HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2000, C11 - RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE CHINATOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT/COURT STREET PROJECT. council _00
j agenda nepont "ciin
CITY O F SAN LUIS OBI S P 0
FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager;
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PF
SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE CHINATOWN HISTORIC
DISTRICT/COURT STREET PROJECT.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant services in
connection with the Chinatown Historic District/Court Street Project and authorize staff
to proceed with sending out Request for Proposal (RFP) documents to qualified
consulting firms.
B. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to a qualified consulting firm, contingent upon
the developer depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a 30%
administrative fee.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
On September 20, 1999, the City Council endorsed a proposal by the Copeland family to
redevelop two significant tracts of land in the downtown. The development, now referred to as
the Chinatown Historic District/Court Street Project, received strong community and Council
support. The Council further directed staff to make this the highest priority private development
project in the City.
On September 29, 2000, plans were officially submitted to the Community Development
Department for the project. On October 19, 2000, a Development Review Committee meeting
was held to allow the applicant's architect to present project plans to staff and obtain preliminary
feedback. Meetings are planned in November before the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) for conceptual review, and at the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for direction on
historical and archaeological issues.
Background
The proposed project is the development of a downtown mixed-use center. While the official
project name is "Chinatown Historic District/Court Street",plans indicate that the project actually
consists of four main components including:
the Palm Street site;
the Monterey Street site;
C11-1
Council Agenda Report—.-ninatown Historic District/Court Street Project EIR RFP
Page 2
the Court Street site; and
the Copeland/French site.
The Palm Street site component, also known as the Chinatown Historic District, is located on
the south side of Palm Street, between Morro and Chorro Streets, and involves the consolidation
of a series of private and public parcels. The project involves the removal of private and public
surface parking and the removal of existing commercial structures. This will be the location for a
three-level underground public parking garage with a mix of land uses, including retail, office,
and residential, developed above. The development will also include a series of multi-level
courtyards, plazas, and access corridors connecting the interior of the development to the
surrounding streets. A total of about 24,000 square feet of retail, 31,000 square feet of office,
and 8,600 square feet of restaurant space are proposed. Plans also include a residential
component consisting of 22 residential living units above the second floor offices.
The Monterey Street site component includes the construction of two new commercial
buildings containing about 19,000 square feet of retail space on either side of the historic
Muzio's building. Access to the new buildings would be provided both at the street level and the
pedestrian level at the rear of buildings.
The Court Street site is the existing City surface parking lot located at the corner of Osos,
Monterey and Higuera Streets, and including Court Street. Plans indicate that it would be
developed with a three-story retail/office complex with interior terraces and pedestrian ways. A
pedestrian street is proposed to run diagonally through the site from the intersection at Osos and
Monterey to the Court Street pedestrian way. A total of about 48,000 square feet of retail,
11,000 square feet of office, and 5,000 square feet of restaurant uses are proposed in this
component. Retail will generally be located on the first two levels with third floor office space.
The Copeland/French site consists of two parcels of land located at the northeast comer of Palm
and Morro Streets. The City's executed MOU with the applicant discusses the possibility of the
City acquiring one or two of these parcels to develop a civic office building here to facilitate its
long-term expansion plans. For the purposes of the initial study and EIR, the possibility of the
City developing an approximately 30,000 square-foot office building with two levels of
underground garage parking is included as part of the project description.
Staff has developed a workscope for the EIR, which is part of the RFP excerpts attached to this
report. The workscope was developed from the initial study prepared by staff and outlines the
work tasks that need to be performed to fully evaluate significant project issues. The initial
study, and standard City RFP attachments outlining general terms and conditions, insurance
requirements, and forms for the consultant to prepare, will be mailed out to consultants, but are
not attached to this report.
Schedule for EIR Preparation
With City Council endorsement of the RFP and workscope, RFPs would be sent out to qualified
consultants on November 13th, with consultant proposals due back to the City on December 13th.
The schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held before Christmas and a
C11-2
Council Agenda Report—Chinatown Historic District/Court Street Project EIR RFP
Page 3
consultant contract awarded on January 3, 2001. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft
EIR would be delivered to the City within 90 days after execution of the contract.
CONCURRENCES
Other City Departments were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's
initial study of environmental impact from which the EIR workscope was derived.
FISCAL IMPACT
Once a qualified consultant is selected and a contract negotiated, the project applicant will pay
all of the costs for the consultant services to prepare the EIR, plus a 30% administrative fee, with
the administration of the consultant contract overseen by the Community Development
Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department. This is the approved procedure for
City-required EIRs. Therefore,the project will have no direct fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the workscope, but direct staff to prepare the EIR.
If a consultant were not retained to prepare the EIR, it would be the responsibility of the
City to do so. With staff responsible for EIR production, the timeframe for completion of
the document would be lengthier than that estimated above for a consultant, and other
staff work program items would be further postponed. In addition, staff would need to
hire sub-consultants to adequately evaluate certain technical issues.
2. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 —Excerpts from Draft RFP including the Scope of Work
Attachment 2—Proposers List
Available in Council Reading File—Initial Study ER 152-00 and Entire Draft RFP
1A Copelands\EIR RFP(CC Report).doc
C11-3
ATTAvrNENT 1 , 1 o f 10
City Of
san Luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street■San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
Chinatown Historic District/Court Street Project EIR
Specification No. 90183
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an environmental impact report
(EIR)for the Chinatown Historic District/Court Street Project. The EIR must comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and address the topics identified in the Request for
Proposals (RFP). All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by 3:00 p.m. on
Wednesday,December 13,2000, when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each
proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401,
in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and
time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the
specification package.
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Pam Ricci, Associate Planner at(805) 781-7168.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
C11-4
1 � �
Specification No. 90183 ATTACHMENT o� 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Description of Work C a t}a C-h e 1-4
B. General Terms and Conditions (not aWcL che-d 5-8
Proposal Requirements
Contract Award and Execution avail ab 1 e i n
Contract PerformanceI e,
co,m� I Read,n�
C. Special Terms and Conditions h 9-12
Project Coordination !!dcLG ed
Proposal Content
Proposal Evaluation and Selection
QJ Proposal Review and Award Schedule
ti: Start and Completion of Work
GD D. Agreement 13-14
q E. Insurance Requirements 15-16
F. Proposal Submittal Forms 17-19
a v Proposal Submittal Form
7 References
Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications
C11-5
AT,. .,dMEW 1 ) 3 OF 10
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
+y., � a"i[�.. 4 �-.
'.� 5 tR z y.'. v: _
Prosect Description
The proposed project is the development of a downtown mixed-use center. While the official project name
is "Chinatown Historic District/Court Street",plans indicate that the project actually consists of four main
components including:
the Palm Street site;
the Monterey Street site;
the Court Street site;and
the Copeland/French site.
The Palm Street site component,also known as the Chinatown Historic District, is located on the south
side of Palm Street, between Morro and Chorro Streets, and involves the consolidation of a series of
private and public parcels. The project involves the removal of private and public surface parking and the
removal of existing commercial structures. This will be the location for a three-level underground public
parking garage with a mix of land uses, including retail, office, and residential, developed above. The
development will also include a series of multi-level courtyards, plazas, and access corridors connecting
the interior of the development to the surrounding streets. A total of about 24,000 square feet of retail,
31,000 square feet of office, and 8,600 square feet of restaurant space are proposed. Plans also include a
residential component consisting of 22 residential living units above the second floor offices.
The Monterey Street site component includes the construction of two new commercial buildings
containing about 19,000 square feet of retail space on either side of the historic Muzio's building. Access
to the new buildings would be provided both at the street level and the pedestrian level at the rear of
buildings.
The Court Street site is the existing City surface parking lot located at the corner of Osos, Monterey and
Higuera Streets, and including Court Street. Plans indicate that it would be developed with a three-story
retail/office complex with interior terraces and pedestrian ways. A pedestrian street is proposed to run
diagonally through the site from the intersection at Osos and Monterey to the Court Street pedestrian way.
A total of about 48,000 square feet of retail, 11,000 square feet of office, and 5,000 square feet of
restaurant uses are proposed in this component. Retail will generally be located on the first two levels
with third floor office space.
The Copeland/French site consists of two parcels of land located at the northeast corner of Palm and
Morro Streets.The City's executed MOU with the applicant discusses the possibility of the City acquiring
one or two of these parcels to develop a civic office building here to facilitate its long-term expansion
plans. For the purposes of the initial study and the EIR, the possibility of the City developing an
approximately 30,000 square-foot office building with two levels of underground garage parking is
included as part of the project description.
Scope of Work
An Initial Study of Environmental Impact was completed for this project,which concluded that there may
be significant environmental impacts associated with development and that an environmental impact
report (EIR) is required. The applicant is not disputing the need for preparation of an EIR. The
C11-6
ATTR' ENT 1 , 4 0f 10
workscope more specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential
impacts of the project.
EER Workscope Items
The selected consultant shall incorporate the Initial Study of Environmental Impact that was completed
for this project into the EIR. The following list of workscope issues was extracted from that initial study.
The numbers used below that identify issue areas are consistent with the system from the initial study.
For those issue areas included in the initial study, which concluded that there were no impacts, or that
impacts could be mitigated with identified mitigation measures,no workscope items appear.
#1 AESTHETICS
A. The consultant shall evaluate the submitted visual analysis to identify potential impacts of the
project on views of important scenic resources, and impacts to adjacent businesses and residents
in terms of sunlight exposure levels and views,and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. The
consultant should include in their cost proposal for the EIR whether they believe that the
submitted visual analysis is extensive enough, or if they feel that additional photo-simulation, or
other appropriate visual analyses, are necessary. In designing mitigation measures,the consultant
should look at opportunities in the project to provide unobstructed view corridors, given levels
and orientations of building decks and public areas such as plazas.
B. The consultant shall provide a preliminary analysis regarding the submitted project's consistency
with the City's architectural review guidelines and the performance standards included in
Aesthetics Mitigation Measure No. 2 and offer specific suggestions for ways that the project may
be modified to be more in conformance, if deficiencies are found.
#3 AERQUALITY:
A. The consultant shall develop more specific performance standards for the dust management and
emissions control plan described in Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 1. The consultant shall
develop these standards, based on input from the APCD, and may wish to refer to Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 (a) — (h) on Pages ES-10-12 from the Revised Draft EIR for the Dalidio
Annexation project for a recent example of a similarly developed mitigation measure.
B. In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis, interpolate
expected emissions generated by the project,and develop appropriate mitigation measures,which
accommodate needed transit facilities, encourage pedestrian travel, and consolidate parking, to
help offset impacts.
#5 CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A. The EIR consultant selected will need to coordinate their work with that of Applied EarthWorks
in terms of the discussion of cultural and archaeological resources and appropriate mitigation
measures.
#7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
A. The consultant shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the
findings of the soils engineering report,and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
C11-7
-2-
#8 HAZARDS_AND RAZARDOUS MATERIALS: n. ACHMEM 1 J '5 o-P 10
A. The consultant shall incorporate the background, conclusions and proposed mitigation programs
of the required environmental site assessments into the EIR.
#I1 NOISE:
A. Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses and attenuating noise to the planned residential
units.
#15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
A. A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the
EIR. The traffic study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study
Guidelines (June 2000). Project trip generation characteristics and distributions are to be
submitted to the City for review and comment/approval prior to proceeding with the traffic
analysis.
The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model(SLOCTM),or equal,to
develop the background traffic projections for future year analyses. The study facilities are to be
analyzed as a) existing and b) existing with traffic generated by the proposed project. The
consultant shall supply exhibits illustrating proposed mitigations. Along arterial corridors, a
traffic signal progression analysis may be necessary for Level of Service determinations and
mitigations.
Regarding the SLOCTM, the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk
and documentation with the project land uses and loaded network. If the consultant utilizes
another software other than MINUTP, a licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the
City along with the project disks.
Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include:
1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan -review the EIR to: validate this
previous EIR's conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent
mitigation measures identified in the EIR into the design of this project; determine
whether residual significant transportation impacts exist; and present supplemental
mitigation measures as necessary.
2. Trip Generation - provide specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to
which this project will increase traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion, in the downtown
core.
3. Intersection Impacts-evaluate the adequacy of vehicle storage for left and right turns at
impacted intersections within the commercial core in close proximity to the project sites
(and the secondary impacts on the existing supply of curb parking).
4. Traffic Signals - look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the
potential need for new traffic signals.
5. Pedestrian Facilities - evaluate the need for improvements to pedestrian facilities along
downtown streets, traffic signals, and at mid-block and intersection locations, to safely
accommodate increased pedestrian volumes associated with the project.
ATT 1MENT 1 , & OF 10
6. Project Support Access - determine whether adequate service, delivery and emergency
access to the proposed project sites is provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle and non-
vehicular circulation.
7. Parking Facility Access Points - the location and adequacy of vehicular access to the
proposed parking facilities, their impacts on vehicle circulation, parking, and pedestrian
safety within adjoining public street rights-of-way.
8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency - review and recommend changes to, if any, the
proposed parking structure regarding, circulation, efficiency, and the ability to allow at a
minimum: 60 ingress vehicles per hour and 60 egress vehicles per hour, in a safe and
effective manner.
9. Parking Adequacy Issues - summarize parking demand and supply, and identify
alternative parking strategies as mitigation measures, such as supplemental parking
supply, Parking Demand Reduction, Transportation Demand Management, and pricing,
to reduce potential impacts of the proposed parking deficiency to less than significant
levels.
10. Access Mitigation Strategies - provide an evaluation of how access levels to the
downtown for employees and patrons can be maintained during the phased construction
of the project. At a minimum, mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures,
supplemental parking,and/or alternative parking techniques and programs.
#16 UTII,ITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
A. Based on the submitted water demand and wastewater generation calculations submitted by the
applicant's engineer, the consultant shall discuss and analyze the following, and provide
appropriate mitigation as needed:
1. The projected wastewater flows for the project;
2. The impact of projected flows on the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant;
3. The impact of flows on the wastewater collection system, specifically in the area between
the project site and the Nipomo collector main.
B. Look at appropriate ways of accommodating trash and recycling areas in to the project that are
functional, accessible and aesthetically pleasing.
-a-
Section C Al ACHMENT 1 , 7o-F 10
SPECIAL, TERMS AND CONDITIONS -
wim
I 4' RN I
PROJECT COORDINATION.
a. City. The Community Development Director (hereinafter referred to as "Director") hereby
designates Pam Ricci,Associate Planner as the Project Manager for the City. She shall serve as the
representative of the City for all purposes under this agreement. The Project Manager, or the
Director in her absence,shall supervise the progress and execution of this agreement.
b. Consultant. Consultant shall assign a single Project Manager to have overall responsibility for the
progress and execution of this agreement for Consultant.
CONTENT OF PROPOSALS
Three (3) copies of the proposal must be submitted that reflect a clear understanding of the workscope to
be performed and include the following information:
I Resumes of your firm, the project manager, key technical staff and any sub-consultants you plan
to employ. Work on previous projects with similar workscopes should be highlighted,along with
references from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services with telephone
numbers included. With this project, it is critical that the consultant's professional team include:
a. A geologist,geotechnical engineer,or soils engineer to evaluate geological issues;
b. A licensed civil engineer with a background in traffic,or registered traffic engineer;
C. An architect or engineer with a specialization in parking structure design;
d. A qualified historian and archaeologist.
An organizational and manpower chart to show the names of all key personnel assigned to the
project should also be included.
2. A draft work program, which expands on, the workscope contained in Section A of this Request
for Proposals(RFP). The work program shall itemize major tasks and work products,responsible
staff, special information or studies required, and special methods or equipment, if any, you
anticipate using. Procedures should be included showing how the consultant plans to coordinate
with key City staff. The work, program shall also specify information, equipment, or services to
be provided by the City that is not already identified in the workscope. The work program should
identify all other elements of the EIR needed to assure CEQA compliance, which may not be
listed in the workscope,and should explain how this will be accomplished. I
3. A preliminary estimate of number of hours expected to complete the work, organized by major
task to be accomplished and by level of employee who will be assigned to do this work. The time
for firm members to attend public hearings where the EIR is considered (minimum of four)
should be included as part of the hours estimate.
4. A schedule of completion for major tasks identified under#2, above. Examples of key tasks are:
data collection, data verification and analysis, completion of the Draft EIR, responses to
comments, attendance at public hearings, and certification of the Final EIR. It is the City's intent
that an administrative draft of the EIR would be prepared within 90 days of a signed agreement
between the City and the consultant for requested services.
C11-10
AM.AEW 1 l 8 OF (O
5. Hourly billing rates for the staff to be assigned to this project, including any sub-consultants.
6. Three references from clients for whom your firm has completed similar EIRs.
PROPOSAL EVAL DATION AND CONSULTANT SELECTION
Review of the project by City decision-makers is dependent on completion of the Draft EIR. Therefore,
timely completion and circulation of the Draft EIR is essential to expeditious processing of the project
consistent with CEQA and will be considered in evaluating consultant proposals. A review committee
using a two-phase selection process as follows will evaluate proposals:
Written Proposal Review and Finalist Candidate Selection
A group of finalist candidates (generally the top three to five proposers) will be selected for follow-up
interviews and presentations based on the following criteria as indicated in their written proposals:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City
b. Quality and responsiveness of the proposal
C. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance
of the work required by the City
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services
e. Proposed approach in completing the work
f. References
g. Background and related experience of the specific individuals to be assigned to this project
Presentations,Interviews, and Consultant Selection
Finalist candidates will be required to make an oral presentation to the review committee and answer
questions about their proposals. The purpose of this phase is two-fold: to clarify and resolve any
outstanding questions or issues about the proposal; and to evaluate the proposer's ability to present
information orally clearly and concisely. As part of this second phase of the selection process, finalist
candidates will submit proposed compensation costs for the work, including a proposed payment schedule
tied to the completion of key project milestones or tasks. Contract award will be based on a combination
of factors that represent that best overall value for completing the work outlined in the workcope as
determined by the City, including: the written proposal criteria noted above; results of background and
reference checks; results from the interviews and presentations phase; and proposed compensation.
After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists or the tentatively selected
Consultant, the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed workcope and/or method and
amount of compensation.
PROPOSAL REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE TENTATIVE
The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award:
Issue RFP November 13, 2000
Receive proposals December 13, 2000
Complete proposal evaluation December 15, 2000
Conduct finalist interviews December 19, 2000
Finalize staff recommendation December 21, 2000
Applicant deposits EIR cost January 3, 2001
-lo-
ATTACHMENT 1 , g of 10
Award contract January 3, 2001
Execute contract/Start work January 8, 2001
Complete admin. draft April 2, 2001
If you have any questions about this RFP, schedule, or attachments, please call Pam Ricci at(805) 781-
7168.
STARTAND COMPLETIONOF WORK
1. Contract Schedule. The above schedule, as well as meeting dates needed in the future,may be
modified with the mutual consent of the City and the Consultant.
2. Completion of Work. Work on the administrative draft of the EIR shall be completed 90 calendar
days after execution of the contract.
3 Ownership of Materials. All original drawings,plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
4. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports,drawings,
specifications,or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications,the Consultant shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense.
5. Required Deliverable Products. The Consultant will be required to provide:
a. Five (5) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR which addresses all elements of the
workscope. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Consultant
and, where necessary,the Consultant will be required to respond to staff comments and
make such changes as deemed appropriate.
b. 60 copies(utilizing two-sided copying)of the Draft EIR.
C. 50 copies of the Final EK which incorporates changes to the draft document as a result of
its review at pubic hearings,and includes responses to comments.
d. One camera-ready original of the Draft and Final EIRs,unbound,each page printed on only
one side,including any original graphics in place and scaled to size,ready for reproduction.
e. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the
workscope, the Consultant must provide the corresponding computer files to the City,
compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by
the project manager:
Word Processing Microsoft Word 2000 or earlier version
Spreadsheets Excel 2000 or earlier
Desktop Publishing Coreldraw,Pagemaker
Computer Aided Drafting(CAD) AutoCAD
11-1
ATTACHMENT 1 ) 10 Of 10
Computer files must be on 3.5"high-density,write-protected diskettes,formatted for use on
IBM-compatible systems. Each diskette must be clearly labeled and have a printed copy of
the directory.
6. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the workscope and included in the contract price
is attendance at up to four public meetings to present and discuss the Consultant's findings and
recommendations. The cost should also include a public scooping meeting to be held later in the
month of January. Consultant shall attend as many "working"meetings with staff as necessary in
performing workscope tasks.
7. Preparation of CEQA Documents. The consultant, in consultation with the Project Manager,
shall be responsible for the preparation of the required Notice of Preparation (NOP), Notice of
Completion(NOC),and Notice of Availability(NOA). The consultant will also be responsible for
mailing these documents to relevant agencies and interested citizens,as well as distributing Draft
EIRs. The costs for these tasks and mailing costs should be factored into the total EIR budget.
12 C11-13
PROPOSERS LIST ATTACHMENT 21 I of 2
,, ,. ,. TIT- �.
'�3 �mn.'w 'g.
CHNATOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT/COURT STREET PROJECT EIR—
SPECIFICATION NO. 90183
Envicom ESA Fugro West, Inc.
28328 Agoura Rd. 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480 1012 Pacific St., Ste. A
Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Los Angeles, CA 990010 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dudek & Associates, Inc. Jones and Stokes Associates The Morro Group
621 Chapala St. 2600 V St., Ste. 100 1422 Monterey St., Ste. C200
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Sacramento, CA 95818-1914 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ogden Environmental & SAIC FIRMA
Energy Services Co., Inc. 816 State St., Ste. 500 849 Monterey St.
