded stucco parapet coping, it nonetheless uses minimal tourelles, natural wood garage doors with inset beams above, flanking side entry porches supported by three round arches each, and carved wood cantilevers at the garden level at back to articulate both Mission Revival and Modernism. The stucco ADU at 1264 is, in contrast, a box with no extensions of arches or columns, no use of these forms on the box itself, no reference to Mission-era craft beyond parallel coping tiles and an aesthetically and practically ill-designed entry shelf, and no reference to Mission forms beyond espadaña and tourelle projections on the box’s parapet. Windows mismatched in both size and design on either side of the central entry leave it ambiguous whether the intent is symmetry or asymmetry. The anachronistic windows, with muntins above larger plates, appear recycled from an earlier building of the teens or twenties, in contrast to the streamlined windows of the Righetti Apartments and 1347 duplex. Comparable to the ADU at 1264 are the flat-roof, parapet buildings at 1351 Peach (circa 1937–1941), with entry canopy and tapering chimney that hint at Mission, and 1208 Peach ATTACHMENT C Page 125 of 143 10 (1927, originally a corner grocery), with parallel tile coping. Both, like the ADU behind the McHenry House, were utilitarian boxes with perfunctory Mission Revival reference and façades whose window and door arrangement follows no aesthetic logic. Though street- adjacent primary dwellings, neither was placed on the Contributing List in 1983 or since. 1940s stucco ADU, 1264 Palm Street Unlisted 1208 Peach before changes in 2012 Unlisted 1351 Peach 1208 after changes Mission Revival buildings in the Mill Street Historic District more sophisticated and of provenance more distinguished than 1264’s stucco box—such as 1269 Peach (E. D. Bray, 1923) and 1306 Peach (W. J. Smith, 1922)—were also left off the Contributing List. Unlisted 1306 Peach (W. J. Smith, 1922) Unlisted 1296 Peach (E. D. Bray, 1923) ATTACHMENT C Page 126 of 143 11 I. 1264 Palm Street Structures | C. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU Age The concrete block ADU appears to have been built between 1956 and 1959 and possibly expanded by 1969, according to the Sanborn map and aerial photographs, so would have been about 25 years old during the survey and, like the stucco ADU, unqualified for listing in terms of age. It was altered from a garage to ADU. 1956 Sanborn map 29 June 1969, USDA 6 November 1959, Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys Current Google satellite ATTACHMENT C Page 127 of 143 12 Survey Priscilla Graham did not reference the building on her Architectural Worksheet, whether because it was not visible behind the McHenry House (it is not clear whether she entered the property), it seemed to her of newer or insignificant design, or it was not being used as a habitable building. ATTACHMENT C Page 128 of 143 13 II. Historic Resource Listing Qualifications, Historic Preservation Ordinance A. 1940s Stucco ADU Despite having now reached the qualifying age of fifty years, the stucco ADU has no association with events of historic significance or persons of historic significance recorded in contemporary newspapers or directories (Historic Preservation Ordinance 14.01.070.B). The earliest record of occupancy in city directories is in the 1960s (it may have been used within the Maggetti family before then). Its occupants were a quickly changing array of students, single women retirees, one hospital nurse, and a film director at KSBY, none historically significant and none staying long enough to establish association. The absence of a building permit in historic files leaves builder and architect unknown; it does not appear to be the work of a master (14.01.070.A). The stud and stucco construction was widespread and was not used here in any notable, “embodying” way. The economical box form was also widespread and is undistinguished. Though modest cottages can possess ambitious style, this is not one these. No use of intermediate outdoor spaces, richness of detailing, or thoughtfulness of form suggests embodiment of the Mission Revival as it was practiced during its engagement with Streamline Moderne and Mid- Century Modern in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g., in Union Station, Los Angeles). The windows are anachronistic to the era and clumsily sized and placed. The Mission references are cursory. Had Neoclassical pediments or Swiss knee braces applied to this box instead of an espadaña, it would no more have embodied those styles than it embodies Mission Revival. Of the seven aspects of integrity, location may be original; without a permit, we can’t know if the structure was moved from elsewhere, but it seems unlikely. Setting appears original (apart from the addition of the concrete block garage/ADU in the 1950s and new garage to the west). Design, materials, and workmanship appear original except for a new front door and doorframe since 1983 (their slight off-centering adding to the challenged symmetry of the façade). The window awnings were present in 1983, but their structure suggests they were added once it was perceived sun would be a problem, with oversized windows in an undersized building. Feeling seems compromised by the concreting of the backyard. Association is not relevant. Ultimately, however, the stucco ADU has no historic or architectural significance for its integrity to communicate. B. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU Despite now having reached the qualifying age of fifty years, there is no historic association for the concrete garage/ADU in contemporary documentation. The flat-roof, block construction is unexceptional and not sophisticated enough in its use of the material to achieve embodiment. The peaked canopy over the faux farmhouse door, with shaped beam ends supported by knee braces, and the half-octagon bay window with a shed roof—all added when the garage was converted to an ADU within the last twenty years (oral account of owner Richard Diel)—recall the Swiss Revival of the Madonna Inn. But as with the stucco ADU, perfunctory architectural references, particularly anachronistic ones, do not result in embodiment and in this case impact integrity. The concrete block structure is without high artistic values or documentation of being the work of a master. ATTACHMENT C Page 129 of 143 14 The structure appears to have integrity of location and setting; it seems highly unlikely to have been moved from elsewhere. The design, materials, and workmanship have been dramatically altered in the façade. Association is not relevant. Feeling, given its conversion from garage to ADU without clear reference to its past function, appears compromised. In short, the structure is not historically or architecturally significant and would not have the integrity to communicate any significance. ATTACHMENT C Page 130 of 143 15 III. Certificate of Appropriateness: Adherence to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit As a secondary dwelling unit separate from the McHenry House, this project falls under Nos. 9 and 10 of the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Proposed project The proposed ADU at 1264 Palm Street consists of a two-story peaked-roof, side-gabled building approximately 19 feet to top plate and 24 feet to ridgeline, with a footprint of approximately 26 x 27 feet. It would replace a one-story, flat- roof, parapeted building with a footprint of approximately 24 x 18 feet (1260 Palm). The new ADU would be directly behind the Contributing List Patrick and Catherine McHenry House (1264 Palm), placed at a distance of about 45 feet and separated from it by an extant one-story, flat-roof ADU of approximately 23 x 23 feet. Adjacent structures The concrete block ADU/garage built between 1956 and 1959 has no record of historically significant occupants or events or of builder or architect and does not embody any type, period, or method of construction. The primary dwelling was built in 1910 by significant local carpenter and contractor James M. Akin for Patrick and Catherine McHenry, local ranchers and San Luis Obispo hoteliers. The McHenry House is Akin’s finest surviving domestic building and was likely constructed to a pattern, as it is nearly identical to the John Chapek–built Leonard Hill House (1144 Buchon, 1905) and the Frank Anderson House (1345 Broad, by an unknown builder, circa 1910), which are both in the Old Town Historic District and both on the Master List, though the Hill House has significant loss of integrity compared to the largely pristine McHenry and Anderson Houses. Impact on the McHenry House The proposed ADU would be governed by Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation No. 9: “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” The proposed ADU would not destroy historic materials or features of the McHenry House. It would be placed to the right of the current garage and behind the 1950s ADU, as the current circa 1940 ADU is, but with roughly two-thirds larger footprint and a second story. Given that the proposed ADU would be some fifty feet away from the McHenry House, with an extant building that interposes between the historic resource and three-fifths of the new building’s façade, the impact on spatial relationship would be minimal. The narrow siding of the proposed ADU would be compatible with the novelty siding of the McHenry House, but its side gable, modern fenestration, and angular balcony deck would differentiate it from the hip roof McHenry House with its character-defining curved portico. Notably, because the proposed ADU would be placed entirely behind the width of the McHenry House, and the McHenry House is on a rise above the street, the proposed ADU would be largely invisible from the street, except for being partially visible when observed ATTACHMENT C Page 131 of 143 16 at an angle through the driveway. An intervening garage would substantially obscure it from Johnson Avenue. Despite the McHenry House being a one-story building, its substantial width and depth, below-floor space, and early-century height create a volume that would dwarf the volume of the proposed ADU by more than two to one. Nearby historic buildings comprise the two-story Greek Revival apartment house at 1248 Palm, one-story California Bungalow at 1270 Palm, one- and two-story Streamline Moderne apartment buildings at 1259 and 1269 Palm, two-story Prairie Box-like house at 1265 Mill and one-story Craftsman and Colonial bungalows at 1261 and 1253 Mill, monumental one- and-a-half-story transitional Colonial Righetti House, and the one- to two-story Mission revival Righetti Apartments. In other words, the adjacent Mill Street Historic District is highly eclectic in not only style but height and