1 E. Anapamu St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Woodward Clyde Law/Crandall, Inc. Michael Brandman Associates
Consultants Attn: Roberta Tassey Atm: Patricia Hughes
5951 Encina Rd., Ste. 200 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Ste. 150N 15901 Red Hill Ave., Ste. 200
Santa Barbara, CA 93117 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tustin, CA 92780-7318
Kleinfelder David Early, Prinicpal Planetek, Inc.
Atm: Susan Charles Design,Community & Environment 41 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200
1370 Valley Vista Dr., Ste. 150 1600 Shattuck Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3910 Berkeley, CA 94709
Greystone Leighton and Associates, Inc. Brady and Associates
Attn: Jeffrey Harvey Attn: Andrew Price Attn: David Clore
1211 H Street, Ste. A 31344 Via Colinas, Ste. 102 2215 Fifth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Berkeley, CA 94710
Rincon Consultants, Inc. Emcon Bio Systems
Attn: Stephen Svete Atm: Ilona Rubino Attn: Cathy Newmann
790 E. Santa Clara St. 1921 Ringwood Ave. 303 Potrero St., Ste. 29-203
Ventura, CA 93001 San Jose, CA 95131-1721 Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Tetra Tech,Inc. Chambers Group, Inc. Regional Environmental
4213 State Street, Suite 205 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100 Consultants Attn: Sandra Fayett
Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Irvine, CA 92614 4241 Jutland Dr., Ste. 201
San Diego, CA 92117-3653
C11-14
..iTACHMENT 2 2o-F2
Zeiser Kling Consultants Robert Bein, William Frost & PRA Group
Attn: Barbara Associates Attn: John Larson
3187 Red Hill Ave., #135 14725 Alton Pkwy. 1190 Marsh St.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92618-2069 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Takata Associates Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. David Evans & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Kathleen Takata 8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150 23382 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 225
600 Fremont Ave. La Mesa, CA 91941-6476 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
South Pasadena, CA 91030
McLaren/Hart, Inc. Padre Associates, Inc. EIP Associates
16755 Von Karman Aave., 5450 Telegraph Rd., Suite 101 601 Montgomery St., Suite 500
#200 Ventura, CA 93003 San Francisco, CA 94111
Irvine, CA 92606-2667
Dames& Moore Bums & McDonnell Ultrasystems Environmental Inc.
3445 West Shaw Ave., Suite 2102 Business Center Dr., Suite 6 Jenner, Suite 210
101 130 Irvine, CA 92618-3811
Fresno, CA 93711 Irvine, CA 92612
Douglas Wood& Associates,
Inc.
1461 Higuera St., Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
C11-15
Ilrlrc`TING AGENDA
DATE -o �� ITEM #=_
C4 Of SM U IS O8ISW Department of Community Development
Planning Division
PICOUNCIL 13$41)DIR
November 8, 2000 WAO 0 FIN DIR
WACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
GYATTORNEY 0 PW DIR
GnLERKIORIS 0 POLICE CHF
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council p RREC DIR
UTILDIR
John Dunn,City Administrative Officer W3 -MAG_VEF 0 PERS DIR
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE CHINATOWN
HISTORIC DISTRICT/COURT STREET PROJECT
(Item#C 11. on the November 9,2000 City Council meeting).
Since the Council agenda report was prepared for this item, there has been a change in
the strategy for dealing with the traffic analysis. This modification in strategy is due to
the short time schedule and the need to expedite the traffic analysis component to met
expected deadlines. Instead of having the main Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
consultant hire a traffic sub-consultant, the Public Works Department believes that it
would be more expeditious to hire a traffic consultant directly under a separate City
contract. The traffic section in the workscope included as an attachment to the prepared
Council report would still apply, but would be contracted for and managed separately.
As will be done with the separate contract for archaeological services, it would be the
main EIR consultant's job to fold into the analysis the background, conclusions, and
mitigation measures of the separate studies. The entire traffic and archaeological studies
would also become technical appendices to the EIR.
The recommendation to the council regarding the RFP would become two-fold and
would be modified as follows:
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant
services and separate traffic consultant services in connection with the Chinatown
Historic District/Court Street Project and authorize staff to proceed with sending
out Request for Proposal (RFP)documents to qualified consulting firms.
B. Authorize the CAO to award the contracts to qualified consulting firms for the
separate EIR and traffic impact study services, contingent upon the developer
depositing with the City the amounts of the contracts plus a 30% administrative
fee. =8 -
LACopelands\Council memo WP).doc
�Bi�IIIII MUTING AGENDA
��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �II� III SM
I1'o -o o ITEM # C=cityo ATE OBISPO
• 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .
ER 152-00 (toUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
ICAO ❑FIN DIR
C OAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
1. Project Title: GKTTTORNEY ❑PW DIR
laKLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC DIR
Chinatown Historic District/Court Street Project W t0_2'►L ❑UTIL DIR
8••19AZfi1%$ ❑PERS DIR
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
✓ R.Whisenana
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7168
4. Project Location:
Downtown San Luis Obispo containing two main areas, and two smaller corner
lots, as follows:
A) Chinatown Historic District Area - consisting of both the Palm Street site and
Monterey Street site components, as shown on submitted project plans, and
generally bordered by Palm Street, Morro Street and Monterey Street.
Parcels proposed for development include: 002-433-001, 002-433-002, 002-
433-003.
B) Court Street Area - generally bordered by Osos Street, Higuera Street, Court
Street and Monterey Street. Parcels proposed for
development/redevelopment include: 002-416-029, 002-416-031, 002-416-
034.
C) Copeland/French site — described in the City's executed Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the applicant as Parcels A & B, respectively, an
approximately 12,720 square-foot lot and a 4,380 square-foot lot located at
/O The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
northeast corner of Palm and Morro Streets, consisting of reconfigured portions of
Parcels 002-322-001 & 002-332-002. •
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Tom and Jim Copeland
Chinatown/Court Street Partners, LLC
962 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
General Retail
7: Zoning:
Central-Commercial with the Historical Preservation overlay zone (C-C-H); and Central-
Commercial with the Historical Preservation and Planned Development overlay zones
(C-C-H-P D)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project is the development of a downtown mixed-use center. While the
official project name is "Chinatown Historic District/Court Street", plans indicate that t�
project actually consists of four main components including:
the Palm Street site;
the Monterey Street site;
the Court Street site; and
the Copeland/French site.
The Palm Street site component, also known as the Chinatown Historic District, is
located on the south side of Palm Street, between Morro and Chorro Streets, and
involves the consolidation of a series of private and public parcels. The project involves
the removal of private and public surface parking and the removal of existing
commercial structures. This will be the location for a three-level underground public
parking garage with a mix of land uses, including retail, office, and residential;
developed above. The development will also include a series of multi-level courtyards,
plazas, and access corridors connecting the interior of the development to the
surrounding streets. A total of about 24,000 square feet of retail, 31,000 square feet of
office, and 8,600 square feet of restaurant space are proposed. Plans also include a
residential component consisting of 22 residential living units above the second floor
offices.
2
The Monterey Street site component includes the construction of two new commercial
• buildings containing about 19,000 square feet of retail space on either side of the
historic Muzio's building. Access to the new buildings would be provided both at the
street level and the pedestrian level at the rear of buildings.
The Court Street site is the existing City surface parking lot located at the corner of
Osos, Monterey and Higuera Streets, and including Court Street. Plans indicate that it
would be developed with a three-story retail/office complex with interior terraces and
pedestrian ways. A pedestrian street is proposed to run diagonally through the site
from the intersection at Osos and Monterey to the Court Street pedestrian way. A total
of about 48,000 square feet of retail, 11,000 square feet of office, and 5,000 square feet
of restaurant uses are proposed in this component. Retail will generally be located at
the first two levels with third floor office space.
The Copeland/French site consists of two parcels of land located at the northeast
corner of Palm and Morro Streets. The City's executed MOU with the applicant
discusses the possibility of the City acquiring one or two of these parcels to develop a
civic office building here to facilitate its.long4erm expansion plans. For the purposes of
this initial study, the possibility of the City developing an approximately 30,000 square-
foot office building with two levels of underground garage parking is included as'part of
the project description.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project area is surrounded by urban development including a multi-level parking
structure, City Hall, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre, and buildings occupied by office,
retail, restaurant and residential uses. The downtown setting..has intermittent views of
Cerro San Luis to the west and the Santa Lucia foothills to the southeast.
10: Project Entitlements Requested:
• Architectural Review and Cultural Heritage Committee Review of project design
• Rezoning of the Court Street component from C-C-H-PD to C-C-H.
• Abandonment of a portion of Court Street.
• Variance to allow portions of some buildings to exceed 50 feet in height.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
None.
3
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.
X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources X Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation &Traffic
Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service
S stems
X Cultural Resources X Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on
X fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifi�
for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
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.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and 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. X
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.
li�i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
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.
j
October 30, 2000
Signature Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to
evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to
a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)
of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the
checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OHISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
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 stat
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
�R
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforn. in Sources Sources i ally Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 7 Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantiaFadverse effect on'•a scenic•vista? ' 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including;but not ,.
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space;,arid. 2 X .
historic buildings within a:local orstate scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or, .
quality of the site and its surroundings? 314 X
d) Create a new source of substantial:light.or,glare,which,.
would adversely affect day or nighttime views iii}he:area? X
Vistas
No scenic highways or roads are identified in the vicinity of the project site. The project sites are largely occupied
by surface level parking, which provide places for visitors and employees to park, but do not provide much
aesthetic character themselves. However, the parking lots do provide an open quality that allows penetration of
light and air, as well as views of the hillsides surrounding the downtown. In particular, Cerro San Luis is plainly
visible from the Osos Street frontage of the Court Street site component, and from most of the parking lot areas of
the Palm Street site component. With some of the tallest portions of proposed buildings located closest to the
Palm Street frontage of the Chinatown Historic District Area, and to the Osos Street frontage of the Court Street
Area, it is likely that the construction of the proposed project will significantly alter these views.
Development of the Court Street site as proposed would also have the potential to impact adjacent retail
businesses that may be affected by reduced hours of sunlight, particularly during the winter months, and by
residents of the Anderson Hotel that would find their wide views across the site partially or entirely obstructed by
the buildings.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a visual analysis of the impact of the project on views of the surrounding hillsides,
especially Cerro San Luis. The visual analysis is necessary to understand the potential viewshed impacts and to
evaluate project consistency with the General Plan, which states that new buildings should frame hillside views
rather than obscure them, and that new projects should include public open space areas, which provide open
views toward the surrounding hills.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall evaluate the submitted visual analysis to identify potential impacts of the project on views of
important scenic resources, and impacts to adjacent businesses and residents in terms of sunlight exposure levels
and views, and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. The consultant should include in their cost proposal for
the EIR whether they believe that the submitted visual analysis is extensive enough, or if they feel that additionah'
photo-simulation, or other appropriate visual analyses, are necessary. In designing mitigation measures, the
consultant should look at opportunities in the project to provide unobstructed view corridors, given levels and
orientations of building decks and public areas such as plazas.
Project's Visual Character
Downtown San Luis Obispo is known for its distinctive small town main street environment that contains a healthy
commercial district, significant historical and architectural resources, and inviting open spaces. It is enjoyed as a
place for local people to live, work and be entertained, and is also important to the City's tourist industry. Most
A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Informs Sources Sources Pot y Less Than Less Than No
Signiticant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
new commercial and residential projects are required to be reviewed by the City's design review board, the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). In particular, the ARC scrutinizes new projects proposed in the
downtown to insure that they have an appropriate, scale, rhythm and design that are compatible with existing
development and pedestrian-oriented.
The proposed project, because of both its scale and locations, has the potential to have a profound and significant
impact on the character and appearance of the downtown. This creates the potential for a significant impact. The
ARC will have the main discretionary responsibility for insuring that the project design is in proper scale with
surrounding development,and enhances,rather than detracts from,the character of the downtown. Itis expected
that,with the review of the project by the ARC for conformance with General Plan policies and consistency with the
architectural review guidelines,that potential aesthetic impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. The
following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that this will occur.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Mitigation Measure:
The ARC shall review the project to evaluate its compliance with the City's architectural review guidelines, as well
as the following design performance standards:
a.) New development shall respect the massing and sizes of existing downtown buildings and streetscapes,
and attempt to provide a smooth transition from new to old, rather than dominate or compete with them.
b.) The proposed rhythm of the facades of new buildings within the project shall recognize the existing
pattems of building widths found in the downtown.
c.) Proposed buildings shall have facade proportions that range from slightly vertical, to square, to slightly
horizontal, rather than have exaggerated proportions.
d.) New buildings should generally have storefronts that are built to the property line along the street.
Setbacks for buildings shall be utilized to address massing concerns, provide view corridors, and to
accommodate pedestrian movement.
e.) Proposed project lighting shall provide for adequate security and safety, but not cast undue glare onto
adjacent properties or streets.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall provide a preliminary analysis regarding the submitted project's consistency with the City's
architectural review guidelines and the above performance standards and offer specific suggestions for ways that
the project may be modified to be more in conformance, if deficiencies are found.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide!Importance(Farinland), as shown.dnttie maps
pursuant.to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program X''
of the Carifomia Resources Agency; to non-agricultural
use?
b) . Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or. a
Williamson Act contract? X
c) Involve-other changes in the existing-environment,which
due to their location or nature, could.result in.conversion of X
Farmland., to-non-agricultural used._ ..
The project, which is located in the downtown core, has no potential to affect agricultural resources.
�a7
�/ CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Infon in Sources Sources 1 ally Less Than Less Than No
Sig 1Lricant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
• 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any airquality standard or contribute sutistanttally
to an existing or projected air quality-violation? ;' 1,5,6 X
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementatiowof:the applicable'
air quality plan? 1,5 X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1,5,6 X
d) Create objectionable odors:-affecting a:substantial number
of,people? X
e) Result.in a cumulatively considerable net iner'ease of-any-
criteria pollutant for:which the project region is:npn;;;'.:i,.:. 1,5 X
attainment under an applicable federal or state ainbient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed qualitative thresholds.for oione;precursors)?.; ;
The project by its design as an infill, mixed-use development with a pedestrian orientation is consistent with many
of the goals of the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD) Clean Air Plan (CAP). However, site development will
impact air quality as a result of construction activity and traffic generated by uses established. Standard mitigation
is recommended to reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and future site development.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading
activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Mitigation Measure:
A dust management and emissions control plan, to implement the goals set out in Municipal Code Section
15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2, Dust Control), shall be included along with project grading plans.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall develop more specific performance standards for the dust management and emissions
control plan described in the mitigation measure above. The consultant shall develop these standards, based on
input from the APCD, and may wish to refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 (a)—(h) on Pages ES-10-12 from the
Revised Draft EIR for the Dalidio Annexation project for a recent example of a similarly developed mitigation
measure.
Long-term Impacts
+:R
The County of San Luis Obispo is currently considered "non-attainment' by the State for Ozone and PM,o(fine
particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. The California Clean Air Act requires that
emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards
are attained. The 1995 CAP for the County of San Luis Obispo was developed and adopted by the APCD to meet
that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that
the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a
�!� CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Infor on Sources Sources dally Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Page 10 Mitigation
Incorporated
significant source of PM,o. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation contraW
measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The District has identified
appropriate mitigation strategies for various types of development in both the CAP and in separate guideline
documents for new development. All jurisdictions are expected to incorporate applicable strategies in their project
review process to ensure that motor vehicle emissions resulting from new development are minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Increased traffic associated with planned facilities will incrementally increase the pollutants in the air. Projects
included in non-attainment areas should adopt all"reasonably available transportation control measures"to
mitigate the impacts associated with new development, which does specifically include employer-based trip
reduction programs.
Issue Area Workscope:
In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis, interpolate expected
emissions generated by the project, and develop appropriate mitigation measures, which accommodate needed
transit facilities, encourage pedestrian travel, and consolidate parking, to help offset impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) ;;Have a sub"stantial adverse effect',dither.dirpctly:or -
:
indiireddy or through habitat modlficati"ons, on any species
identified as-a candidate, sensitive,.orspecial status, 7 X
species in local or regional plans,,policies„or-re gulations,
or by•the'Califomia'bepartment of Fish andtameor U.&I
-.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on,any npanan habitat
orother sensitive natural dorbmunity'idehfified in lool•o—e. .:,
regional plans,policies, or regulafiions,or by theCalifornia X
Departmerit of"Fish and Game orU 8;`Fish and Wldllfe,
Service?
e) ;:Conflict•with,any local policies or ordinances,protecting'::,..;:
'biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or. X
ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)?
tl) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
residentor migratory fish or wildlife species or with X
established native;resident or migratory wildlife c6 d'!
or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the.provisions of an adopted-habitat
.:Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan; X
or other approved local, regional,,Or state habitat
conservation plari?
f) ; Have a substantial adverse effect onFederally protectetl.:.
wetlands as defined in Section 4"of the Clean Water,.Act: X
(including,but not limited to, marshes;vemal1.pools; etc.j
trough direct removal, filling. hydrological intdrr6ptidn.or
other means?
Rare or Endangered Species
The City's Informational Map Atlas does not show any rare or endangered flora or fauna species in existence on
�!� CRY OF SAN LUIS Oeispo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Infori, )n Sources Sources : *ally Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues with Impact
Mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
the project site. The project as proposed will not impact biological resources associated with San Luis Creek,
because if the project is developed as proposed, the creek will remain in its current configuration.
Existing Trees
A number of trees exist on the site,either as street trees or parking lot landscaping. Sheets ARC-LI-L3 show that
most existing street trees will be retained with development,either in place or relocated,but that most on-site trees
would be removed to accommodate proposed development. Removal of these trees will change the number and
diversity of plant species on the site.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
Where feasible,existing mature street trees shall be retained and incorporated into the project landscaping plan.
Where proposed plans do not allow for the retention of existing trees,the applicant shall incorporate new trees into
the landscaping plan to compensate for trees removed to the approval of the City Arborist and the Architectural
Review Commission.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial.adverse change in the.significance of 8,9,
a historic resource?(See CEQA GuidelineS- 15064.5) 10,11 X
12,13
:b) Cause a substantial adverse change.in thesignificance of 10,11
an archeological resource?.(See.CEQA Guidelines . . 12,13 X
15064.5) 14, 15
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological,-.., 14,
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
l) Dish"any tt'uman'remains,'iricluding t?iose lnfefri d 15,
outside of forrnal_cemeterie§? .;,• 1 B X
Setting
San Luis Obispo has a rich cultural heritage which is marked by prehistoric use of the area by native Americans,
early settlements of the Mission period, early American settlements, and the"modern"era from 1900 on. From its
inception as a mission settlement in 1772, the commercial and civic life of San Luis Obispo evolved along the
streets adjacent to the Old Mission. Today, the principal business district covers roughly the same area it did in the
late 19th century, occupying both sides of Monterey, Higuera, and Marsh Streets between Santa Rosa and
Nipomo Streets. Here is located the City's largest concentration of pre-1900, multi-stoned commercial, residential
and public buildings, offering visible proof of the significance and central role of Downtown over time. Due to the
high concentration of cultural resources—including both archaeological sites and historic buildings—Downtown
San Luis Obispo has been designated as a Historical District.
?F
Archaeological Resources
Downtown San Luis Obispo is the center of a rich archaeological tapestry, containing artifacts representative of
the town's multi-cultural.heritage, indicative of three distinct components of the City's history: the mission era
Chumash culture, the Chinese culture, and Euro-American culture (Conway, 1995). Archaeological excavations
and construction projects have unearthed an usually rich collection of pre-historic and historic artifacts considered
to qualify as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Section 15064.5. Although limited
in geographic area, the abundance and diversity of past excavations suggest that the probability of encountering
additional artifacts due to project grading and construction is high.
iii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Informs Sources Sources Pots y Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues Impact
Mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
Besides the remaining historic resources, several other archaeologically or historically significant buildings or site,
are believed to exist in the area. Next to the Mission, extending north and east past Chorro Street is believed to
be the location of a cemetery for Native Americans. La Casa Grande, the original County courthouse was located
on Court Street, as was the ornate Obispo Theatre that burned in the 1970s. Chinese culture in San Luis Obispo
was concentrated along both sides of Palm Street between Chorro and Morro Streets, within the boundaries of the
project site.
Past City projects in the vicinity of the Chinatown project(i.e. development of a surface parking lot at the
southwest corner of Palm and Morro Streets, and the Palm Street parking structure on the northeast side of Palm
Street across from the proposed development) have identified the presence of archaeological resources. A
records search has also identified five archaeological sites that are known to exist within a half mile, including the
Mission, the present location of the Pacific Bell Telephone Building on 872 Morro Street, which contained four
burials potentially from the Mission Period, and the Myron Angel house.
In 1986 a significant archeological discovery was made during the excavation for the Palm Street Parking Garage.
The site is located at the old center of Chinatown, on Palm Street, across from the Chinatown component of the
proposed project Findings on the site included a late Mission Period structure with its foundation and walls intact,
and evidence of Chinese occupation 25 to 175 centimeters below the surface. Native American artifacts, probably
from the Mission Period, were also discovered at the site. More recently (1997), the City prepared an
Archaeological Resource Inventory and Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation prior to development of
the present surface parking lot at the comer of Morro and Palm Street. The studies identified an extensive amount
of archaeological artifacts that were cataloged. Similar resources are anticipated to exist on other portions of the
Chinatown site that include and are adjacent to this archaeological site.
Historical Resources
The proposed project is located within the Downtown and Chinatown Historic Districts, near or next to several o
the City's most historically and architecturally significant buildings. These include: Mission San Luis Obispo de
Tolosa, Murray Adobe, Carnegie Library, Ah Louis Store, Muzio's Store, Sauer/Adams Adobe, Sauer Bakery,
Universal Auto Parts Building, J.P. Andrews Building, Fremont Theatre, Sperry-Laird Building, and the Anderson
Hotel. Several of the listed structures have been determined to be eligible or"potentially eligible"for the National
Register of Historic Places. Figure 1 shows the location of the Downtown and Chinatown Historic Districts and
their hisforic resources. In addition, several adjacent buildings and a neon sign, although not on the City's Master
List of Historic Resources, may otherwise qualify as"significant" under CEQA due to their age, design or historical
association with Chinatown or the Old Mission. These include, but are not limited to, buildings located at 861 Palm
Street and 978/980 Chorro Street, and the historic Shanghai Low"Chop Suey" roof sign at 861 Palm Street.
Potential Impact
The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect archaeological and historical resources two ways:
A. Removal, demolition, relocation or alteration of the resource. The project will involve considerable grading ar4d
excavation in areas believed to contain significant subsurface cultural resources. Pursuant to the City's
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, this will likely require a Phase 3 resource recovery to
preserve significant artifacts. In addition, new construction is likely to adversely affect on-site and adjacent
historic resources requiring demolition or structural modifications to accommodate the project.
B. Alteration of the resource's setting or immediate surroundings, such as that the significance of a historical
resource is materially impaired (CEQA Section 15064.5). This includes the construction of buildings, which,
due to their location, design, or scale, alters views of the resource, its historic relationship to nearby properties,
or other characteristics of the historic building or use.
��� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Cultural ResourLeS Figure 1
Downtown San Luis Obispo
.:I�yf�lin��l;; *�`'i!ijllh�;l,i'., ,u,l '':1;11:1�:.,�P��I��Is'�'�lili�r�:l lll�l;. •
�I n IN. {I I I 1,� y I. Ilu i'�il�Jl ll� I II I��� n •
I' 'I 1 1 I 4.l' ' � I I' I ILII"N[I f I�j I I� I •
13�46I4r�r�1 a a���Na IP.��1�1 r IIT 111 u1 Ih g�l 1 1 I'4��v�Iyki °�a�'��
4.
Is1#�Ip I I Il I 1 I I � �;61 llh III. � 4P 114i.:vll hll��lll. �QI� Gf
I I I I I{ 11 I I I �N1 I
� �Ir 4r{�M1II�I r� 1 1 +fl �]��� 111411 W 6�1�>. n rylll�n1�1�{II 1.i III II ��. e�a •
xg f :ca v r
k4�lll 1}I� r li l
66�INI ^ I{Ih I' fllll'
hl III 1 L np:Eli
41 �'
'`I SI. �h O QI 11'1 II �fl,l:,�l null � lr��n^I � ■ ■
I4 p, uN 'lWr ,b,l rl,l,li
W.M.
''x
1�" 1 W� h" � 411' •■ • ■
�q'l�r�jl�ir� 1, � 61 �Yil�.il���,lf 'i' � • @"I II '�§ p. ql bl ■
".M
tl�pl,�p�f Ileo 4�1�11^I'� P���W���I�'N�'FII�I����r I • - •
lull
111, ,11'�I�r' '1Y 14y4t ,f I I �*1 li'1 � •
I I I�Ir'�r� t N�E�7,il'9� I ki I II I �lks 1 11111 iil I I;1{� -
�k
�IQ�li�l'I�'r I I1'�f�� 11�hll� ��� ♦ �� �' NI�11 ,I I
sl}n l4 rii I ' W a viV I, I h'�' °k 1 �nl u'I�J ua il. •
�I
F •
♦
\ +
t
MON.'
�„; ; Archaeological Site Vicinity Historic Buildings
Historical Districts Listed on the National Register
Chinatown + Determined Eligible for Listing
Downtown ■ Eligible for Listing
- Potentially Eligible for Listing
Old Town
• Not Eligible for Listing, but Locally Significant
O Identified by Other Agency
0 200 400
N Meters 100 300 500
Issues and Supporting Informa Sources Sources Pot y Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
There is a very high probability that pre-historic or cultural materials will be found on the two project sites. Since
the project will involve significant excavation and redevelopment, the project timeline must accommodate a time
period prior to project construction to allow for identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources, and
for full recovery of the significant subsurface resources that would be affected by the project. Other areas that are
not proposed for excavation may not require recovery but shall be fully evaluated for archaeological resource
impacts.
Given the known sensitivity of the project sites in terms of their potential importance for cultural and archaeological
resources, the City prepared a separate Request for Proposals (RFP)for cultural resource services, including
historic and archaeological resource inventories, and subsurface testing and documentation. A proposal was
received and accepted by the City from the consulting firm Applied EarthWorks to do the prescribed fieldwork and
reports.
Included in the consultant's proposal is an archeological subsurface testing program to be performed by a qualified
archeologist pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. The results of the testing
program will be presented in a report which details all findings, discusses the significance of the resources, and
describes steps necessary to protect the resource, including provisions for resource recovery, monitoring, curation
and public displayfinterpretation of the significant resources. Native American coordination has been arranged for
in case of possible recovery of human remains during project excavation.
The consultant's proposal also includes the retention of a qualified Historical consultant to identify significant
historic resources within the project area, evaluate project effects on those historic resources, and recommend
appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, consistent with CEQA, the City's General Plan and the Histor'
Preservation Program Guidelines:
Issue Area Workscope:
The EIR consultant selected will need to coordinate,their work with that of Applied EarthWorks in terms of the
discussion of cultural and archaeological resources and appropriate mitigation measures.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)': Conflict with adopted energy conservatio6.0l6ris? 17 X
b) ..Use nonrenewable resources in,a-wasteful:and;:inefficient
manrei? 17 X
C)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the.region and the 17 X
residents of the State?
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,
including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals througg
enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and
nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards.
The City also implements energy conservation goals through its development review process. Project designers
are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy
demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. To
avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommended:
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
moi/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforr n Sources Sources r aly Less Than Less Than No
5 :ant Significant Significant Impact
Issues With Impact
ER #152-00
Mitigation
Page 14 Incorporated
Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
a.) Skylights to maximize natural day lighting;
b.) Proper building orientation and highly efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, with
consideration for passive systems;
c.) Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use that consider natural illumination.
d.) Energy-efficient water heating systems.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose.peopleiorstructures to potontial•substOhtial.
adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury,or'de'ath°
involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake;fault, ash delineated,in ,
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fauft
Zoning Map issued by the State-Geologist.for the area, 18 X
or based on other substantial evidence of a known .
fault? -
11. Strong.seismic ground shaking?' 19 X
Ill. .Seismic related ground-failure, InoludingJlquefaction?.; 199
20 X
IV. Landslides orrhudflows? X
b) Result Insubstantial soil erosion,or the loss of topsibil? ` X
C) Be located on•a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or -
that would become unstable as a result dill e.project,and 19,
potentially result:in on or off site landslides, lateral' 20 X
spreading,•subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on:expansive soil, as defined in Table 18A-.9.0f
the Uniform Building Code(1994) creati%ig substantial X
risks to life or property? I.
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in
Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected at any
time during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria
established in the Uniform Building Code. Since this is a code requirement that is monitored through the review of
plans during the Building Division's plan check process, no further mitigation is necessary.
The site lies in an area identified by the Safety Element of the General Plan as being in an area of High
Liquefaction Potential. As defined in the Safety Element, liquefaction is"the sudden loss of the soil's supporting
strength due to groundwater filling and lubricating the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking."
In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground. The likelihood of
liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. The risk of settlement for new construction
can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site preparation and proper foundation design.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
`� CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform I Sources
Sources Po 'y Less Than Less Than No
Sig,,...-ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 15 Incorporated
Mitigation Measure:
A soils engineering report shall be prepared for the three project areas (for the purpose of this investigation the
Monterey Street and Palm Street sites shall be considered as one). Each shall address general soils and geologic
conditions, and known hazards present, including the potential for liquefaction and subsidence. For the
Palm/Monterey.Area, given the massive amount of excavation that will be necessary to develop the proposed
three-level, sub-surface parking structure, special grading requirements shall be outlined to address concerns for
soil movement and structural integrity. Existing soils reports for this area shall be reviewed and if deemed still
relevant, shall be updated and recommended as acceptable. For the Court Street Area, the report, in addition to
all other considerations, should specifically review the fill material used behind the San Luis Obispo Creek Wall for
suitability and use in this project. For the Copeland/French property, the report should assume both that an
underground parking structure may and may not be built. The report, in its entirety, shall identify special
earthwork, grading, construction techniques, and foundation design criteria for the site development proposed on
each of the sites.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the findings of the
soils engineering report, and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would_ the project:
a).'.Create a signifieant hazard to the public or•..the;
envlronmerifahoughthe routine.use; P:trans :ortordis osal:;+:
P X
of haiardous.iriaterials?
b), Create-a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and '
�abdideint conditions involving the teiease.of hazardous,
materials into!ttie environment?
c) Ernith626rdousemissions or handle ha ardous&'acufely,
.haiardous materials,substances;or waste;vrithin one= . X
quartermileofarnexisting orprop
osedschooh - -
d),I, Expose people:orstructures,to existing:sources of'
hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely haardous ;;j X
materials, substances; or waste?
e) Be located on=a site which is included on a Ilst of
haiardous materials:sites compiled pursuant to, 8 X
Govemment.Code Section 659fi2 3 and;as"a result, it
woutd create aesignificant hazard to the:public or the
environments : .
f) For a project-located.within an airport land use plan, or
.within two:rriiles of a•public airport would the-.projectresult.- 21 X
in a satetyaiazard for the people iesiding'onwor kin g.,in theL
project area.
g) Impair:amplernentation-of, or physically Interfere with,�the
adopted emergency_response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan
h) Expose people,or structures to a signifii ant risk ofilose > .
injury., ordeatfi;irnolving wildland fires, includmgwhem 19 X
wildl_ands are adjacent to urbanized,areas or where ,
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS Claispo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforl )n Sources Sources f 'ally Less Than Less Than No
S cant Significant Significant Impact
Issues With Impact
ER #152-00
Mitigation
Page 16 Incorporated
• residents are intermixed with wildlands?
The proposal, which includes commercial, residential, professional office, government office and automobile
parking uses is not likely to create health hazards and there are no known existing health hazards on the project
site. The City's Zoning Regulations insures that uses that involve hazardous substances are separated from
densely populated urban areas or the uses are otherwise controlled to insure public safety through the building
permit process. Where generators or other fuel tanks are required, permits issued by the City's Fire Department
insure compliance with applicable ordinances and codes to insure public safety. The site is not in an area with
flammable brush or grass and trees are interspersed and not densely planted. Potential safety issues associated
with the development of the underground parking garage are discussed in Section 15., Transportation/Traffic, of
this initial study.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
0
According to the current City's Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System database, the project sites
are not included on any lists of known hazardous materials sites. However, with grading.and site work
preparation, there will be excavation that may unearth contaminants associated with past uses. Therefore, a
review of site conditions and historical uses of the properties will need to be completed to confirm that the sites are
free of contamination.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall complete a Phase I environmental site assessment to determine if any contamination issues
may be associated with site development. If possible issues are identified in the Phase I study, a Phase II level
analysis may be required which accurately delineates site contamination and provides a plan for resolution of all
contamination issues prior to construction. The Phase I, and if required, Phase 11 plans must be reviewed and
approved by the City's Fire Marshal.
Issue Area Workscope:
The consultant shall incorporate the background, conclusions and proposed mitigation programs of the required
environmental site assessments into the EIR.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) violate any water quality standards of waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies'or in4erfere
substantially with groundwater recharge suchthat'there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a.lower'rng,ofthe X
local groundwater fable level (eg. The.production,rate of: >:..!
preexisting nearby wells would drop to<a Bevel whieh.twould..
not support,existing land use's for which hermits ha-ve bee's;;
granted)?
d) Create or contribute runoff water,Which would exceed.'the-i 22,
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage: .23, X
systems or provide substantial additionaLsources.of. 24
polluted runoff.
d) _Substantially alter the.existing draina9epattern of:thb site.
(llll�i� CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform, i Sources Sources Po FyLess Than Less Than No
Signmcant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 17 Incorporated
or area in a manner, which would resultin substantial X
erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area in a manner,which would result in substantial 24 X
flooding onsite or offsite?
f) Place. housing within a 100-year flood hazard,"area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary:or.Flood X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation. .
map?
g) Place within a.100-year flood hazalyd afea strictures which. 25,
Would impede or redirect flood flows? 26 X
h) .Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? . X
Surface Drainage
Proposed development will not significantly change soil absorption rates since the project site is presently
developed with a combination of street right-of-way, surface level parking, and structures. The amount of
impervious surfaces will not significantly increase if the project is built as proposed.
Court Street Flooding
The Court Street site lies within the 100-year flood plain of San Luis Obispo Creek. Over the years, shallow sheet
flooding has been observed on the site. The Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that the project area is within the AO Zone with a maximum
floodwater depth of 2 feet. The AO Zone is described as areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths are
between 1 and 3 feet.
Although the FIRM map indicates that the entire site is within the AO Zone, floodwaters do not approach the site
from Monterey Street due to local topographic features that include a high point in Monterey Street approximately
in the location of the Fremont Theatre. As a result, all flood waters that have been observed on this site approach
from Higuera Street and do not extend up as far as Monterey Street .
The potential impacts of flooding in San Luis Obispo are addressed by ordinance, the Flood Damage Prevention
Guidelines. For projects in the AO Zone, the ordinance requires the lowest finished floor of buildings to be raised
to a minimum of one foot above the 100-year peak flood elevation. Flood-proofing of downtown commercial
buildings using flood-gates and the use of building materials that are less likely to be damaged by water are
identified as acceptable alternatives in the ordinance to raising the finished floor elevation.
The project also has the potential to affect flooding downstream, by changing the velocity and elevation of
floodwaters through the addition of new structures within the flood plane. This potential impact is also addressed
by the Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines. Any project that increases flood depths by more than one foot is ,,,-
required to implement design alternatives that are consistent with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines.
As part of the building permit application for buildings proposed in the flood zone, the applicant must submit a
hydrologic study that shows how the project complies with standards of the Flood Damage Prevention'Guidelines
to the approval of the Public Works Department.
Compliance with standards contained in this ordinance is typically considered adequate to mitigate potentially
significant impacts to people and property from flooding hazards.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
81026 CITY OF SAN LUIS CBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
I.1
Issues and Supporting Inform i Sources Sources P Ily Less Than Less Than No
Sib ..:ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 18 Incorporated
Mitigation Measure:
The project shall be designed to fully comply with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy; or regulation. 1,13
of an'agency with jurisdiction over:.the project adopted for' 27,28
the. purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental.' 2930 X
effect? - 31,32
b) Physically divide an established community?., ;s; X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan oe
natural community conservation plans? X
The project is located entirely within the area identified by the Land Use Element of the General Plan as the
Downtown Core(LUE Figure 4). The area is shown on the General Plan Land Use Map as General Retail, and it
is zoned Central-Commercial. The entire site is within the Downtown Historic District, and the Court Street
property has a planned development overlay from a previously approved project that was never built.
Land Use Element(LUE)
The project with its mixed uses, sidewalk orientation, and pedestrian linkages is consistent with several goals and
policies for the downtown that are identified in the element(e.g. LUE 2.27, 3.1.5, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.5, 4.11, 4.15,
4.16.1, 4.16.2,4.16.3, 4.16.5, 4.16.6, 5.1.1 and 5.1.4). There are several other LUE policies outlined below that
will need to be considered with the project design. A general finding of consistency is made after each policy
excerpt. Where a finding is made that a significant impact is likely with development of the project, then an EIR
workscope task is identified. Subsequent sections of this document further detail General Plan consistency
relative to each issue area.
LU 3.1.6: Building Intensity
The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0, except that downtown sites, which receive
transfers of development.credits for open space protection, shall not exceed 4.0. The Zoning Regulations will
establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines,
as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will
determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a
neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. So
long as the floor area ratio is not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to
nonresidential development on a site.
The overall building intensity is measured by the floor area ratio(FAR). Plans show that the project will not exceed
the maximum allowable FAR of 3.0. The FAR is 1.9 for both the Palm Street and Court Street site components
and 0.9 for the Monterey Street site component.
Conclusion: No impact.
LU 4.7: Open Places and Views
Downtown should include many carefully located open places where people can rest and enjoy views of the
surrounding hills. Downtown should include some outdoor spaces where people are completely separated from
vehicle traffic, in addition to Mission Plaza. Opportunities include extensions of Mission Plaza, a few new plazas,
and selected street closures.
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform; Sources Sources Not y Less Than Less Than No
Sign.,..ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 19 Incorporated
The project contains many courtyard and plaza areas that provide extensive opportunity for pedestrians to explore
and rest. These courtyards will require careful design in order to offer open views towards the surrounding hills.
The design should minimize narrow passages between tall structures.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Further analysis of this impact and a workscope item are provided in Section 1, Aesthetics, of this document.
LU 4.11: The Creek
San Luis Obispo Creek should be protected and restored, provided this can be done in a manner that minimizes
human impact on creek life. Walking paths along the creek in the downtown core should be provided as links in an
urban trail system, provided this will not further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem. As
properties that have encroaching buildings are redeveloped, the City should enforce a reasonable building setback
from the riparian zone. Opportunities to open covered sections of the creek should be pursued.
A small section of San Luis Obispo creek lies under portions of Higuera Street and the Court Street site. The
project as proposed will not impact biological resources associated with San Luis Creek, because if the project is
developed as proposed, the creek will remain in its current configuration. The City Council in its review of plans to
reconstruct the Higuera Street bridge discussed the possibility of a small portion of the creek being opened across
the project site. Because of hydraulic issues and potential Flooding concerns, the Council concluded that the
disadvantages outweighed any advantages to having an open channel here.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
LU 4.12: Building Conservation and Compatibility
Architecturally and historically significant buildings should be preserved and restored. New buildings should be
compatible with architecturally and historically significant buildings, but not necessarily the same style.
All of the project site is within the Downtown Historic District and located adjacent to several buildings that are
historically and architecturally significant. The Architectural Review Commission will review the proposed building
design for consistency with this policy, and will have input from the Cultural Heritage Committee. No further
mitigation is necessary.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
LU 4.13: New Buildings and Views
New downtown development should respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.
Given the placement of proposed buildings within the project, present views of Cerro San Luis will be obscured.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Further analysis of this impact and a workscope item are provided in Section 1, Aesthetics, of this document.
LU 4.16.4: Building Height
New buildings should fit within the existing vertical scale. They should respect street-level views of the hills, allow
sunlight to reach public open spaces, and defer to a few tall, "landmark" buildings. Generally, new buildings should
�� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforn n Sources Sources P illy Less Than Less Than No
S. :ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 20 incorporated
• not exceed two or three stories (about 35 to 50 feet). Where necessary to protect significant views, sunlight, and
street character, new buildings should be limited to two stories, or about 25 to 35 feet tall. A few taller, landmark
buildings(about five stories or 75 feet) may be developed where they will not obstruct views or sunlight for public
spaces. These taller buildings would be more appropriate at mid-block than at corners, and their floors above the
second or third level should be set back to maintain a lower street facade. The tall buildings should include publicly
accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Similar to policies 4.7 and 4.13 consistency with this policy will be the focus of workscope items provided in
Section 1, Aesthetics.
LU 4.17: Government Offices
City Hall and the County Government Center should remain at their present locations. Additional administrative
office space,which cannot be accommodated within the County Government Center, should be developed nearby
within the downtown.
The proposal potentially involves the possibility of the City developing a new civic office building in order to
accommodate all of the primary functions of the City as listed in Policy LU 5.1.4 A. The new location would
consolidate City departments that are currently housed in multiple locations. This proposed consolidation in the
general vicinity of the existing City Hall would be consistent with this policy.
Conclusion: No impact.
LU 5.1.12: Building Intensity
Buildings in Public Facility areas will have a wide range of characteristics, since they can range from downtown
offices and meeting rooms to fire stations and maintenance yards at the edges of the City. The appropriate
building intensity for each location will be decided through use permit and architectural review. Generally, the ratio
of building floor area to site area should not exceed 1.0 in outlying locations, and 2.0 downtown. The Zoning
Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and
other property lines, generally to reflect the standards for these items in neighboring land use districts. Dwellings
may be provided only as caretaker quarters, as shelters (with discretionary review), or as part of a specially
approved mixed-use development. The appropriate residential density would be set considering the maximum
residential density allowed in any neighboring land use district.
The project description includes the possibility of a municipal office building with underground parking being
developed at the northeastern comer of Palm and Morro Streets. As described, the office building would have a
Floor Area Ratio(FAR) of about 1.5, which is less than the maximum allowed FAR of 2.0. When a speck
development plan is proposed for this site, it would need to reflect consistency with the FAR, as well as other
applicable property development standards.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
LU 5.8: Public Art
The City willencourage inclusion of appropriate public art in all projects.
Public art should be incorporated into appropriate locations of both project areas. The Architectural Review
Commission will review proposals for public art and will encourage public art to be included as a design feature.
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform, i Sources. Sources Pc uy Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 21 Incorporated
Conclusion: No impact.
LU 6.6.1: Historical Resources
Historical resources should be identified, preserved, and where necessary and possible, restored.
The building at 861 Palm Street, which is part of the Palm Street site component, is included on the City's Listing
of"Contributing Properties within Historical Preservation Districts". Contributing structures do not necessarily have
their own significant historic or architectural value, but do add, as described in the City's Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines, to the historic character of neighborhoods. Many of the properties in the immediate vicinity of
the project sites also contain historic resources.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
A workscope item identified in Section 5, Cultural Resources, will help identify historic resources, including signs,
and will present alternative strategies for identification and/or preservation.
LU 6.6.4:Archaeological Resources
A) Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in
outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means
to avoid the threat are infeasible. The street appearance of buildings, which contribute to a neighborhood's
architectural character, should be maintained.
E) Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting construction,
the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include: proj
redesign; covering with a layer of fill; excavation and removal under the direction of a qualified profession
presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching.