volume, making the proposed ADU compatible in size, scale and proportion, and massing not only with the immediate historic resource, the McHenry House, but surrounding ones. Mill Street Historic District precedence Local precedence is a useful lens through which to view SOI Standards and an important value for advisory bodies, so that applicants can reasonably plan and prepare for outcomes. Notably, secondary dwelling units approved by the CHC in the Mill Street Historic District in the past few years include 1137 Peach Street (June 2022 hearing), where four two-story houses were proposed behind four historic bungalows. Through input from neighbors and the architect, the CHC resolved that the size, scale and proportion, and massing of the new units was compatible with the old but their relative monotony in an eclectic historic district was not compatible, and a CHC subcommittee was formed with the architect to provide greater stylistic variation. On a flat part of the district, visible from the side, and with a cumulative impact, these units will be, when built, more impactful than the single unit behind 1264. ATTACHMENT C Page 132 of 143 17 In June 2019 the CHC approved a three-story SDU behind the one-story Contributing List bungalow at 1355 Palm Street. Although highly visible from Monterey Street, it is not very visible from Palm Street, so despite its size, scale, and proportion, its massing down the hill was judged to make it compatible with the historic house and the streetscape of the Mill Street Historic District. Secondary dwelling unit behind 1355 Palm as seen from Monterey Street. Secondary dwelling unit behind 1355 Palm as seen from Palm Street. Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation No. 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.” The new ADU is related but not adjacent to the McHenry House, separated from it by forty- five feet an extant building that interposes between three-fifths of the new ADU’s width and the McHenry House. The new ADU will have no physical impact on the form and integrity of the McHenry House if removed in the future. ATTACHMENT C Page 133 of 143 18 Conclusion The 1983 Historic Resources Survey deserves to be honored as the greatest accomplishment of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo. The Contributing List has inherited structural problems from the survey, however, including that it was based on windshield or reconnaissance surveys without DPR523s to provide documentation, that surveyors had minimal training and in most cases no professional background, and that there was no differentiation between contributing and non-contributing—that is, historic and non-historic—resources within each Master List or Contributing List property. The 1910 Patrick and Catherine McHenry House at 1264 Palm was qualified by age to be added to the Contributing List in 1983; received a complete windshield survey, including evaluation of integrity; and was clearly comparable to other Contributing List resources in its embodiment of the Colonial Revival style. But the 1940s stucco ADU and 1950s concrete block garage/ADU behind the McHenry House were not qualified by age for the Contributing List in 1983. The concrete structure was not surveyed, and the stucco structure received cursory answers to three of twenty- four questions on the McHenry House’s form, with no treatment of integrity. The stucco structure was clearly comparable to box structures excluded from the Contributing List and not comparable to well articulated structures added to the Contributing List. It does not seem plausible that either the 1940s stucco structure or 1950s concrete structure was considered part of the McHenry House’s Contributing Listing, and conflicting records cast no light. Neither structure is currently qualified as a Contributing List resource for association with historic persons or events, being work of artistic merit or of a master architects, or embodying a type, period, region, or method of construction. The resource on the property significant to National Register Criteria, James Akin’s McHenry House, has been carefully preserved and restored by the owner to Secretary of the Interior Standards for Preservation and Restoration. The proposed secondary dwelling unit has been designed and independently vetted with great care for adherence to Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. It is absolutely crucial in historic preservation to focus protection on resources that meet National Register Criteria for significance and the integrity to communicate their significance, and to protect them with the Secretary of the Interior Standards on Preservation, Restoration, and Rehabilitation. ATTACHMENT C Page 134 of 143 47 5.2.4 Mill Street Historic District Setting Established in 1987, the Mill Street Historic District is a residential neighborhood bounded by Pepper and Toro Streets on the east and west, and Peach and Palm Streets on the north and south. The Mill Street District is part of one subdivision, The Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded in 1878, although the area informally has been referred to as Fremont Heights. For its land area, Mill Street Historic District has the highest concentration of historic structures of the City’s five Historic districts. It is a relatively small district, with an area of 20 acres or 0.03125 square miles, and as of January of 