G) All Native American cultural sites and archaeological sites should be protected as open space wherever
possible.
H) A11 areas proposed for development should be surveyed for significant Native American resources before
planning is finalized during initial grading or trenching.
1) Native American participation should be included in the City's guidelines for resource assessment and
impact mitigation. Native American monitors should be present during archaeological excavation, and
during construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
An workscope item identified in Section 5, Cultural Resources, will help identify historic resources and will presept
alternative strategies for identification and/or preservation. A Mitigation Measure is recommended specifically to
address the potential for Native American archeological finds and what to do if these resources are discovered.
Housing Element
H 2.1.1: Affordability
Encourage housing production whose affordability fits the income profile of the City's present population. (p12,
1.22)
CITY OF SAN LUIS 091spo 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting.lnforn n Sources Sources F- aIy Less Than Less Than No
Si; .Icant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 22 Incorporated
• Compliance with the City's new Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will insure that the affordable housing requirement
for the project is met. The Housing Element specifically promotes the development of mixed-income
neighborhoods, rather than neighborhoods segregated by income type. The inclusion of affordable dwelling units
as part of the project, as opposed to paying in-lieu fees to satisfy the affordable housing requirement, would help
the project meet this goal. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
H 4.1.1: Mixed Income Housing
Encourage the development of mixed-income neighborhoods and housing rather than housing that is segregated
by economic status. (p18,1.25)
The inclusion of affordable dwelling units as part of the project, as opposed to paying in-lieu fees to satisfy the
affordable housing requirement, would help the project meet this goal.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
H 8.8.1 Special Housing Needs
Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs. (p22,1.28)
Compliance with this policy can be achieved through ADA compliance, which is controlled by the building permit
process, and through compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. In addition, architectural review can
insure that the design does not preclude housing that is suitable for those with special needs. No further mitigation
is necessary.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
H 9.1.1: Energy and Water Conservation
Produce housing that is economical to occupy because it incorporates energy-saving and water-saving features.
(p23,1.29)
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
The City's Architectural Review and Building Permit process will insure that this goal is achieved through design
considerations and through compliance with the California Energy Code. Further discussion and recommended
mitigation measures are provided in Section 6, Energy and Mineral Resources.
Open Space Element
OS 8.1.3: Protection of Archaeological Resources
In areas where it is suspected that archaeological resources may exist, the agency with jurisdiction should require
surface surreys, literature searches, and sub-surface testing prior to site development or grading. (p. 57,3)
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
These issues are addressed with recommended mitigation measures and a workscope item defined and
discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources.
_� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform. I Sources Sources Po, y Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 23 Incorporated
Conservation Element
CO 7.1.1: Preservation of Historic Sites
The City should adopt the policy to: preserve sites identified with the history of the City, County, State, and the
Nation, to preserve buildings and groups of buildings of unique or characteristic architecture, and to preserve
smaller sites and single buildings that are symbolic of the many social and ethnic pioneers. (p7.9,1)
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
These issues are addressed with recommended mitigation measures and a workscope item defined and
discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources.
Energy Conservation Element
EC 1.2.3: City Facilities and Operations
The City will set an example for energy conservation and the use of renewable sources in its own facilities and
operations. The materials purchasing, use, and recycling activities of the City will recognize indirect energy-use
consequences. (p. 6)
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Energy conservation practices and design, including recycling facilities, are an important part of architectural
review and are addressed in Section 6, Energy and Mineral Resources, and Section 16, Utilities and Service
Systems, with recommended mitigation measures.
EC 1.3.10: Passive Heating and Natural Illumination
New municipal facilities will be designed to make maximum feasible use of passive heating and cooling as well as
use of natural illumination. Heating and lighting will be"zoned"to allow control in individual work areas. (p7,10)
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Energy conservation practices and design are an important part of architectural review and are addressed in
Section 6, Energy and Mineral Resources, with recommended mitigation measures.
EC 1.3.11: Solar Water Heating/New Facilities
Solar water heating will be incorporated in new City facilities when cost-effectiveness evaluations show a savings
within the expected life of the facility. (p8,11)
Energy conservation practices and design are an important part of architectural review and are addressed in
Section 6, Energy and Mineral Resources, with recommended mitigation measures.
EC 1.3.44: Project Approval
Approval of major new commercial and residential projects will be conditioned on inclusion of programs such as
informing residents/employees of carpool and bus information, "free" bus passes for the first month after
occupancy, and similar measures designed to foster energy saving travel habits at the time such habits are most
susceptible to change. (pl3,44)
Energy conservation practices and design, including use of alternative forms of transportation are an important
�� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforn n Sources Sources a iiy Less Than Less Than No
Sit ..ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With impact
Mitigation
Page 24 Incorporated
• part of architectural review and are addressed in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 6, Energy and Mineral
Resources, with recommended mitigation measures.
Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center
PROGRAM LUE 4.19: Implementing the Downtown Concept Plan
The City will consider including features of a"Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center", as appropriate, in its
zoning regulations, architectural review guidelines, engineering standards, and capital improvement program.
The Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, commonly referred to as the "Downtown Plan"was adopted by
City Council Resolution No. 8165 in May of 1993. The plan consists of a two-sided poster with a legend of land
uses, illustrative building footprints, and proposals for pedestrian enhancements, complemented by three-
dimensional sketches of possible design solutions for selected parts of the plan, on one side. The reverse side is
devoted primarily to a verbal description of the plan, its goals and objectives. The plan was created by a volunteer
team of design professionals in the community and.was then reviewed by staff, advisory bodies, and ultimately the
Council.
The Downtown Plan was developed to provide property owners, developers, interested citizens, staff, and decision
makers with a single document that graphically illustrates a long-range vision for the downtown and provides
guidelines for public and private projects. The plan is a long-range blueprint meant to be "time-neutral; meaning
that it does not propose that plan components be accomplished by a specific date. The plan was purposely not
adopted by ordinance to give it status as a "vision"and"guidelines", rather than mandatory policy. Building
footprints were added to the plan to give it more realism, but are not meant to be fixed or required development
envelopes. While the plan and its elements are conceptual to provide for flexibility and creativity in the design of
projects that may not have been fully anticipated at the time of plan adoption, the core concepts and pedestrian
patterns are important and need to be considered with the review of projects.
For Area 1 on the Downtown Plan, which includes the Court Street site component, the text calls for the Court
Street parking lot site to be redeveloped with a mixed-use building and public park/p/aza. The text further
suggests that the creek on this block be opened up to the extent possible. The physical plan itself shows the
creek opened up in the southeastern comer of the site near Higuera Street, and buildings in a U-shaped
configuration closest to the intersection of Monterey and Osos Streets.
The project is generally consistent with the plan in that it provides a mixed-use project with significant public use
areas. The plan differs from the plan and text in that the buildings are sited in an extended"L"configuration, rather
than a "U"shape, and while the public use areas are significant, they are less expansive than what the plan
illustrates. Also the plan does not show the creek open through the site. However, the possibility of opening the
creek through the site was discussed by the City Council with their consideration of plans to reconstruct the
Higuera Street bridge and found to be infeasible because of hydraulic and flooding issues (see previous
discussion regarding Policy LU 4.11: The Creek).
For Area 5 on the Downtown Plan, which includes the Palm Street and Monterey Street site components,
The text of the plan calls for a walkway through the center of the site, as well as pedestrian connections to Palm
and Monterey Streets. The plan also call for Morro Street to be closed to accommodate a large multi-use building
facing Palm Street, with retail on the ground floor and offices above. it further recommends that residential uses
be included on upper levels and set back from the street. Multi-level parking is also called for which takes
advantage of the site's sloping terrain.
Again the project is generally consistent with the plan in that it provides retail, office and residential uses together
��i CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Informi Sources Sources Po. y Less Than Less Than No
Sigrincant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 25 Incorporated
along with the requisite pedestrian connections. The plan also includes the multi-level parking structure.
Residential units are stepped back from adjoining street frontages.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
The Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, in their review of project plans
should discuss and consider the project's consistency with the Downtown Plan. If the project is ultimately
supported, the Downtown Plan should be modified when next amended to reflect the footprints of approved
buildings.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
.a); Exposure of people to or.generatiori of unaci>eptable `.
i noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General'-, . 33 X
PlawNoise Element, or general noise.levels in excess of
standards established'.in the Noise,0rdMan ce?
P) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase .
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels X
existing without the project?
.C): Exposure of persons to or-generation of excessive
:droundbome vibration or groundbornenoise levels? ". X
'd). For a project located within an.airport'land use plan, or -
within two miles,of a public airport or public use airport, X
would the project expose people residing or working in the
pfoject:area:to excessive noise level's?
The proposed retail commercial uses are not noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. However, the
residential units proposed as part of the project are sensitive noise receptors. It is likely that noise generated from
traffic on Monterey Street and Palm Street, combined with noise generated by pedestrians, restaurants, and retail,
would exceed the thresholds identified in the Noise Element and would require attenuation measures to insure
compliance.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Issue Area Workscope:
Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses and attenuating noise to the planned residential units:
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,:either
directly (for' example by proposing . new homes or
businesses)- or'indirectly (for example, through extension 1 X
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)_ Displace substantial numbers of existing;housing or-people 1,
necessitating the' construction of •replacement housing 28 X
elsewhere?
Local Population Projections
The development of the project could create some growth in the number of workers seeking housing in San Luis
Obispo. The development of the Court Street site with commercial uses was anticipated by the LUE and the
I`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inf, tion Sources Sources •ntialIY Less Than Less Than No
,tificant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Page 26 Mitigation
Incorporated
• associated impacts were analyzed in the EIR prepared for the update of the LUE. Thus, the population estimates
contained in the General Plan take into account development of the Court Street site with similar commercial uses.
The EIR for a previous and more intensive project proposed for the Court Street site concluded that the growth-
inducing impacts of the project were insignificant. The intensification of residential development proposed as part
of the Chinatown development was not specifically anticipated by the LUE EIR and the associated impacts have
not been analyzed.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Impacts in this issue area are anticipated to be minimal since a certain amount of increased housing demand will
be offset by the project, which includes a residential component.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision, or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? """
X
5) Police protection? X
c) Schools? 1
X
d) Parks? X
"e) Roads and ofher transportation mfrastrl rcture7 X
f) Other public facilities? _ 1
Public Facilities X
The proposal does not require the development of new City infrastructure that will result in altered services in the
above issue areas. Increased traffic on downtown streets surrounding project sites may require more frequent
resurfacing of those streets.
Fire Protection
Fire protection would be augmented by sprinkler requirements in all proposed buildings. The Fire Marshall will
review plans submitted with a building permit application for compliance with fire codes and to make sure that
adequate points of entry are maintained to allow fire apparatus to get access to remote parts of the project, per
City standards.
Police Protection
The Police Department has indicated that the courtyard areas of the project sites should be maintained under
private ownership and patrolled by a private security company. Courtyard areas would be difficult to patrol and
would require an increased focus by beat officers.
Conclusion:
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall develop a security plan for the parking structure, the courtyard areas of the project, the
residential parking area and elevator entry, and public stairways and elevators, as a condition of their development
application. The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in the parking garage, will establish
rules and regulations for public use of the courtyard areas, and establish timeframes for private security patrols to
`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform i Sources Sources Pc y Less Than Less Than No
Sign...�ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 27 Incorporated
be in place. The plan shall be routed to the Police Department for comments and shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Council. The plans will ultimately become a recorded document that runs with the land to
insure its long-term applicability. The applicant shall consider a central station monitoring system for the existing
Downtown Center and the proposed project.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
A: Increase the use of existing neighborhood or.regional
parks or other:recreabonal facilities such°that substantial. :: 34,
physical detehorationof the facility would occur or be 35 X
;b)` Include recreational facilities or require.the construction or
expansion of recreational4acilities wtiiclrmigit•have an :" X
adverse.physical effect:on the envtronment�
New residential developments incrementally add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. 22
residential units are proposed with the project. Park-in-lieu fees would be required to help finance additional park
space or equipment in the vicinity if individual ownership of the residential units is proposed through a subdivision.
These fees are sufficient to offset the effect of the additional demand for recreational facilities. If rental housing is
proposed, then park-in-lieu fees would not be required
Conclusion: Less than significant impacts.
15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) ,;Cguse:,an,iincrease in traffic, whichisaubstantial:in relation 1, 2,
to the.:existiri traffia load and capacity of;the street 10, X
systems 13
bj Exceed, either:{ndlviduallyorcU.mUlatively, a;level,,of 1,
service standard established.by the county congestion 37 X
1manm
ageent'agency for designated roads and highways?,
`c)' dubstanUaUy:.increase;.t�aaard§duetodeslgn features{e g.,;,
sharpcurdes or dangerous intersections) or itffile% X
-;„Us6$%(e g;.farm:equlpm
d) Result in inadequate emergency,access. x
e) Result:m Inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 36 X
f)' Conflict with:adoptedpiiliciesstrpporting alternative
transportation(e:g.•bus turnouts,,bicycle racks)? X
g) Conflict with.the:with;San Luis Obispo County'Airport Land:
Use Plan resulting`in substantial safety risks frorn hazards,., 21 X
noise,:'or a change in air traffic,patterns?
Setting
Key downtown streets that provide access to the project sites are Higuera, Osos, Monterey, Morro, and Palm
Streets. The City's Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies Palm Street, between Chorro and Osos
Streets as a "commercial collector.” Monterey and Higuera Streets are classified as"arterials." All other access
streets (Morro and Osos Streets) are classified as "local streets." No change in any of these street classifications
would be needed with approval of the project in that they are intended to carry commercial and residential traffic to
and from the site.
City staff has evaluated project plans in terms of potential transportation and traffic issues and found that the
project could result in potentially significant issues in terms of traffic congestion,emergency access, long-term
Vii♦ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforrr i Sources sources P iiy Less Than Less Than No
Si, ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 28 Incorporated
• parking, parking structure design,short-term parking concerns,and pedestrian safety at intersections.
These issues are discussed further in the following paragraphs:
Traffic Congestion
The project will generate additional travel demand within the Central Business District. These additional demands
will likely impact the operation of signalized and unsignalized intersections and may degrade the level of service
(LOS) at some intersections. Depending on the specific distribution of traffic from the project and the application
of trip generation rates that reflect the project's proposed mix of land uses, fully implementing this project may
significantly impact intersection operations.
Full development of this project will create significant demand for additional vehicle parking. In establishing a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)with the project applicant, the City has assumed a joint responsibility for
providing sufficient vehicle parking to serve full development of the project. However, during the project's phased
development, parking shortages might occur, especially during the requisite archaeological evaluation of the Court
Street parking lot or the construction of buildings on.this lot. These shortages could result in additional traffic
circulation within the downtown, which may cause short-term, but significant traffic and circulation impacts.
The impact of downtown development and the construction of additional parking garages were evaluated, in part,
in the draft Final Environmental Impact Report for the Parking and Downtown Access Plan (Parsons
Transportation Group, 1999). This report concluded that traffic impacts to area intersections and street links
would not exceed thresholds of significance (e.g. LOS E) established by the City's Circulation Element, and that
specific mitigation may not be required. While this report provides important background data and is an
appropriate reference document, the specific impacts of the submitted project will need to be separately evaluated.
Emergency Access
Initial review of the proposed parking structure has raised questions about adequate pedestrian exiting locations.
More detailed plans are necessary to adequately address potential safety impacts associated with the design of
the structure.
Long-Term Parking
The project could result in the loss of approximately 287 public parking spaces located within four City parking lots.
Depending on specific project mitigation measures, additional on-street parking stalls may be required to be
removed to accommodate development. These lost spaces must be considered in determining the overall parking
requirement and mitigation for the project.
The restaurant, retail, and office components of the project will generate a need for approximately 304 new parking
spaces. The total of the new project's parking requirement(304) plus the existing parking spaces that would be
lost with development(287) is 591 total spaces. The project proposes the creation of 259 parking spaces with
development of the public parking structure. The project could therefore create a deficiency in public parking of
332 spaces. If ultimately approved by the City, a 30% shared and mixed use parking reduction as provided by the
City's Zoning Regulations would reduce the deficit to 241 spaces. The applicant proposes to pay parking in-lieu
fees as allowed under the City's ordinance for sites in the Central Commercial zone to compensate for this parking
deficiency. The residential component of the project proposes to meet its parking demand with on-site parking
separate from the structure.
Parking Structure Design
The ability of vehicles to safely and effectively enter and exit the planned parking structure needs to be carefully
`1111 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforr n Sources Sources F illy Less Than Less Than No
Signiticant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 29 Incorporated
considered with the review of project plans. From a traffic standpoint, it appears that the proposed Morro Street
entrance to the parking structure is not sufficient. It is likely that more than one point of entrance and exit will be
necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the project. At a minimum, it is anticipated that two lanes into
the garage and two lanes out of the garage must be available during the peak hours of use to avoid significant
queuing. The efficiency of the garage as a whole and the convenience of accessing parking spaces should be
considered in determining the feasibility of the structure.
Short-Term Parking Concerns
During archeological recovery activities and during project construction there will be a significant impact to parking
availability since the surface level parking lots that presently occupy the project site would be unavailable. During
these periods, it is anticipated that local on-street parking, and parking in the Marsh Street Parking Garage and the
Palm Street Parking Garage could be impacted to the point of capacity. During peak times such as on Thursday
nights, during special events,jury assembly periods, and during the busy tourist season periods, available parking
in the downtown core could be severely limited. The likely result of this would be an infusion of vehicle traffic into
the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown core as people looking for parking spots are forced to look farther
out into residential areas.
Pedestrian Safety at Intersections
The intensity of the proposed project will generate significant pedestrian demand that is not addressed by the
City's current sidewalk system or signal system. This is critical at intersections where conflicts between
pedestrians and turning vehicles are most likely to occur.
Issue Area Workscope (Traffic Study):
A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the EIR. The traffic
study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study Guidelines(June 2000). Project trip
generation characteristics and distributions are to be submitted to the City for review and commentlapproval prior
to proceeding with the traffic analysis.
The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM), or equal, to develop the
background traffic projections for future year analyses. The study facilities are to be analyzed as a) existing and
b) existing with traffic generated by the proposed project. The consultant shall supply exhibits illustrating proposed
mitigations. Along arterial corridors, a traffic signal progression analysis may be necessary for Level of Service
determinations and mitigations.
Regarding the SLOCTM, the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk and documentation
with the project land uses and loaded network. If the consultant utilizes another software other than MINUTP, a
licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the City along with the project disks.
Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include:
1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan -review the EIR to: validate this previous EIR's
conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent mitigation measures identified in the EIR
into the design of this project; determine whether residual significant transportation impacts exist; and
present supplemental mitigation measures as necessary.
2. Trip Generation -provide specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to which this project
will increase traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion, in the downtown core.
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforn n Sources Sources Pr Ily Less Than Less Than No
Si, ant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 30 Incorporated
•
3. Intersection Impacts-evaluate the adequacy of vehicle storage for left and right turns at impacted
intersections within the commercial core in close proximity to the project sites (and the secondary impacts
on the existing supply of curb parking).
4. Traffic Signals-look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the potential need for
new traffic signals.
5. Pedestrian Facilities -evaluate the need for improvements to pedestrian facilities along downtown
streets, traffic signals, and at mid-block and intersection locations, to safely accommodate increased
pedestrian volumes associated with the project.
6. Project Support Access -determine whether adequate service, delivery and emergency access to the
proposed project sites is provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle and non-vehicular circulation.
7. Parking Facility Access Points -the location and adequacy of vehicular access to the proposed parking
facilities, their impacts on vehicle circulation, parking, and pedestrian safety within adjoining public street
rights-of-way.
8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency-review and recommend changes to, if any, the proposed parking
structure regarding, circulation, efficiency, and the ability to allow at a minimum: 60 ingress vehicles per
hour and 60 egress vehicles per hour, in a safe and effective manner.
9. Parking Adequacy Issues-summarize parking demand and supply, and identify altemative parking
strategies as mitigation measures, such as supplemental parking supply, Parking Demand Reduction,
Transportation Demand Management, and pricing, to reduce potential impacts of the proposed parking
deficiency to less than significant levels.
10. Access Mitigation Strategies -provide an evaluation of how access levels to the downtown for
employees and patrons can be maintained during the phased construction of the project. At a minimum,
mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures, supplemental parking, and/or alternative parking
techniques and programs.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
-a) Exceed wastewater treatmentirequireme' of ft 239
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 24 X
b). Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
Water treatment, wasterwater treatment, or.9torm drainage.: 24
facilities,the,construction of which'could cause significant.`: X
environmental effects?
c) Have-sufficient water supplies available to serve.the _ 241
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are 38 X
new and expanded water resources needed?
d) Result.in .a determination by tie waste*ater treatment
providerwhich seines or rnay'sefvd the prolectthat It has. . 231
adequate capacity to serve the.project's projected demand 24 X
and addition to the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 39 X
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Info, -ion Sources Sources Bally Less Than Less Than No
...o.,ificant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152-00 Issues With Impact
Page 31 Mitigation
Incorporated
-f) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and
regulations related to solid_w_aste7 39 X
Water Supply & Distribution
The City adopted the Water Allocation Regulations in 1988 to maintain a balance between water use and reliable
levels.of supply. The.project will increase water use and will require a water allocation. Development of the
project site will also require the payment of water impact fees.
Wastewater Collection 8r Facilities
In 1994, the City completed improvements to its wastewater treatment plant to improve both the quality of the
treated effluent, as well as increase the capacity of treatment facilities for wet weather flows. The capacity of the
current plant is 5.1 mgd (million gallons per day). With existing development, current flows average about 4.5
mgd. The wastewater treatment plant should have sufficient additional capacity to serve the proposed project.
However, an analysis of the waste stream generated by the project will be necessary to verify that the sewer lines
are large enough to handle the increased demand. The critical section lies between the project site and the
Nipomo Street collector main. If an analysis shows that this section of the collection system cannot handle the
increased flows then larger mains would have to be installed.
Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Mitigation Measure
The applicant's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City ca
make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site
deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project.
Issue Area Workscope:
Based on the submitted water demand and wastewater generation calculations submitted by the applicant's
engineer, the consultant shall discuss and analyze the following, and provide appropriate mitigation as needed:
1. The projected wastewater flows for the project;
2. The impact of projected flows on the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant;
3. The impact of flows on the wastewater collection system, specifically in the area between the project site
and the Nipomo collector main.
Solid Waste Disposal/Recycling
Reducing the amount of waste generated and disposed of, and increasing the amount of waste that is recycled,
can extend the life of existing landfills, and reduce the need for expensive new sites or expansions of existing
sites. The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority reports that per capita disposal, from
all sources, in the State of California is approximately 4-5 pounds of waste per day. Cold Canyon landfill, the
primary disposal facility for the City of San Luis Obispo, is projected to reach its capacity around 2018.
Consistent with requirements specified in AB939, the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element calls for the
diversion of 50% of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and
composting activities.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inforr n Sources Sources p�,__r :;any Less Than Less Than No
iant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues with Impact
Mitigation
Page 32 incorporated
• Conclusion: Potentially significant issue.
Cumulatively, projects that do not provide for recycling in all phases of their construction and operation
prematurely reduce the capacity of landfills and result in the consumption of raw materials and resources rather
than reuse of recycled materials in the manufacture of new products.
Mitigation Measure:
To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project:
a.) Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
b.) The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete,
sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the demolition of existing buildings and proposed construction. The
plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development
Director, prior to the demolition or building permit issuance.
c.) Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components and in
surfacing wherever feasible.
Issue Area Workscope:
Look at appropriate ways of accommodating trash and recycling areas in to the project that are functional,
accessible and aesthetically pleasing.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
.a) Does-the project have the potentiallto.degrade the quality
Of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of;a
fish or.wildlife species,'cause a fish,or wildlife population,to , X
Orop'belouvself=sustaining levels,threaten to eUrnihate a
plant or animal communlfy -reduce they umberor restiic.C-
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periodsof
Califbmta;historyor prehistory?._..'.:_.. :.,,.
The initial study identifies that the project raises potentially significant impacts for all the issue areas checked in
the table on page 4.
b) Does the project have impacts that are-individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X
considerable" means that the increme.:ntal effects of.a.
project are considerable when viewed irrconnection with
the effects of the pastprojects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Impacts discussed under the headings of air quality, transportation and circulation, energy, and utilities could be
considered to have cumulative significance.
'c) Does the projecfliave environmedWbffects which will
cause substantial adverse eff.ects bri human beings, either- X
directly or indirectly?
An EIR will be required to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with project
development. Mitigation measures recommended in this initial study, along with mitigation proposed by the EIR
`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Issues and Supporting Inform. Sources sources Po. y Less Than Less Than No
Signiucant Significant Significant Impact
ER #152 00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Page 33 Incorporated
A Milk
consultant, will prevent the project from resulting in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where; pursuant to the tie ing, program EIR, or;other CEQA.pr-6 ssi: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
Earlier anal srs used Identi eadie' I ses and`state where they are available,for�e�iew.:._
a) y •..: fy .
Earlier EIRs are referenced as background and listed below. They are informational documents and are not relied
upon for the environmental analysis of the new project. The EIRs are available for review in either the Community
Development Department's library or the Department of Public Works.
b) Impacts,adequately addressed. Identifywhich,effeets;from the above checklist were within- the sco-e,of and.
adequately analyzed in an earlier document,pursuant to`applicable'legali,standardt, and.statei Whether
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on.the earlier analysis.
None.
c) _Mitigation measures. For effects that:are "Less than Significant with Mitigationlncorporaied," descube the
mitigation measures which.were incorporated or refined .from the.earlier document and the.extent to which
they address,site-specific conditions ofihepyojeet: -
There may be some traffic mitigation measures that are ultimately extracted from the Final EIR for the Parking &
Downtown Access Plan, Parsons Transportation Group, 1999.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element(LUE), April 1997.
2. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November 1994.
3. Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo, June 1983.
4. Downtown San Luis Obispo, Charles Hall Page&Assoc., Inc., October 1981.
5. APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
6. City of SLO Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b))-dust management practices.
7. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas, Arcview database.
8. City of SLO Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System, current database.
9. 'City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
10. Final EIR-Proposed Court Street Center Project, January 1989, on file in the Community Development
Department.
11. Palm Street Parking Structure Archaeological Study, 1987
12. An Archaeological Investigation of Historic San Luis Obispo (The Kozak Parking Lot Project), 1995.
13. Final EIR for LUE/Circulation Element Updates with Appendices, August 1994.
14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
15. Proposal for Cultural Resources Services: Chinatown/Court Street Project, Applied EarthWorks,
October 2000.
16. Burial Sensitivity Areas map.
17. City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
18. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
19. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element, July 2000.
20. Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation of City Parking Facility, Monterey Street, Pacific
Geoscience, Inc., June 22, 1983.
21. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Airport, December 1973.
22. City of San Luis Obispo Water&Wastewater Element, July 1996.
Illllli:� CITY OF SAN LUIS Caispo 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
23. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities and Storm Drain Infrastructure Maps on file in the Community
Development Department.
• 24. City of San Luis Obispo Urban Water Management Plan.
25. County of San Luis Obispo Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel#060304-625 C) dated July
18, 1985.
26. City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, revised 9-3-87.
27. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Map & Regulations, February 1997.
28. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element, September 1994.
29. City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Element, January 1994.
30. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation Element, July 1973.
31. City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
32. Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center, May 1993.
33. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element& Noise Guidebook, May 1996.
34. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, April 1995.
35. City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations, September 1982.
36. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of SLO & Chinatown-Court Street Partners, LLC,
September 19, 2000.
37. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan, Parsons Transportation Group, 1999.
38. City of San Luis Obispo Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
39. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence&Associates, July
1994.
20. SUMMARY OF EIR Workscope & Mitigation Measures
#1 AESTHETICS
• Workscope Items:
A. The consultant shall evaluate the submitted visual analysis to identify potential impacts of the project on
views of important scenic resources, and impacts to adjacent businesses and residents in terms of
sunlight exposure levels and views, and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. The consultant should
include in their cost proposal for the EIR whether they believe that the submitted visual analysis is
extensive enough, or if they feel that additional photo-simulation, or other appropriate visual analyses, are
necessary. In designing mitigation measures, the consultant should look at opportunities in the project to
provide unobstructed view corridors, given levels and orientations of building decks and public areas such
as plazas.
B. The consultant shall provide a preliminary analysis regarding the submitted project's consistency with the
City's architectural review guidelines and the performance standards included in Aesthetics Mitigation
Measure No. 2 and offer specific suggestions for ways that the project may be modified to be more in
conformance, if deficiencies are found.
Mitigation Measures
1. The applicant shall submit a visual analysis of the impact of the project on views of the surrounding
hillsides, especially Cerro San Luis. The visual analysis is necessary to understand the potential
viewshed impacts and to evaluate project consistency with the General Plan, which states that new
buildings should frame hillside views rather than obscure them, and that new projects should include
public open space areas, which provide open views toward the surrounding hills.
NINGS CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
2. The ARC shall review the project to evaluate its compliance with the City's architectural review guidelines,
as well as the following design performance standards:
a.) New development shall respect the massing and sizes of existing downtown buildings and •
streetscapes, and attempt to provide a smooth transition from new to old, rather than dominate or
compete with them.
b.) The proposed rhythm of the facades of new buildings within the project shall recognize the existing
patterns of building widths found in the downtown.
c.) Proposed buildings shall have fagade proportions that range from slightly vertical, to square, to slightly
horizontal, rather than have exaggerated proportions.
d.) New buildings should generally have storefronts that are built to the property line along the street.
Setbacks for buildings shall be utilized to address massing concerns, provide view corridors, and to
accommodate pedestrian movement.
e.) Proposed project lighting shall provide for adequate security and safety, but not cast undue glare onto
adjacent properties or streets.
#2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:
None
#3 AIR QUALLTY:
Workscope Items:
A. The consultant shall develop more specific performance standards for the dust management and
emissions control plan described in Air Quality Mitigation Measure No. 1. The consultant shall develop
these standards, based on input from the APCD, and may wish to refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 (a)—
(h) on Pages ES-10-12 from the Revised Draft EIR for the Dalidio Annexation project for a recent example
of a similarly developed mitigation measure.
B. In conjunction with trip generation figures provided from the required traffic analysis, interpolate expected
emissions generated by the project, and develop appropriate mitigation measures, which accommodate
needed transit facilities, encourage pedestrian travel, and consolidate parking, to help offset impacts.
Mitigation Measure:
1. A dust management and emissions control plan, to implement the goals set out in Municipal Code Section
15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2, Dust Control), shall be included along with project grading plans.
#4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Mitigation Measure:
1. Where feasible,existing mature street trees shall be retained and incorporated into the project landscaping
plan. Where proposed plans do not allow for the retention of existing trees,the applicantshall incorporate
new trees into the landscaping plan to compensate for trees removed to the approval of the City Arborist and
the Architectural Review Commission.
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20000
#5 CU_LTURAL_RES_OUR(ZES:
• Workscope Item:
A. The EIR consultant selected will need to coordinate their work with that of Applied EarthWorks in terms of
the discussion of cultural and archaeological resources and appropriate mitigation measures.
#6 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
Mitigation Measure:
1. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
a.) Skylights to maximize natural day lighting;
b.) Proper building orientation and highly efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems, with consideration for passive systems;
c.) Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use that consider natural illumination.
d.) Energy-efficient water heating systems.
#7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS:
Workscope Item:
A. The consultant shall discuss the general geologic and soil conditions at the site, summarize the findings of
the soils engineering report, and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
• Mitigation Measure:
1. A soils engineering report shall be prepared for the three project.areas (for the purpose of this
investigation the Monterey Street and Palm Street sites shall be considered as one). Each shall address
general soils and geologic conditions, and known hazards present, includinglthe potential for liquefaction
and subsidence. For the Palm/Monterey Area, given the massive amount of excavation that will be
necessary to develop the proposed three-level, sub-surface parking structure, special grading
requirements shall be outlined to address concerns for soil movement and structural integrity. Existing
soils reports for this area shall be reviewed and if deemed still relevant, shall be updated and
recommended as acceptable. For the Court Street Area, the report, in addition to all other considerations,
should specifically review the fill material used behind the San Luis Obispo Creek Wall for suitability and
use in this project. For the Copeland/French property, the report should assume both that an underground
parking structure may and may not be built. The report, in its entirety, shall identify special earthwork,
grading, construction techniques, and foundation design criteria for the site development proposed on
each of the sites.
+.P
#8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Workscope Item:
A. The consultant shall incorporate the background, conclusions and proposed mitigation programs of the
required environmental site assessments into the EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
1. The applicant shall complete a Phase I environmental site assessment to determine if any contamination
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS CBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
issues may be associated with site development. If possible issues are identified in the Phase I study, a
Phase II level analysis may be required which accurately delineates site contamination and provides a
plan for resolution of all contamination issues prior to construction. The Phase I, and if required, Phase II•
plans must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshal.
#9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
Mitigation Measure:
1. The project shall be designed to fully comply with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines.
#10 LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Mitigation Measure:
1. The Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council, in their review of project
plans should discuss and consider the project's consistency with the Downtown Plan. If the project is
ultimately supported, the Downtown Plan should be modified when next amended to reflect the footprints
of approved buildings.
1�OISE:
Workscope Item:
A. Discuss general strategies for buffering land uses and attenuating noise to the planned residential units.
#12 POPULATION AND HOUSING:
None •
#13 PUBLIC SERVICES:
Mitigation Measure:
1. The applicant shall develop a security plan for the parking structure, the courtyard areas of the project, the
residential parking area and elevator entry, and public stairways and elevators, as a condition of their
development application. The security plan will identify the locations of 911 capable phones in the parking
garage, will establish rules and regulations for public use of the courtyard areas, and establish timeframes
for private security patrols to be in place. The plan shall be routed to the Police Department for comments
and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. The plans will ultimately become a
recorded document that runs with the land to insure its long-term applicability. The applicant shall
consider a central station monitoring system for the existing Downtown Center and the proposed project.
#14 RECREATION:
,R
None
#15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Workscope Item:
A. A traffic study will need to be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and incorporated into the EIR. The
traffic study shall adhere to the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (June 2000).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
Project trip generation characteristics and distributions are to be submitted to the City for review and
commentlapproval prior to proceeding with the traffic analysis.
• The consultant shall utilize the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM), or equal, to develop
the background traffic projections for future year analyses. The study facilities are to be analyzed as a)
existing and b)existing with traffic generated by the proposed project. The consultant shall supply exhibits
illustrating proposed mitigations. Along arterial corridors, a traffic signal progression analysis may be
necessary for Level of Service determinations and mitigations.
Regarding the SLOCTM, the consultant shall provide the City with a copy of the computer disk and
documentation with the project land uses and loaded network. If the consultant utilizes another software
other than MINUTP, a licensed copy of the program shall be provided to the City along with the project
disks.
Specific concerns and tasks that must be addressed in the required traffic study include:
1. Final EIR for the Parking & Downtown Access Plan -review the EIR to: validate this previous
EIR's conclusions; determine the validity of, and incorporate, pertinent mitigation measures
identified in the EIR into the design of this project; determine whether residual significant
transportation impacts exist; and present supplemental mitigation measures as necessary.
2. Trip Generation -provide specific trip generation numbers to determine the extent to which this
project will increase traffic volumes, and perhaps congestion, in the downtown core.
3. Intersection Impacts -evaluate the adequacy of vehicle storage for left and right turns at
impacted intersections within the commercial core in close proximity to the project sites(and the
secondary impacts on the existing supply of curb parking).
• 4. Traffic Signals -look at signal coordination between impacted intersections and the potential
need for new traffic signals.
5. Pedestrian Facilities -evaluate the need for improvements to pedestrian facilities along
downtown streets, traffic signals, and at mid-block and intersection locations, to safely
accommodate increased pedestrian volumes associated with the project.
6. Project Support Access -determine whether adequate service, delivery and emergency access
to the proposed project sites is provided to avoid conflicts with vehicle and non-vehicular
circulation.
7. Parking Facility Access Points -the location and adequacy of vehicular access to the proposed
parking facilities, their impacts on vehicle circulation, parking, and pedestrian safety within
adjoining public street rights-of-way.
8. Parking Facility Internal Efficiency-review and recommend changes to, if any, the proposed
parking structure regarding, circulation, efficiency, and the ability to allow at a minimum: 60
ingress vehicles per hour and 60 egress vehicles per hour, in a safe and effective manner.
9. Parking Adequacy Issues -summarize parking demand and supply, and identify alternative
parking strategies as mitigation measures, such as supplemental parking supply, Parking Demand
Reduction, Transportation Demand Management, and pricing, to reduce potential impacts of the
proposed parking deficiency to less than significant levels.
• �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000
10. Access Mitigation Strategies - provide an evaluation of how access levels to the downtown for
employees and patrons can be maintained during the phased construction of the project. At a
minimum, mitigation strategies shall include TDM measures, supplemental parking, and/or •
alternative parking techniques and programs.
#16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Workscope Items:
A. Based on the submitted water demand and wastewater generation calculations submitted by the
applicant's engineer, the consultant shall discuss and analyze the following, and provide appropriate
mitigation as needed:
1. The projected wastewater flows for the project;
2. The impact of projected flows on the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant;
3. The impact of flows on the wastewater collection system, specifically in the area between the
project site and the Nipomo collector main.
B. Look at appropriate ways of accommodating trash and recycling areas in to the project that are functional,
accessible and aesthetically pleasing.
Mitigation Measure:
1. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project:
a.) Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
b.) The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as
concrete, sheetrock,wood, and metals,from the demolition of existing buildings and proposed
construction. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or•
the Community Development Director, prior to the demolition or building permit issuance.
C.) Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components and in
surfacing wherever feasible.
mar CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2�
I
i
I
i
MEETINV AGENDA
DATE ITEM # C!�
I
I
January 10,10, 2000
Cultural Resource Inventory of
the Log Cabin Parcel,
P#40-041008
Southeast Corner of
El Capitan Way and Broad Street,
APN:076-421-026 & 076421-028
San Luis Obispo, CA
Prepared at the Request of: Prepared by:
Matt Quaglino Betsy Bertrando, Historical Research
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ethan Bertrando, Archaeologist
,
ABSTRACT
In December, 1999, a request was made by Matt Quaglino for a cultural research
survey and inventory for a property located at the corner of Highway 227(Broad Street)
and El Capitan Way. The two adjacent lots (103 &104) contain one existing structure that
was recorded and assigned a Primary number by the State Historic Preservation Office: P
40-041008. As a result of the historical research and archaeological investigation, it was
determined that the existing structure on the parcel is potentially significant based on
criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act, the Public Resources Codes
and the City of San Luis Obispo's guidelines for the preservation of historical and cultural
resources. Following these findings, recommendations are contained within this document
as to how to proceed with future development of the parcel with consideration of this
potentially significant resource.
INTRODUCTION
The field work carried out as part of this study was conducted by Ethan Bertrando and
Betsy Bertrando and assisted by Luther Bertrando. Ethan Bertrando holds a Masters Degree in
Anthropology and has over ten years experience implementing archaeological research projects
in the central coast. Betsy Bertrando has over twenty years experience with the cultural resources
of the central coast and has completed numerous research projects for the City of San Luis
Obispo. The field work took place on December 31, 1999. The parcel is depicted on the San
Luis Obispo 7.5' USGS quadrangle topographic map and is situated in a newly annexed portion
of the City of San Luis Obispo.
The request for a cultural resource inventory and historic structure evaluation was made
by the current landowner,Matt Quaglino. Preliminary plans for the two parcels call for the
removal of the existing structure to allow appropriate space for the development of commercial
office space at that location.
BACKGROUND
Natural History
Prior to the development of the land surrounding the project area,the general
environment contained plant and animal species endemic to similar coastal valleys in the area.
Open grasslands and chaparral dominated the landscape with oak forest scattered intermittently.
Today, the immediate area surrounding the project area is developed and zoned as both
commercial and residential land. Undisturbed areas of natural growth can stall be found nearby .
Geology
The dominant geology of the general area can be characterized as Franciscan formation
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: I
(mdlange)with intrusive dacites (e.g. Bishop Peak) and isolated low lying areas of
Pleistocebe/Holocene alluvial deposits (Chipping 1987). The Franciscan m6lange is composed
of a variety of rock and mineral types. These types include dark shale, sandstones (graywacke),
basalts (e.g. pillow and redrock), serpentine, greenstone(altered submarine basalt), chert and
small localized blocks of metamorphic rocks with minerals of the blueschist facies dispersed
throughout a matrix of sheared shale or tectonic paste. These materials represent one of the
oldest geologic formations of the immediate area and date to the Cretaceous Period. These wide
variety of materials were exploited in prehistory for a number of uses. Chert, and to a lesser
extent, basalt and shale were used in the production of chipped stone industries(e.g. projectile
points, scrapers, choppers, blades,bifaces, etc.). Sandstone is well suited to the manufacture of
groundstone products such as manos, metates,mortars and pestles. Examples of these materials
used for these tool types are quite common in the general area Because of its relatively soft
composition,serpentine and, specifically, schists referred to as "soap stone" were used to make
shaped objects,often ornamental in nature. Beads, pipes and effigies of this material were highly
prized and appeared as trade items throughout California Other less common materials, such as
chromite,were also utilized but played a relatively small role in the stone tool technology of the
area.
Scattered relict Tertiary deposits are also found in the San Luis Obispo and Chorro Creek
drainages. Pockets of Monterey formation from this period contain both shales and cherts. At
least one of these locations in the Chorro Valley was a heavily exploited source of toolstone that
may have played an important role in the prehistoric economy of the local area(E. Bertr undo and
D. Harro 1997,E. Bertrando 1996a).
The most visually impressive geology of the area was produced through volcanic activity
during the Oligocene/Early Miocene Periods. These volcanic events resulted in the formation of
the series of hills extending from San Luis Obispo to Monro Bay, often referred to as the seven or
nine sisters. These range in height from Davidson Seamount,located underwater off the coast of
Monro Bay to Bishop Peak which reaches 1,559 feet above sea level. The foundation stone of
these ancient volcanic plugs can best be discerned from the large exposures on Bishop Peak,
Hollister Peak and Morro Rock. The material is dacite but has been referred to locally at various
times in the past as bluestone, redstone, granite and granitic. Dacite from these exposures is
composed of; "plagioclase microlites and glass and a few hornblende crystals, and a mass of
phenocrysts of andesite, plagioclase feldspar, biotite and homblende, with minor quartz and
magnetite. Some minerals have been altered by groundwater to zeolites." (Chipping 1987). This
material has been used extensively as a local building material throughout history. This material
had several uses in prehistory as well. Examples of this material being used for bedrock mortars,
pestles and metates occur throughout Chorro Valley and the upper reaches of San Luis Obispo
Creek. Several examples of rock art are also known to be contained on exposures of this
material. Recently, a unique prehistoric dacite quarry location was identified near Dairy Creek
that appears to have been used to make large pestle blanks (Roper et al. 1997).
The most recent geology in the project area are those Holocene and to a lesser extent
Pleistocene alluvial deposits which are still in the formation process. An example of these
occurs with the eastern fork of Islay Creek. The development of these soils is attributed to the
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 2
activity of the stream which tends to flood during torrential rains. The flooding results in
additional'deposition of alluvial materials around the banks of the creek.