2010 had 84 listed historic properties. The Mill Street district was developed at the turn of the 20th century, with the majority of the existing buildings dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance. The district was developed on high ground with originally very wide (100 ft) lots in response to both the seasonal flooding and fires that plagued early development in San Luis Obispo. A few of these wide lots remain in the 1300 block of both Mill Street and Palm Street, but the majority of them were later re-subdivided into 50-60 foot wide lots. Site Features and Characteristics Common site features and characteristics include: A.Trees spaced at regular intervals along the street (especially on Mill Street) B.Distinctive Camphor Trees lining both sides of Mill Street between Johnson and Pepper, a key entry corridor for the district C.Consistent street yard setbacks of 20 feet or more D.Coach barns (garages) recessed into rear yard E.Finish floors raised 2-3 above finish grade F.Front entries oriented toward street, with prominent walk, stairs and entry porches. G.Front building facades oriented parallel to street Architectural Character Developed during a population boom in San Luis Obispo circa 1900s-1920s, the district’s residential architectural styles reflect the prosperity of its residents. While older and more elaborate residences are located on the 1300 block of both Palm and Mill Streets, the majority of 1344 Mill Street, South Elevation ATTACHMENT D Page 135 of 143 48 historic homes were more modest residences. The close proximity to the court house meant that Mill Street was home to many county employees, including county assessors, attorneys, and county clerks. The Mill Street District encompasses many different architectural styles, including revival styles popular at the turn of the twentieth century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Stick and Eastern Shingle), Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from more than one style. Most buildings in this district were built by local builders, including E.D. Bray and James Maino and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. Predominant architectural features include: A. One- and occasionally two-story houses B. Mostly gable and hip roof types C. Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood sash windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen doors D. Ornamental roof features, including prominent fascias, bargeboards, prominent pediments or cornices E. Painted wood or stucco surface material, including siding and molding Individually Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District Not all historic resources in the Mill Street Historic District were built during the district’s period of significance. Those buildings date from the late 1800s, generally do not exhibit the signature architectural elements described above, but do contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo in their own right based on age, architectural style or historical association. By virtue of their significance, these resources also merit preservation. For example, the Buckley House at 777 Johnson Avenue is a converted carriage house built in the 1880s and is significant for its design, specifically the board and batten siding, of which there very few examples are left in the City. The Shipsey House at 1266 Mill Street, a National Register property, is an example of Eastern Stick and significant for both its architectural style and its association with William 1264 and 1270 Palm Street, South Elevation 777 Johnson Avenue, East Elevation ATTACHMENT D Page 136 of 143 49 Shipsey, attorney and mayor of San Luis Obispo from 1898 to1901. Non-Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the district fall into this latter category. Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include: A. Aluminum sliding windows B. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape C. Metal or other contemporary material siding, or “faux” architectural materials or features. D. Unarticulated wall surfaces E. Non-recessed or offset street entries to buildings 1243 Mill Street, North Elevation ATTACHMENT D Page 137 of 143 50 *** 1262 Mill Street; 1261 Mill Street; 1143, 1137 and 1127 Peach Street; Righetti House, 1314 Palm Street ATTACHMENT D Page 138 of 143 ATTACHMENT E Page 139 of 143 ATTACHMENT E Page 140 of 143 ATTACHMENT E Page 141 of 143 Page 142 of 143 26 Spanish Ecclectic After the 1915 Panama-California Exposition there was a renewed interest in Spanish Colonial architecture, and California especially began to embrace and reinterpret its Spanish and Mexican past. There are many examples of the Spanish Ecclectic or Spanish Colonial Revival style in houses, commercial and public buildings throughout California where Spanish and Mexican cultural influences were strongest. The Spanish Ecclectic style incorporated many details from different periods of Spanish architecture, and was popular in San Luis Obispo in the 1920s and 1930s. Characteristic features include: -barrel or flat tile roofs -parapets (trowled plaster or stucco) -flat or low-pitch roofs -arched doors and windows -tile chimney cap, vents and drains -ornamental wood and metal accents Examples of this style include: The M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street The Righetti Apartments, 1305 Palm Street. ATTACHMENT F Page 143 of 143