On the parcel, the topsoil is composed of either silt or clayey silt where visible. The soil
type noted during the survey was a dark greyish brown. Buried soils of the area are described in
earlier reports (Bertrando 1994; Fitzgerald 1998; Singer et al. 1993). The likelihood of
encountering buried soils or paleosols in low-lying areas, such as the project area is relative high.
Most notably the discovery of a 10,000 year old occupation site in the general vicinity of the
project area demonstrates that such encounters are possible and of potentially great significance
(Fitzgerald 1998).
Hydrology
Islay Creek, the eastern fork of which is located immediately to the south of the project
area boundaries, is part of the greater San Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin. This basin includes
other major watershed such as Davenport Creek, San Luis Creek, Prefumo Creek and Stenner
Creek as well as numerous minor and unnamed drainages. Islay Creek is seasonal today but may
have been perennial in the past, before modem extraction of the groundwater system. The creek
joins Arroyo de los Alisos near the project area and eventually feeds into San Luis Obispo Creek
before entering the ocean at Avila Beach.
Climate
The climate of the general area is described as Mediterranean, hot dry summers and mild
wet winters. The upper interior areas of the coastal valleys, such as the area surrounding the
project area, experience annual and daily temperature fluctuations more drastic than coastal areas
but less extreme than other areas fiuther inland. Summer temperatures around the project area
occasionally reach beyond 100°Fahrenheit but more often settle around the mid to upper 80's.
Winter temperatures dip below freezing but this is also very dependant on elevation as the valley
bottoms can go frost free. Snowfall has been known to occur in the San Luis Obispo area but is
extremely rare. Precipitation occurs almost exclusively between the months of November and
April. Annual rainfall is variable dependant on elevation and slope exposure but flooding in the
coastal valleys is almost an annual occurrence.
Biology
The surrounding native plant community is that of scattered oak and chaparral with areas
of grassland intermixed. Riparian environments exist nearby at locations such as at Islay Creek.
The surrounding hills are dominated by scattered oak woodland and chaparral. Steep slopes
which have little topsoil development support chaparral communities while open level areas
contain native and introduced grasses. Among the native plants found on or near the property
that were important to aboriginal population are a variety of oak(Quercus sp.), willow(Salix
sp.), sage (Salvia sp.) and bunchgrass species (Juncus sp.).
Log Cabin Inventory,SLD:3
The land surrounding the project parcels still supports a variety of native animal species
that have Existed in the area since prehistoric times. Among these surviving species are badger,
rabbit, skunk, grey and ground squirrel, mule deer, fox,raccoon, coyote, bobcat, black bear and
mountain lion as well as a variety of local and migrant avifauna, reptiles and smaller fauna.
Important native species to the local prehistory and history that can no longer be found in the
area are tule elk,pronghom antelope and grizzly bear. These were important species to the local
Native American inhabitants. Elk and antelope continue to be important natural resources in the
interior of the county.
In the past San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries supported a fairly large seasonal run
of anadromous trout(steelhead)and salmon (coho) which were actively exploited by the native
inhabitants of the area. Although currently their populations are down, active steps taken
recently are appearing to be successful in the stabilization of these keystone species in these
drainages. In addition, the east fork of Islay Creek does still maintain a riparian community of
animal species including several species of fish, crayfish, western pond turtle, watersnake and a
variety of frogs and toads
Prehistory
The area surrounding the project area was occupied by speakers of the Obispeiio dialect
of the Chumash Language. The Chumash were a group of hunter-gatherer-fishers who attained
an extraordinary level of social complexity given their means of subsistence. Today, descendants
of these groups continue to live in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties as well
as elsewhere in California.
The Obispeiio Chumash occupied the northern limits of the Chumash occupation sphere,
an area beginning near the Nipomo area and extending northwards,perhaps as far as San Simeon
and beyond (Greenwood 1972, Gibson 1991). Due to a paucity of data available for local
prehistory,chronology of San Luis Obispo's past is based largely on current models developed to
the north and south. These periods can be roughly broken down into; Paleo-Coastal Adaptation
(12,000 to 9,000 Years Ago), The Early Period or Oak Grove(9,000 to 5,000 Years Ago),The
'Middle Period or Hunting (5,000 to 2,000 Years Ago), and The Late Period of Canalino (2,000
to 200 Years Ago).
The area that would later be known as San Luis Obispo did not support as dense a
population as neighboring coastal areas such as Morro Bay and Pismo Beach and at times may
have only been seasonally occupied. This is primarily due to the lack of marine resources that
were aggressively exploited in the coastal regions. This pattern of population concentration
appears to have occurred throughout the Chumash homeland and beyond to neighboring areas of
California. Despite this trend,there are known prehistoric sites that exist within the city limits.
Most of these sites represent temporary occupations or small village sites located on one of the
major creeks running through the city (i.e. Stenner and San Luis Obispo Creeks). Other sites in
the area suggest they were used for a particular function such as milling stations or quarry sites.
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 4
5
Archaeological evidence for Native American habitation in the local area has spanned at
least 9,000 years and perhaps greater than 10,000 years (Greenwood 1972, Gibson 1996,
Fitzgerald 1998). The indigenous inhabitants were quite accomplished at recovering shellfish
and other marine resources such as fish, marine mammals and seaweed. At inland sites,
terrestrial resources provided the greater part of their consumable goods although marine
resources can also be found there as well (a result of either migration to and from the coast or
trade with those inhabiting the coastline). Terrestrial resources that were common in the San
Luis Obispo area included plant and animal communities associated with the chaparral and
grassland environments, riparian and wetland communities(e.g. Sterner Creek, Laguna Lake,
etc.) and even the higher elevation resources of the Cuesta Grade area.
A wide variety of prehistoric site types have been identified in the general vicinity of the
project area. These include; chipped stone quarries, groundstone quarries, seed processing
stations, hunting blinds, rock art sites, animal kill/butchering sites, seasonal camps, stone tool
manufacturing locations, lithic scatters, settled occupations, and spiritual "shrine" locations. To
date, it has been difficult to determine any shift in settlement types or locations over time in the
upper coastal valley. There does appear to be increasing evidence that fluctuations did occur,
stimulated primarily by climatic shifts.
The nearest recorded prehistoric site to the project area is SLO-1427. It is located at the
southeastern base of the serpentine ridge(known as Cheapskate Hill) located northwest of the
project area. This site was recorded in 1990 as a collection of four bedrock mortars (Dills 1990).
No other artifacts were noted but the recorder stated that an intensive survey of the area was not
conducted.
With the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772, and occasional
European visits to the area prior to that time,the Native American culture of the area changed
dramatically (Gibson 1991). Indigenous technologies were lost or replaced by western ones and
religion and belief systems became integrated with the Spanish version of Western culture. Most
devastating to the local Chumash population was the introduction of Old World diseases for
which they had little natural tolerance(Heizer 1974). As a result,the Native American
-population in the area dropped dramatically between the end of the 18th to the end of the 19th
century (Gibson 1991).
History
The first known recorded European contact in San Luis Obispo occurred on September 6,
1769 when the Spanish land expedition led by Gaspar de Portola arrived from San Diego. Fr.
Crespi gave the name La Canada de la Natividad de Nuestra Senora to the place that three years
later would be near the location where Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded
(Engelhardt 1933). The expedition crossed San Luis Obispo County and continued north along
the coast to Monterey. It was the beginning of the chain of missions that was to connect the two
outposts.
Within the City of San Luis Obispo very little is known of the location of the adobe and
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 5
stone buildings associated with the mission complex (Bertrando and Bertrando 1998). The
decline ofthe mission that started in 1820 was seriously impacted when the earthquake of 1830
caused extensive damage to the mission buildings (Kocher 1972). The secularization of the
missions by the Mexican government was enacted in 1835. This caused mission lands to pass
into private hands through Mexican land grants.
In 1839,the Indians from the Mission requested that the land known as Corral de Piedra
be left to them and not awarded to the petitioner Seiior Filomena Pico de Pomberre. They said
that the wild cattle of the Mission were gathered at that place and if lost to them would cause
them to loose their livelihood(Blomquist 1943). Governor Alvarado granted what was thought
at the time to be a reasonable request. However, the land between Islay Hill and Arroyo Grande
was soon to change ownership.
The project area is located just to the north of the Rancho Corral de Piedra and is thought
to have been a part of the original boundaries of the large Rancho that extended to Arroyo
Grande. Petitioned from the Mexican government by Jose Maria Villavicencio in 1840,
Governor Alvarado awarded Villavicencio two leagues of land in 1841 When the land was
surveyed in 1842, however, it was surveyed for seven leagues of land which was included in the
petition signed on 1844 (Blomquist 1941). The United States Government Land Commissioner
confirmed 30,911.20 acres to Villavicencio in 1867 (Perez 1996).
The area of the Log Cabin was once on the property of Solano Rodriguez who had a
house south of the building during the later 1800s. His sister was the wife of Josd Maria
Villavicencio. His brother, Desiderio lived in the adobe that still exists on the other side of the
Union Pacific rails at the foot of Islay Hill (Rodriguez pers comm).
After the American Period took hold in the 1850s, growth in the area consisted of a
sprinkling of farms and ranches, many from the immigrant populations that were slowly entering
the valley. The dairy industry took hold in the 1870s and was a major economic force until the
1940s. Many of the dairies were operated by Swiss-Italian settlers who had brought their
expertise with them from the old country.
METHODS
Archival Research
Much of the research material for this report was available in the archives of BBRC. This
included reviewing early directories, great registers, and written histories. Early maps and land
requests as well as the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for San Luis Obispo were also available.
Maps and documents were reviewed at the County Clerk/Recorders Office for the Chain of Title
and land development history. Individuals that have lived in the surrounding area for many years
were interviewed. Of particular help was Dorothea Rhodes, the adjacent property owner.
Contact was made with the Edna Farm Center and the members graciously under the direction of
Marilyn Britton gave their time to share their recollections of the Log Cabin. In addition, the
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 6
Central Coast Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara was also
visited to review previous investigations conducted in the area as well as archaeological sites
known to exist in the vicinity. All copies of available reports for the area were reviewed and
compared with the project parcel.
Field Investigation
The field investigation took place on December 31, 1999 with Matt and Steve Quaglino
present. This investigation had two primary objectives; 1) Inspect and assess the standing
structure and other historical features, and 2) Observe the ground surface for evidence of
associated or preceding archaeological deposits. The structure investigated had architectural.
attributes noted and photographed. The thrust of this analysis was to gather data that would be
appropriate in determining the potential significance of the resource. The surface
reconnaissance was employed in an opportunistic manner. Inspection was conducted in areas
that were accessible based on the absence of structures and paved areas. The location of any
potentially significant material was to be recorded for future provenance information.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Legislation created with the goal of protecting cultural resources originated with the
passing of The Antiquities Act of 1906. This act protected and preserved cultural resources on
federal lands including Indian Reservations,forest preserves and military reservations. Other
acts followed including The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. The Historic Sites
Act of 1935,The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, The Reservoir Salvage
Act of 1960,National Environmental Polite Act of 1969.National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, The American-Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (E. Bertrando and B.
Bertrando 1996). Any or all of these may be invoked to address cultural resource issues on
federal property. Locally, however,the majority of projects subject to cultural resource
considerations rely on the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970(CEQA)to provide
guidelines regarding determining resource significance and mitigation measures.
CEQA was adopted and approved to set forth some basic policies for environmental
protection. Historic and prehistoric resources are specifically addressed in Appendix K of
CEQA's definition of environmental resources. Section 21001 of CEQA provides that the state
should "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water,
enjoyment of natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities . . . and preserve for future
generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major
periods of California history." (underline added). Additionally, this act provides for the
identification of resources through the preparation of environmental impact reports such as this
one. It further provides that the loss of resources be avoided or mitigated(Wilcoxon and
Bertrando in prep.).
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO:7
In CEQA, Appendix K set forth basic criteria established to determine the potential
significance of a cultural resource. The results of this determination subsequently affect how the
resource may be treated during future use related impacts. These criteria, once identified as
applicable to the resource,are used as indicators of potential significance. The criteria used to
identify significant cultural resources include the following attributes:
1. Is associate with an event or person of
1)Recognized significance in California or American History, or
2) Recognized scientific importance in prehistory.
2. Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research
questions;
3. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving
example of its kind;
4. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
5. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered
only with archaeological methods.
Modifications to these criteria have been made adopting stipulations present in the Public
Resources Code, Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852. These revision are effective
February 1999 and should be considered to pertain to this project. The new criteria include the
following;
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
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.
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Cultural resources displaying one or more of these characteristics, or others not
mentioned,may be considered significant and thereby subject to special measures of avoidance
or evaluation prior to any potential impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided then a mitigation plan
is normally developed. CEQA directives regarding mitigation of cultural resources are also
addressed in Section VI &VII,Appendix K(Wilcoxon and Bertrando in prep.).
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 8
Because the project area is located within the city limits of San Luis Obispo two other
documents were also reviewed in completing this preliminary assessment. For general
determinations on historic and/or cultural resources criteria found in the City of San Luis
Obispo's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines were used. For the Log Cabin
Structure itself,the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, produced by the city, were
consulted. In particular, Delineation of Historic Resource Criteria for Building Evaluation and
Recommendations.found in Appendix C of the City Guidelines was most useful.
RESULTS
Archival Research and Interviews
The review of the historic records for the Log Cabin revealed its interesting, important
and often overlooked role in the development of a community. It contributed to aspects of
culture and society that have not currently been addressed with its regards to the City of San Luis
Obispo and its environs. In this case, the activities include dancing, socializing and other
nightclub activities as well as illegal pursuits such as smuggling, prostitution and unlawful sales
and consumption of alcohol (during Prohibition). These appear to be at the root of the
development of the Log Cabin.
Within the framework of a community, illicit activities preferred particular locations.
Often these areas were in closely associated impoverished locations. In the 1800s,the San Luis
Obispo Red Light District, gambling houses and opium dens were on Palm and Morro Streets
adjacent to the Court House. Some brothels were depicted on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
as "female boarding houses".
In the early 1900s when the automobile began to allow greater mobility, the convenience
of easy access to government and business districts was no longer an important consideration in
determining the location of these types of"unwholesome" activities. In fact, removing these
business from under the public eye was seen as a benefit to the society as a whole. The
"roadhouse" became a social structure placed outside of the town boundaries yet accessible by
automobile. It provided a way of allowing illicit activities and boisterous behavior not always
popular with the townspeople to take place a discreet distance from town. Most communities
along the central coast had these roadhouses that were outside the jurisdiction of the local police
departments. With the advent of prohibition these places became more popular and introduced
the "Speak-easy",to the roadhouse. This necessitated the game of Federal law enforcement
trying to catch the patrons drinking in an isolated area without the patrons being forewarned. In
San Luis Obispo, a small Red Light District developed along South Broad Street/Edna Road
(today Highway 227),particularly near the intersection of Tank Farm Road. After prohibition,
the district's clients included servicemen stationed in the area during WW II.
This unofficial district continued offering the public various activities that were not
popular within confines of more densely populated City neighborhoods. Although during the
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 9
later half of the twentieth century some of this activity consisted of large gatherings featuring
loud bands, alcohol and dancing, it was mixed with church services and meeting/social hall
activities.
A change in the role of the Log Cabin took place when it came under the control of the
Edna Farm Center. A proposal initiated by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce to the
County Board of Supervisors resulted in a Farm Bureau under the leadership of the Agricultural
Extension Service. The first meeting was held on December 28, 1922. The Smith-Lever Act of
1914 provided federal matching funds to cover the cost of county agents later known as farm
advisors. The Farm Bureaus were divided into community centers and were represented on the
Farm Bureau Board of Directors. The Edna Farm Center was one of the original twelve centers
organized in the County by the Farm Bureau(Souder 1997). The use of the Log Cabin by the
Edna Farm Center began in 1951 when they acquired the Log Cabin to use as a meeting place
and social hall
Unfortunately, a fire in 1964 at the former location of the Farm Bureau on Higuera Street
was responsible for destroying most of the early records of the organization and local agricultural
history. The following year the new Farm Bureau was dedicated at its present location on Tank
Farm Road.
In 1997, the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau celebrated its 75'anniversary in this
county. The Edna Farm Center is a part of District 4 that represents Arroyo Grande, Edna Valley
and Nipomo. Five Districts represent the County of San Luis Obispo in all aspects of farming
and ranching.
The 1906 a Map of the Subdivisions of the San Luis Obisno Suburban Tract depicts the
project area including both Lots 103 and 104. These lots were under the ownership of the James
Vail for most of the first half of the twentieth century. Vail was a building contractor and built
'Vail's Villas" on Edna Road. Lot 104 was owned by the Hathways for the latter part of the
same time period until it was sold by Hathway to the Edna Fane Center in 1951. In interviews
with the Edna Farm Center members, and the neighboring parcel owners, all agreed that the Log
Cabin was operated by James Vail and built by Vail on Lot 104. A follow up check of the deeds
at the County Recorders Office certainly attest to both Vail and Hathway as two names being
involved with Lots 103 and 104.
The Edna Farm group felt that the Log Cabin was in place in the 1920s, several had
visited the structure during the 1930s and 1940s when it was a"road house"/dance hall.
Remembered also,was "the chute that allowed for a quick exit". Prohibition lasted from 1920 to
1933 and the chute was probably from that era in the building's history. During World War II
servicemen frequented the establishment regularly. In 1951, when the property was deeded to
the Edna Farm Center, it became a meeting place for ranchers and farmers in Edna Valley.
Money was lent for the purchase by John Christensen who was chairman for the group from
1945 to 1947 (Darway pers. comm.). They paid for the structure by renting the hall for parties
and special events, holding bake sales and preparing monthly meals. Eventually, with the
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 10
insurance costs, it became more than they could manage and it was sold to James and Marguerite
Rentz in 1970 (Lot 104).
The Log Cabin was sold to Norm and Pat Jackson for a Dance Studio in the 1975. At
that time it was modified by Steve Pultz, Architect. The mezzanine that surrounded the interior
space was removed(Quaglino pers. comm.). After the Jacksons sold the building, it gained a
rather unsavory albeit brief reputation as the "Pussycat Theater" (Britton pers. comm.) During
most of the 1980s and 90s both Lots 103 and 104 were owned by George Tate. For a brief
period the Log Cabin became the"Crazy Horse". This was popular with the college crowd,
however it was not prepared to handle the overwhelming crowds (Rhodes pers. comm). Later the
building was known variously as The House of Prayer and the Redwood Manor. The project:
parcel was annexed to the City of San Luis Obispo in February 1999(Quaglino pers. comm.).
Field Investigation
The results of the field investigation focused on the Log Cabin structure itself. Basic
architectural features and methods of construction were noted along with types of building
material. Small areas surrounding the structure were landscaped and provided some exposure to
the ground surface of the area. The vast majority of the project area is paved for parking.
Because of these limitations and the prominence of the historic structure, the emphasis of study
was placed on the Log Cabin.
Architectural Review
Exterior
The two story rectangular Log Cabin is approximately 40 feet 5 inches by 80 feet 4
inches. The upper story windows have been covered by the same siding used throughout the
building. The siding is in the form of tongue and groove clear cut 5 1/4 inch diameter halved
redwood logs. The north and west side have had a raised concrete deck leading to the main
entrance on the wet side. A later one story addition of board and batten construction remains on
'part of the rear east side. The south side had a one story 18 feet extension constructed of various
materials with an attempt to continue the log look across the front(west) side. The roof is semi-
elliptical and covered with rolled paper roofing. The front of the Log Cabin has a native stone
fireplace chimney on the south side of the entrance.
Interior
The entrance lobby has a stone fireplace. The stairs to the left of the entrance lead to
offices above the lobby. At one time this area was a projection room for showing films(Pussycat
Theater era). The main hall that at one time contained a surrounding mezzanine, has an altar at
the far end and is used for religious services. The hall is lit by four wagon wheels used as
chandeliers, each holding 6 lantern style lights.
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 11
One of the unusual features of the Log Cabin is the roof support system of diagonal
bracing that consists of two different dimensions of 2 by 6 inch boards. A member of the Edna
Farm Bureau recalled the same technique being used in a building that was formerly located on
971 Higuera Street. The Higuera Street building at one time housed a Safeway downstairs and a
dance hall upstairs called the Balconades. The roof design appears to be a Lamella roof which
was patented in 1925 and used for long roof spans. A network of short sheathed wood members
supported a reticulated barrel vault roof(Callender 1974, Bucher 1996).
Grounds
There are no major trees within the surrounding asphalt parking areas. A small grassy. .
planted area is located between the front of the building and Broad Street continuing over to the
creek. A pepper tree is in the middle of the lawn area. A small cluster of redwoods near the
street may be a second growth. An oak,ceanothus, bottle brush and creek sycamores are also
evident Near the corner of the creek and bridge there is a trash storing area with a shed. There
is also a three foot square mortared rock wall that contains a well that has been capped. A
narrow planted strip with spaced eucalyptus trees border the property as well as planter boxes
delineating the parking area and.entrance to the Log Cabin.
The bridge spanning the creek on the southern border of the project parcel was
constructed by Cal Trans over Broad Street in 1978 and is of concrete box girder construction
(Pavlik pers. comm.). Previously the creek had plugged up and flooded the area during the
unusually heavy rains of 1962 (Garcia pers. comm.). The perennial creek has no official name at
this time and is listed on the bridge as East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. Early documents
describing the property that was once deeded to Henry A Teffi by Jose Maria Villa
(Villavicencio) refer to the Creek as Arroyo de los Alisos (Alder Creek). This property included
the project parcel within its northwest boundary. Dorothea Rhodes said that the plaque on the
former bridge stated the creek was the East Fork of Islay Creek.
Two small plank lined pits were found near the creek terrace, south of the Log Cabin.
They were approximately 2'6" square with an undetermined depth. The purpose of these features
is unknown but may be related to earlier use of the location as a Speak-Easy as storage locations
for contraband.
Archaeology
The field survey for archaeological remains found no evidence of prehistoric use of the
project area Almost the entire project area is paved or developed which afforded virtually no
surface visibility. Portions of the project area along the south edge of the parcel include a small
creek. This drainage provided excellent subsurface visibility through the creek cut.
Approximately six feet of soil was visible in these exposures. This exposure indicated that ca.
three feet of dark greyish brown alluvial silts with clay composed the topsoil grading into a more
clayey substrate. The creek itself glides across exposed yellowish blue brown clay derived from
argillic parent material, probably serpentine. The soils were surprisingly devoid of gravels,
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 12
cobbles or other rocks. No artifacts or altered soils associated with archaeological deposits were
identified'during the inspection.
Historic records indicate that related adjacent structures were present in the project area.
However, because these areas are paved, there can be no conclusive statement made at this time
as to whether such structures have related archaeological deposits that have survived or not.
Findings
Based on the findings of this report the structure in the project area known as the Log
Cabin appears to be potentially significant and may qualify for nomination to the State Register
of Historic Places. The qualities born by the structure that make it potentially eligible are
contained in the Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852 and
include:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage
During Prohibition revenue from bootleggers (unloading alcohol from boats landing at
night along the extensive deserted beaches) was a surprisingly large part of the local economy.
The illicit business can be compared to the marijuana growers along the north coast of California
that operate today. This activity drew the attention and commerce of large sections of the state,
particularly southern California. In fact, it appears that this activity is in part responsible for the
later development of the tourist trade in this county. Settlements such as Pismo Be4ch can trace,
in part, the rise in their development to their role in the bootlegging industry of the 1920s and 30s
Later in the 1950s, the Log Cabin was associated with the hard working pioneer families
from the ranches, farms and dairies in the Edna Valley. It became a meeting and recreation place
for their families. Agriculture was their bond. Both groups of people came to the Log Cabin for
meeting and recreation, although of a vastly different kind. Social interaction, no matter what the
group, is a major part ofour community. Both uses had an important effect on the economy of
the region.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past
The structure was owned by, and built by James Vail,a most interesting and colorful
character in the history of San Luis Obispo. Additional contributions by this independent
individual include many of the buildings that were built in the City of San Luis Obispo during
the fust half of the twentieth century. In addition, during Prohibition, Vail was a"prominent
bootlegger and Speak-easy owner". The club was an important part of the community by filling
the need of many to be free to drink and socialize during the prohibition years. His liquor
acquiring abilities were well known and his Log Cabin establishment was visited by famous and
influential people during prohibition such as Jean Harlow(D. Rhodes pers. comm.)
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 13
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 structure is unquestionably unusual in its manner of construction(the Lamella roof)
and materials used(redwood log siding). At the same time it follows a building pattern with
similar characteristics displayed by other structures in the county that were used as dance halls
and socializing locales. Most are no longer in existence. In addition, the potential for
discovering remains or artifacts on the property and in the building that relate to the Speak-easy
era remains high.
At a local level,the Log Cabin demonstrates its role in history and its significance as an
historic structure in many ways. Judged on criteria set for in"The Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines" (Appendix C),this structure appears to be potentially eligible for inclusion
to the City's list of historic structures. The merit for the structures inclusion and the historic
value it represents is presented in several sections of the city's guidelines. Those that are
applicable to the Log Cabin include:
Architectural Criteria
ria
I. Style
1. The relative purity of a traditional style(as compared to building styles in San
Luis Obispo);
2. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style.
3. Traditional,vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and
how these styles are put together.
4. The degree to which the structure has maintained its integrity(i.e., assessment of
alterations and structural conditions, if known).
II. Design
3. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
III. Age
Historical Criteria
VII. History - Event
2. A relatively unique or interesting contribution to the city.
3. A contribution which, though minor, nonetheless was important to the
community.
VIII. History-Context
2. Secondary patterns of local history but closely associated with the building.
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO. 14
CONCLUSION\RECOMIIENDATIONS
Based on the preponderance of evidence brought to light during this study it is apparent
that a conclusive determination of significance and possibly nomination of the building to the list
of the City's Master List of Historical Resources must be made prior to any development
activities that may threaten the structure. This determination must consider the building's
potential eligibility to the State Register of Historic Places as well. The results of the findings
should also be used to develop mitigation procedures(if appropriate) for future use of the project
area.
To reiterate, the results of this study recommend that additional documentation is
required to address the potentially significant historic resource in the project area. This
additional documentation should include:
► Biographical sketch of the previous owner and builder, James Vail.
► In depth study of the role of the bootlegging industry in San Luis Obispo County.
► In depth history of the Log Cabin during the Prohibition years.
► Definitive and conclusive statements about the structure's significance on a state and city
level.
► Consultation either with the State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO) or the City of
San Luis Obispo's Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)to receive concurrence on
determinations of significance.
► Recommendations on procedures to take place that may impact the structure and
mitigation measures if deemed appropriate.
► A discussion of the potential of encountering historic archaeological remains in area
currently paved.
All research should be conducted by qualified individuals experienced in research of this
type. They should be familiar with local history,historic architecture, local and state guidelines
for evaluating resources such as this. They should also be recognized by the city as qualified for
completing this type of study.
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 15
REFERENCES CITED
Bibliography
Bertrando,Ethan
1994 Cultural Resource Monitoring for the Proposed Brickyard Project Site Prepared for J.D.Design
&Construction, San Luis Obispo,CA.
1996a Cultural Resource Subsurface Evaluation(Phase 2)of the Powell Parcel(CA SLO-214)APN•
038-711-010 B 1) EI Moro Avenue s Osos CA Report Prepared for Michael Powell,Los
Osos,CA.
Bertrando,Ethan,and Betsy Bertrando
1996 Archaeological Resource Training Syllabus. Workbook Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo.
1998 Cultural Resource Investigation for the Proposed Utility Trenching at the 800 and 600 Blocks of
Walnut and Morro Streets in the City of San Luis ObiWo CA Report prepared for the City of
San Luis Obispo.
Bertrando,Ethan and Douglas Harro
1997 Correlations between Lithic Raw Material Quality and Availability and the Formation of Flaked
Stone Tool Assemblages: Examples from the Chorro Valley,San Luis Obispo County. In,
Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology.Volume 10.
Blomquist,Leonard Rudolph
1941 The San Luis Obispo District 1830-1850 Unpublished Master Thesis,University of California.
Bucher A.I.A.,Ward
1996 Dictionary of Building Preservation. Preservation Press,John Wiley&Sons, Inc.,New York.
Callender,John Hancock
1974 Time-Saver Standards for Architectural Design Data. Fifth Edition,McGraw-Hill Book
Company,New York.
Chipping,David G.
1987 The Geology of San Luis Obispo County a Brief Description and Travel Guide.
Published by Kinko's Copies,San Luis Obispo,CA.
City of San Luis Obispo
1987 The Historical Preservation Progxam Guildelines
1995 Archaeological Guidelines. Community Development Department.
Dills,Charles
1990 Archaeological Site Record:CA-SLO-1427. Record on File at the Central Coast Information
Center,UCSB.
Engelhardt,O.F.M.,Fr.Zephyrin
1963 Mission of San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the BearsW.T.Genns,Santa Barbara
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 16
Fitzgerald,Richard
1998 Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SLO-1797 the Cross CreekSite- an Luis Obi po County
California Coastal Branch Phase Il Project Report Prepared for the California Department of
Water Resources,California State Water Project,Coastal Branch,Phase II.
Gibson,Robert O.
1991 , Indians of North America:The Chumash Frank W.Porter III,General Editor,Chelsea House
Publishers,New York.
1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring for UNOCAL Soil Testing Program Along
Pipelines Near Santa Margarita,San Luis Obispo County.CA. Report Prepared for John Ljung,
UNOCAL CERT,San Luis Obispo,CA.
Greenwood,Roberta S.
1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon San Luis Obispo County California. San Luis
Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No.7.
Heizer,Robert
1974 The Destruction of California Indians.peregrine Smith Inc. Santa Barbara Ca.
Kocher,Paul H.
1972 Mission San Luis de Tolosa 1772-1972 Blake Printing&Publishing,Inc., San Luis Obispo.
Perez,Crisostomo N.
1996 Land Grants in Alta California. Landmark Enterprises, Rancho Cordova,CA.
Roper,C.Kristina,Ethan Bertrando,Michael Imwalle,Doug Harro,Rebecca McKim,Betsy Bertrando,Carol
Denardo and Barry Price
1996 Archaeological Evaluation of Resources along Bement 2 of the Chorro Valley Water
Transmission Line. Report Prepared for the Department of General Services,San Luis Obispo,
CA and the Environmental Resources Branch of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles
District
Singer,C.A.,J.Atwood and Frierman
1993 IT CAME FROM BENEATH THE STREETS: An Archaeological Report On The Expansion of
the City Of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System. Report Prepared for the Wastewater
Division,City of San Luis Obispo.
Souder,Mark
1997 75'"Anniversary 1922-1997 San Luis Obispo Farm Bureau. Commemorative Booklet Produced
for the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau.
Wilcoxon,Larry and Ethan Bertrando
in prep.Cultural Resource Investigation and Evaluation of the Proposed Coast Rock Mining-Project Santa
Maria and Sisguoc River Drainages. Report Prepared for Coast Rock Mining,Santa Maria,CA.
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 17
Historic Documents
Deeds
APN 77.421.028(Number change from 076-421-018)Lot 104 Log Cabin Lot
9/1956 Doc 11424 Vol 863 pg 266
James Vail to George and Dorothea Rhodes(Still live in the house on the south side of the creek)
3/4/1970 Doc 4945 Vol 1556 pg 255
Edna Farm Center grantee to James Rentz and Marguerite E.,2744 Chandler St,SLO. Signed
by William Froom and Donald Evenson
1975 Doc 10394 Vol 1826 pg 995
Rentz to Norman Jackson and Patricia M.
1979 Doc 8701 Vol 2136 pg 702
Jackson to Station 51, Inc.
1980 Doc 43050 Vol 2272 pg 380
Station 51, Inc to Hallquist-Morton Investment Corp.
1982 Doc 18567 Vol 2404 pg 893
Hallquist to Miranda Vincent
1886 Miranda Living Trust to George Tate
1997 Doc 021767 George Tate to Walnut Properties
1999 Doc 042491
George Tate to Walnut Properties
APN CT 76.421.004(New Number from 76-421-026)Lot 103
1951 Doc 11676 Vol 628 pg 44
Ella Hathway to the Edna Farm Center
1983 Doc 052849 Vol 2534 pg 0692
Dennis Pfister and Barbara to George Tate
1983 Doc 080952 to George Tate
1986 Doc 074447 to House of Prayer
1992 Doc 002766 to George Tate
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 18
Death Records
Book 25 pg 178
Henry Clay Hathway- retired rancher, born SLO 1874, died SLO 1948, 69 yrs.
Book 55 pg 290
Murray Camden Hathway -real estate broker, born 1893, died SLO 1968, 74 yrs.
Book 50 pg 189
James Benjamin Vail -builder/contractor, born 1885 in Canada, died SLO 1965,
80 yrs.
Book 29 pg 316
William Lemuel Vail - Carpenter/building contractor, born 1873 in Mo. Died
SLO 1951, 78 yrs. Lived at"Vail's Villa"on Edna Road.
Historic Maps
1874 Man of the County of San Luis Obispo. Published by R.R. Harris.
1906 Map of the Subdivisions of the Suburban Tract. The property of J.D. Grant,
surveyed by A.F. Parsons
Interviewed
Marilyn Britton and the members of the Edna Farm Center, Righetti, Darway et al.
Eddie Garcia, land owner in the project area who lived across Broad Street from the Log
Cabin from the late 1940s to 1978.
Robert Pavl k, Cal Trans District 5 Historian
Matt Quaghno, Project Developer
Dorothea and George Rhodes, long time property owners on the adjacent parcel to the
south of the Log Cabin.
June Rodriguez in conjunction with recording the Rodriguez Adobe.
Log Cabin Inventory,SLO: 19
Map 1: Project Location Map
Pismo Beach 7.5' USGS Quadrangle Topographic Map
.713 1 210 000 BEET SAN LUIS OBISPO 2.5 Mi. R.12 E. R.13 E. 120-37'30"
Z21� 35015'
�1`�_II,�:' ' • �. ............... is T.r filer ° �. 2W ,A¢.
Q`pumpin ,'.... j��j7JJ/i//JJjn 4,a�a San.. Luis Obispo �9
1 Sta Up %//�� . . o 1, I 141 ' 03
° i 4e
\`\Qom
....:
... _ �.- � -• • 1�+ tea' � �y egY 7`c
.. ..... .................. .. 7 i
1 i• °'.I ° . 3902
\ COUNTY AIR 11
I '
\
OR/291 o Eett genu Fe •• 'I i� t
Bch
208
• i
l-
les I I ,260 . 640000
r
,� FEET
/..( 1 ■ ao I �.
CFO
I
dNQ1 .._ . �... r m
r
IW
71
37
p •
te\ � ' r 8 I ;' •
, 4
l I: \ ♦ I �6 G
\ �..,LLL � •acs I��
! Q,,►«t��� �l , •� . ., ,:ISI ; ;`,,o ;'.
(l `l\ll�� ` ��p.�d�• aag ', �' ,\��\•� \�' ,�'i I` " 4 I 1e99
,1►� , \•` ,1`1\�; I . `aL . d'�rlg,- ,\��,�� -• � •1 I l q
'I� ` ,�
..I I X11 J \1. I V '}J �� �,•
I Ilii I . 4' �i' ll�.'� � � j'. I. 12 30„
Map 2: Project Parcel Map
AT
II ! I, f4 i c "•
Of
tv
f �-.S
• IH ii:
lts i
r y — � —� A Ali:
a I ''
iIf
z I
a ♦ � � ai}
Q �� I
J "' It 3 i
W �I �' ---�� I a ti• ;
!
Lima
Isii
Nil _ W
LZZ .IVMH5IH r
APPENDIX A
Site Record
State of CaGforma=The Resource's Agency Primary >1 :1?40 :041.008
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HR!'A'
PRIMARY RECORD 7nnomlal
NRHP.Status Code
OYhet List,ngs.
Review Code; Reviewer Date
Page 1 of _I *Resource Name or f1• (Assigned by recorder)
P1. Other Identifier: Loo Cabin
*P2. Location: o Not for Publication o Unrestricted •a. County San Luis Obispo
and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
•b. USGS 7.5' Quad Pismo Beach Date 1978 T 31S; R 12E; SE '/4 of NK Y. of Sec 12; B.M.
c. Address SE corner El Capitan Wy & Broad St City San Luis Obispo Zip 93401
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _, mE/ mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel A', directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
APN:076-421-026 & 076-421-028
•133a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries) The two story Log Cabin is approximately 40151'x801411. The tongue and
groove redwood siding is in the form of half-cut logs. The north and west side have
a raised concrete deck leading to the main entrance on the west side. The roof is
semi-elliptical and covered with rolled paper roofing. There is a native stone
fireplace chimney on the south side of the entrance. There is a one story addition
on part of the east side and an 18' extension across the south side of the building.
There is a creek on the south side; a small planted area in the front; with thw rest
of the surrounding area an asphalted parking lot.
'P3b.Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 13 Community Center/Social Hall
•P4.Resources Present: ® Bi
❑ Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site L7
_ District ❑ Element of District ❑
Other (Isolates, etc.)
P51b. Description of Photo: (view,date,
accession /I)
•P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: ® Historic
❑ Prehistoric ❑ Both
p 0 est. Mid 1920s
•P7. Owner and Address:
Matt Ouarlino. 815 Fiero
Lane, San Luis Obispo. CA
93401
•P8.Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) BBRC. 267 Foothill
Blvd. . San Luis Obispo. CA
93405
•P9.Date Recorded: 1/10/2000 •P10.Survey Type: (Describe) California Register Nomination
•P11. Report Citation:(Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"none.") Cultural Resource Investigation of the
j,og Cabin Parcel Southeagit Co=erof Fl Capitan Way and Broad Street SLO CA _
*Attachments: ❑NONE ❑Location Map ❑Continuation Sheet ❑Building, Structure, and Object Record
❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock ArtRecord
❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
APPENDIX B
Photographs
££ �r
-
awr e �
VI
31 std•_'wr�"^+,
AN-i5v
I SA.t x 1 Yrd r �, '_ wrll .'nt.��." ..tt k� oY❑�,• .,?-�'✓ ',% �, -0;
�'�'♦-`� �i N TrI'113I"yt�t 1 r}'I,.r�tv'f �stn k` �AY' � 1'}� °rT M r�'',�` � f T jK �;
�r •-' k k^���`4 �,`r��i�a l� ��1 qfs '���`3r�1 �ti � 4` Y�I- rot
FP� �' � fZi CJ 4�_,:k.y '�—. .wt .y�F.',i �"ww..�'�,'� •,'
I I'III III VIII I�I = �•
I• 1�_
l t I•, j
�: !
�I rr Il ' Irl f �I I
;
Chattel
.hitecture, i
.aping 8r
Preservation,
Z3
Inc.
MEMORANDUM
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
DATE: September 18,2000
TO: Carol Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture& Planning
FROM: Robert Jay Chattel,AIA and Francesca Smith
RE: "Log Cabin," 811 El Capitan Way/2746 Edna Road, San Luis Obispo
This memorandum was prepared as a follow up to the telephone conversation regarding the Log Cabin
property,on September 10 with Whitney McIlvaine at the City of San Luis Obispo. While we feel that
our report provides more than adequate documentation evaluating the eligibility of the above-referenced
property,Ms.McIlvaine wanted additional information. As she requested,this memo addresses: 1)
interviews that were conducted in our evaluation of the building,2) interviews that were conducted by
Betsy Bertrando in preparation of her report dated January 10,2000, and 3)further examination of local
landmark criteria.
We have confidence that Ms. McIlvaine conclusively understood the assessment of Jeanan Saunders,
staff to the State Office of Historic Preservation,that the building clearly did not warrant listing in the
California Register of Historical Places,made at our shared field visit on August 9,2000.
1) Interviews conducted for our evaluation of the Log Cabin building
Nearly twenty interviews were held with members of the local community to find out more about the
history of the property. Other people were contacted who had no information on the property.The
following list enumerates the persons with whom telephone interviews were conducted regarding the Log
Cabin building by and for Chattel Architecture:
a. At your suggestion,we contacted Roland Maddalena on September 12,2000, and got his
thoughts on the history of the property. He was not able to provide any information that would
modify our report or its findings,but recommended we contact Gerard Parsons(with whom we
had already spoken).
b. Interview and subsequent research by Agent John diAngelo, Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and
Firearms(ATF)headquarters in Washington,D.C.,on August 25,2000. ATF inherited the
duties and records of the U.S.Commission of Internal Revenue,the agency responsible for
enforcing federal liquor restrictions during Prohibition.
C. Interview with Murray Hathway, 76-year resident of San Luis Obispo,and great nephew of Log
Cabin owner Amos R."Bud'Hathway in late 1930s and 1940s,August 25,2000.
d. Interview with J.B. Fowler,PE,FAIA,ICBG,Chief Building Official,City of Pasadena,
Department of Planning&Permitting,August 30,2000. Subsequent field investigations of like
properties were made with Mr.Fowler on September 1,2000.
C. Interview with Mike F. Smith,P.E.,partner in Lampman& Smith,August 25,2000. Mr. Smith
has been a professional engineer in the San Luis Obispo area for 20 years.
C33
f. Interview with Gerard Parsons, long time San Luis Obispo resident by Francesca Smith, August
25,2000. Mr. Parsons is a 64-year veteran in the lumber business. His father owned the San
Luis Milling and Lumber Co. from 1911 until his death. The mill was subsequently owned by
his mother and later co-owned with his brother.
g. Interview with Norm Jackson, former owner of subject property(1975-1979), September 4,
2000. The heavily carved front doors and hinges were fabricated for Mr. Jackson.
Additional interviews were made by telephone that are not referenced in the document. These interviews
were not referenced because they did not provide information that was germane or useful to the
evaluation:
h. Betsy Bertrando, August 15,2000.
i. Melvyn Green, S.E., August 18,2000. Mr. Green is principal of Melvyn Green&Associates,a
Torrance-based structural engineering firm that specializes in historic resources.
j. Fran Smith Sled in Records department, San Luis Obispo Police Department, August 20,2000.
k. Receptionist, San Luis Obispo Sheriffs department,August 20, 2000,and"C" in Sheriff
Detectives division, September 14, 2000.
1. Dorothea Rhodes, long time neighbor of the property,August 25, 2000. Mrs.Rhodes is
referenced in the Bertrando report.
in. Howard Stometta,long time San Luis Obispo resident, August 28,2000.
n. Robert Selway,Chief,Orange County Historical Programs,August 28,2000. He was called to
establish whether the Tustin Blimp Hangars have lamella roofs(they do not).
We tried unsuccessfully to locate James Vail's daughter, Lea Vail Black,who lived in Independence,
Missouri,at the time of her father's death. No efforts were made to speak to the Rentz family,as their
ownership,between 1970 and 1975,did not appear to have included major modifications to the building
and thus did not affect its significance.
Our client,Matthew Quaglino also held interviews with local residents whom he thought might be able to
provide information on the history of the building. He was kind enough to provide us with the following
list:
o. Roy Parsons, Gerard Parsons' brother,who knew nothing other than the fact that Vail owed his
father money.
P. Gary Kamer, who owned the building for a short time during the early 1980s, prior to its use as
the Log Cabin Theater.
q. Bob Spurgeon,county tax assessor's office staff,who maintains an extensive collection of books
on the history of the community. Mr. Spurgeon could not find any reference to the Log cabin in
his collection.
2) Bertrando retort interviews
During last week's conversation,you recommended that we contact all of Mrs. Bertrando's referenced
interviewees. Although Matt Quaglino asked Mrs.Bertrando for her files and notes on the project,she
has not provided the information. The following list cites each interviewee and describes whether they
were or were not contacted:
a Mr.Quaglino and his representatives have contacted a number of Edna Farm Bureau old timers,
and no information that shed light on the building's potential significance was gleaned from
-17-
i
those communications. He has been and continues to make every effort to locate photographs of
the building in its original configuration(with exterior the original window and door
arrangement).
b. No effort was made to call Eddie Garcia,who is referenced in the Bertrando report. The Garcias
lived nearby from the late 1940s through 1978—which would have been far later than the period
of significance, if the building were significant for illegal activity during Prohibition, 1931 (when
the building was erected)to the end of Prohibition, in late 1933. Adequate information was
located on the activities at the property during the Garcia family's residency.
C. Because Robert Pavlik is on the Cultural Heritage Commission,we thought it would be
inappropriate to contact him.
d. Mr.and Mrs.George Rhodes were contacted(see above).
e. We do not recognize a connection between this building and the Rodriguez adobe,therefore June
Rodrguez was not contacted.
As you can see,we made a concerted and systematic effort to contact people in the local community and
elsewhere,who could provide information on the building, its type of construction and its potential
significance.
3) Local Significance
As clearly stated in our report, based on our review of the history of the building and its associations, it
does not appear to be eligible for local landmark designation.
The building does not appear to meet the historic resource Architectural Criteria under Style:
Criterion I-1 The building it is not a pure expression of a traditional style, it is a building
which is clad in false log siding,with a lamella-type roof,which is common in
the local area and elsewhere. The building is actually an obscure and artless
combination of disparate elements—there is no connection or nexus between the
rustic siding and the roof form.
Criterion I-2 As a meeting hall, it is not a rare type in San Luis Obispo. There are at least five
other community meeting buildings in the community: Masonic Temple,
Monday Club,Odd Fellows Hall,Trinity Hall and Veterans Memorial Building.
Each but Trinity Hall is a very good example of their architectural style,and
their original appearances have not been altered, as the Log Cabin has(doors and
windows infrlled).
Criterion I-3 The design of the building does not reflect traditional,vernacular or eclectic
influences. The nailed-on log siding and lamella roof do not make the building a
"traditional"building type or the result of an influence. Because log
construction is not a regional building type, it cannot be interpreted as vernacular
(and the building is not true log construction), nor is the lamella roof any
distinctive vernacular type—it was simply an inexpensive way to span a long
distance,used for gymnasia,parking lots,movie theaters and markets. Finally,
the combination of the false log siding and lamella roof cannot be described as
an"eclectic influence"it is simply an odd combination of rustic siding and an
inexpensive roof type.
Criterion I-4 In addition,the much-altered building has not maintained sufficient integrity,
that is someone who knew the building in the early 1930s would not recognize it
as the same building. Since the 1970s,the building has had numerous
modifications, including:permanent infilling of the many exterior windows,
-I-
CM
modifications to the front entrance and deck,additions to the south(side)and
east(rear)elevations of the building,and overpainting the redwood siding
material. In addition,numerous interior alterations were made, including
addition of: low-ceilinged lobby,second floor office,projection booth,and
hundreds of theater seats. The mezzanine has been mostly demolished and the
original fire pole and slide were removed. The stage area was modified with the
following additions: a large fiberglass and plexiglass baptismal font and lighting
and sound equipment, including alteration of a tie-rod to accommodate stage
lights. Because of these many appearance altering modifications,the building
lacks sufficient integrity to be considered for local landmark.
The building does not fulfill any of the Design Criteria:
Criterion II-1 The building cannot be described as notably attractive or aesthetically appealing,
nor is it unique or artistically meritorious, it does not possess exceptional details
or craftsmanship. It is a large,rectangular building with a segmentally curved
roof that has undergone a number of significant modifications.
Criterion II-2 The building was not constructed using particularly fine craftsmanship. It was
erected by a local builder, using an inexpensivesiding material that was mass
produced in Fort Bragg. The siding is simply nailed onto the exterior walls.
Criterion 1I-3 The building is not"an expression of interesting details and eclecticism among
carpenter-builders." It was simply a large plain building, and the only remaining
"detail" is the redwood, false log siding that was widely distributed as a standard
building material.
Criterion III In a community with a large number of significant 19'and early 20'b century
buildings,the subject property is undistinguished. Its designation would
effectively"lower the threshold"of what has been designated in the community
and thus demean the significance of those properties. If San Luis Obispo had no
other buildings that dated from before 1935,or there were no local buildings
that held any architectural merit,perhaps the building would be important for its
architecture.
Criterion IV, 1 There is no evidence that the building was designed by an architect.
Criterion V, 1-3 The spatial relationships between the building and its site,environment,and
setting have been much altered throughout its existence. The building never had
strong associations with these elements, particularly the street and creek. As far
as the site has been described, it did not ever possess a specific landscape,most
of the site has been a parking lot throughout the existence of the building. The
building is not a contributor to a district or geographically definable area,
therefore it does not possess Environmental Design Continuity.
Criterion VI, 1-3 The building has no connections to any persons who have contributed
significantly to the history of the community. The original owner was not a
public leader,public servant,or an esteemed member of the community.And the
building's later use as a dance hall,dance studio,bar,meeting hall, disco,movie
theater and church do not have close associations with any single, important
person.
Criterion VII, 1-3 There is no association with any historic events;or evidence of significant illegal
liquor-related activities associated with the property,and such activities were
commonplace in the San Luis Obispo area. As described in this report,the
adaptable building has been variously used as a restaurant,social hall,dance
-4-
cm
venue,theater and church, none of these uses has been long-lived,no significant
event or pattern of events occurred at the building.
Criterion VIII, 1-4 The building is not associated with, nor is it illustrative of predominant patterns
of local history,and the site and building have been altered several times which
diminishes the relationship to its immediate context.
We hope that this responds adequately to the issues Ms. McIlvaine discussed. Feel free to call us to
discuss this at(818)788-7954. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting on Monday.
-5-
chattel
e4rrhifectu e. 1
ening&
-4esvad=,
Inc.
September 7,2000
Ms. C.M. Florence, Principal
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
3427 Miguelito Ct.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: "Log Cabin," 811 El Capitan Way/2746 Edna Road, San Luis Obispo
Dear Ms. Florence:
Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation, Inc. (Chattel Architecture)evaluated the potential
for 811 El Capitan Way/2746 Edna Road' in San Luis Obispo, California(the"subject
property'),for historic resource eligibility under federal,state, and San Luis Obispo landmark
criteria,and the related provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The
single building on the subject property,currently in use as a church,was historically and is
commonly known as the"Log Cabin." The proposed project involves demolition of the Log
Cabin and redevelopment of the site. Our analysis found the subject property to not possess
requisite significance or integrity to qualify for historic resource designation at the local, state or
national level.
QUALIFICATIONS
Chattel Architecture is a historic preservation consulting firm with a statewide practice. We are
comprised of professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications
Standards(36 CFR Part 61,Appendix A)in architectural history and historic architecture. The
firm's principal, Robert Jay Chattel, AIA,has 18 years' experience and holds a Bachelor of Arts
in Architecture from the University of California Berkeley (1980) and a Master of Science in
Historic Preservation from Columbia University (1983). The project team included Mr. Chattel
and planner/architectural historian,Francesca Smith. Brief resumes of project team members are
included in attachments hereto(Attachment 1).
METHODOLOGY
We reviewed the January 10, 2000 report prepared by Bertrando and Bertrando Research
Consultants(Bertrando). As noted on page 15 of the Bertrando report,assessment of the subject
property's historic resource eligibility could not be made without research and analysis of
developer James B. Vail,and relationship of the subject property to illegal liquor-and
prostitution-related activities in the community.
' Edna Road is also known as Broad Street and State Route 227.
13310 Vallepheart Drive South Sherman Oaks.CA 914233287 818.788.7954 81&78U795fax chattel ftaabelLnet
1
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7, 2000 ca
Page 2
A physical inspection of the subject property was made on August 9,2000. Also on that date, we
met and toured the building and site with representatives of the City of San Luis Obispo and
State Office of Historic Preservation. A chain of title search and additional archival research,
performed at the San Luis Obispo Public Library, included extensive review of city directories
and newspapers. Telephone interviews were conducted with several community members. The
integrity of the building was evaluated using National Register guidance. Although no building
permits were located for the main building or two major additions, this omission did not
constrain the analysis. Historic photographs were sought for a record of the previous appearance
of the building, however none pre-dating 1983 were obtained.
The attached Chronology(Attachment 2)describes in detail history of uses and alterations to the
subject property. It serves as the foundation of this analysis, essential to evaluation of the
historic resource eligibility of the property, and is referenced as if fully set forth herein. The
Chronology is followed by single page r6sum6s of the report preparers (Attachment 1)with
copies of advertisements and articles on the Log Cabin from the local newspaper(Attachments 3
and 4). Other attachments include Record of Survey showing the building on the property
(Attachment 5),Log Comer Notching Systems(Attachment 6),a siding catalog cut sheet
(Attachment 7), 1981 plans for revisions to the building (Attachment 8),a sketch of the building
in its original configuration(Attachment 9), and contemporary photographs of the Log Cabin
(Attachment 10) and comparable properties(Attachment 11).
REVIEW AND APPLICATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CRITERIA
National Register of Historic Places
Properties may qualify for the National Register if the Keeper of the Register determines that
`they meet any of four criteria? Resources must possess significance in at least one of four
aspects of American history:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of history.
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of
construction; represent the work of a master;possess high artistic values; or
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction.
Z Readers interested in more detail on the criteria and the seven aspects of integrity and their application in
evaluating the historic value of particular properties or districts are encouraged to read National Register Bulletin
15: "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation."
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning i
September 7, 2000
Page 3
D. Have yielded,or may be likely to yield, [archaeological] information important in
prehistory or history.
The National Register maintains an arbitrary cut-off for eligibility at 50 years of age.
A final component of eligibility is integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its
significance and whether the property retains the identity for which it is significant. The National
Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting,
materials,workmanship, feeling,and association.
The Log Cabin does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register. The subject
property is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of history(Criterion A). There is no evidence to corroborate the property's connection
to either illegal liquor-or prostitution-related activities,during or after Prohibition. In addition,
research shows that alcohol was widely available in the San Luis Obispo community throughout
Prohibition. This report has demonstrated that James B. Vail was merely a local builder and
therefore property was not"associated with the li[fe] of[a]person... significant in [the
community's] past" (Criterion B). The property is a large redwood sided building with a
common,lamella-type roof. It is not an authentic log cabin and does not"[e]mbody the
distinctive characteristics of a type,period,or method of construction; represent the work of a
master,possess high artistic values;or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction"(Criterion Q. In addition,the property has not and
does not appear likely to yield archaeological information important in prehistory or history
(Criterion D). Furthermore, because of the many significant alterations to the building including
infilling all original fenestration,relocation of doors,and painting the redwood siding with
opaque paint;the building does not possess sufficient integrity to qualify for National Register
consideration.
California Register of Historical Resources
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and Section 4852(b) of the California Code of
Regulations provide that in order for a resource to be considered eligible for the California
Register,it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission or Office of Historic
Preservation°to be significant at the local, state,or national level under one or more of the
following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history,or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States;
3 PRC 5024.1 (e)applies to resources nominated for listing.
4 PRC 5024.1 (p)applies to resources identified as significant in an historical resource survey.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CR
Page 4
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,or national
history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;
or
4. It has yielded,or has the potential to yield, [archaeological] information important
to the prehistory or history of the local area, California,or the nation.
California Register Regulations Section 4852(c)also provides that"It is possible that historical
resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National
Register,but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register."
The Log Cabin does not warrant consideration for listing in the California Register. Research
has proven that it does not possess significance at the local, state, or national level under any of
the four applicable criteria. It cannot be demonstrated that the building was "associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history,
or the cultural heritage of California or the United States"(Criterion 1). The property is not
associated with the lives of any persons important to local, California, or national history
(Criterion 2). The building's simulated log siding and lamella roof do not embody"the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period,region,or method of construction,or represent..the
work of a master or possesses high artistic values(Criterion 3). Nor has the property yielded
archaeological information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or
the nation(Criterion 4). Although consideration for the California Register does not have the
same strict integrity requirements as the National Register,the building has been considerably
altered and does not resemble the original design.
City of San Luis Obi=* Master List of Historical Resource
'As described in Appendix C and E of the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,
properties can be nominated for Historical Resource designation,that is to be added to the Master
List of Historical Resources,by having an application filed with the Community Development
Department. The property must meet the"Delineation of Historical Resource Criteria For
Building Evaluation and Recommendations" in order to qualify for designation.
Evaluations are made on the basis of three Architectural Criteria,including: Style(Criterion 1),
Design(Criterion 11), and Age(Criterion III). In addition,there are specific"Criteria For
Building Evaluations,"including Architect(Criterion IV), Environmental Design Continuity
(Criterion V),History-Person(Criterion VI),History-Event(Criterion VII),and History Context
Criterion VIII).
Criteria for amending or establishing Historical Preservation Districts are described in the City
Zoning Regulations,Chapter 14.54 as:
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CM
Page 5
1. The property is within an area where buildings with pre-1941 architectural styles
create a recognizable character.
2. The property or area contains structures which are (a)good or excellent examples
of pre-1941 architecture,or(b)were designed by eminent architects or designers,
or(c)are community architectural landmarks.
3. The property or area contains structures that are included in the city's Master List
of Historical Resources.
4. The property,area or structure was owned or occupied by someone who had a
significant role in the history of the city,region or nation.
The subject property does not appear to meet the historic resource Architectural Criteria under
Style, for the following reasons: it is not a pure expression of a traditional style,it is a false log
cabin with a common lamella roof(Criterion I-1); it is not a rare type(meeting hall)or style
(redwood sided, lamella roof)(Criterion I-2); it does not reflect traditional,vernacular or eclectic
influences(Criterion I-3); and the much-altered building has not maintained sufficient integrity
(Criterion I-4). The building does not fulfill any of the Design Criteria: it cannot be described as
notably attractive or aesthetically appealing, nor is it unique or artistically meritorious,it does not
possess exceptional details or craftsmanship(Criterion II-1); the building was not constructed
using particularly fine craftsmanship(Criterion H-2); it is not"an expression of interesting details
and eclecticism among carpenter-builders" (Criterion II-3). In a community with a large number
of significant 19te and early 20'century buildings,the subject property is undistinguished
(Criterion III). There is no evidence that the building was designed by an architect(Criterion IV-
1 through 4). The spatial relationships between the building and its site, environment,and setting
has been much altered throughout its life. The building never had strong associations with these
elements,particularly the street and creek. It is not a contributor to a district or geographically
definable area,therefore it does not possess Environmental Design Continuity(Criterion V-1
through 3). The building has no connections to any persons who have contributed significantly
'to the history of the community(Criterion VI-1 through 3). There is no association with any
historic events;there is no evidence of illegal liquor-related activities associated with the
property,and such activities were commonplace in the San Luis Obispo area. As described in
this report,the adaptable building has been variously used as a restaurant, social hall,dance
venue,theater and church,none of these uses has been long-lived, no significant event or pattern
of events occurred at the building(Criterion VII-1 through 3). The building is not associated
with,nor is it illustrative of predominant patters of local history,and the site and building have
been altered several times which diminishes the relationship to its immediate context(Criterion
VIII-1 through 4).
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CM
Page 6
California Enyimmnental QlWity Act
According to CEQA,
...an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in,the
California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local
register of historical resources...,or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision(g)of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant
for purposes of this section,unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that
the resource is not historically or culturally significant(PRC §21084.1).
If the proposed project created substantial adverse changes to historical resources,the
environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce impacts.
"Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical
demolition,destruction,relocation,or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired"(PRC §150645
(b)(1)). PRC §15064.5 (b)(2)describes material impairment taking place when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in,or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register...
; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its
identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency
reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence
that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in,or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead
agency for the purposes of CEQA.
As proposed,the project would not result in the"physical demolition,destruction,relocation,or
alteration'of any historical resource or adjacent setting because there are no historical resources
nearby. Therefore,no substantial adverse change to historical resources would be caused by the
project.
Ms.C.M.Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CM
Page 7
DETAILED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
Loci Cabin as Spak=or Roadhouses
Anecdotal rumors have been circulated locally regarding the Log Cabin's early history as a
speakeasy or brothel. No primary documentation or evidence exists that the Log Cabin ever
functioned as a speakeasy business dispensing bootleg alcohol. There has been supposition that
the building,during Vail's ownership, may also have functioned as a brothel. For the building to
possess historic significance predicated on this principle, it would be necessary to document such
a use,as well as prove that the building was significant because of that use.
The Eighteenth Amendment, known as Prohibition or the Volstead Act was instituted on July 1,
1919,and was repealed on December 5, 1933. Prohibition was the federal law that made the
manufacture;transportation, sale and possession of alcoholic beverages illegal,for other than
medicinal or sacramental purposes. Enforcement of Prohibition was loose,home wine-and
cider-making were allowed,and medicinal and sacramental beverages were legal,although the
industry was regulated. Existing wineries,mostly in California, were permitted to sell wine and
5 The following definitions will assist the reader in reviewing the discussion"Log Cabin as Speakeasy or
Roadhouse." All definitions are taken from the online Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary,2000,unless
otherwise noted.
brothel (broth-el)noun, 1593;Etymology:Middle English.Worthless fellow,prostitute,from brothen,
past participle of brethen to waste away,go to ruin,from Old English. brEothan to waste away;
akin to Old English brEotan to break.
A house of prostitution.(New College Edition The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, 1976)
honkey-tonk @8[ng]-kE-"t1[ng]k)noun, 1909; 1.A usually tawdry nightclub or dance hall;especially one that
features country music. 2. A district marked by places of cheap entertainment.
Prohibition (pro't}bish'en)noun,ad;The forbidding by law of the manufacture,transportation,sale and
possession of alcoholic beverages.
The period...during which such a law was in force in the United States. (New College Edition The American
Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1976)
roadhouse (rOd-"haus)noun, 1857; An inn or tavern usually outside city limits providing liquor and usually
meals,dancing,and often gambling.
speakeasy (spEk-"E-zE)noun, 1889;A place where alcoholic beverages are illegally sold;specifically,such
a place during the period of prohibition in the U.S.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning 1
September 7, 2000
TTE
Page 8
champagne abroad and were bonded by the federal government! Prohibition enforcement agents
were notoriously corrupt, a large number were terminated for"...bribery, extortion,theft,
violation of the National Prohibition Act, falsification of records, conspiracy, perjury and other
causes.."' A number of interview sources confirmed that James B. Vail's brother,John(later a
partner in the Log Cabin business)was a Revenue Agent(federal representative charged with
enforcing Prohibition). If James Vail's brother,John was indeed a federal agent,a connection
between the Vail brothers in a bootlegging business would be less-than-significant and not
unique.
At the time, local San Luis newspapers often ran stories chronicling the adventures of federal
agents,describing arrests and illegal liquor operations in great detail. A systematic search of
local newspapers between 1930 and 1933 revealed no articles describing the arrest or
investigationy of James B. Vail,nor illegal activities at the Log Cabin.8 The Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and Firearms(ATF)Headquarters was contacted for records on James B. Vail, none
were located.' In the early 1930s,there were a number of advertisements in local newspapers for
dances and parties being held at the Log Cabin, it is assumed that true speakeasy operations
would not advertise in newspapers. In addition,there were a number of society page articles
describing parties and events at the building, including detailed accounts of the nature of the
events,who attended and what was worn. If such events at the Log Cabin involved illegal
activities,it is unlikely these events would have been announced or described in print.
Furthermore, bootlegging activities were not rare in the San Luis Obispo community. Long time
San Luis resident Murray Hathway recently described"a number of prominent area families...
[being] involved with bootlegging"during prohibition.10 He said that wine and spirits-related
6 Doris Muscatine,Maynard Amerine and Bob Thomson,eds. The University of Callfornia/Sotheby Book
of California Wine. (Berkeley: University of California Press/Sotheby Publications, 1984)56.
7 U.S.National Commission on Law Observance&Enforcement. Report on the Enforcement of the
Prohibition Laws of the United States. (Washington,DC.:Government Printing Office, 1931).
8 Researchers checked both the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune and Daily Telegram for articles(and
advertisements)regarding activities at the Log Cabin,arrest records,and activities related to Prohibition and
prostitution in the community,between May of 1930,when the Log Cabin opened for business and 1933,when
Prohibition was repealed.
9 Telephone interview and subsequent research by Agent John diAngelo,Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco
and Firearms(ATF)Headquarters,by Francesca Smith,August 25,2000. ATF inherited the duties and records of
the US Commission of Internal Revenue,the agency responsible for enforcing federal liquor restrictions during
Prohibition.
to Telephone interview of Murray Hathway,76-year resident of San Luis Obispo,and great nephew of
Log Cabin owner Amos R."Bun"Hathway in late 1930s and 1940s,by Francesca Smith,August 25,2000.
i
Ms. C.M.Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning CM September 7,2000
Page 9
activity was"very common in the area,"particularly among the Italian, Swiss,and Portugese
farmers. This type of use was common throughout the nation,an article in"The Foreign Bom
and Prohibition,"Constantine Palumbo described immigrant families who"drank..with their
meals by custom,and many...made their own [wine and spirits] in their homelands." " Mr.
Hathway described a local dairy farmer who openly filled his cream cans with homemade liquor
which he shipped via rail to his brother in San Francisco. So,bootlegging and alcohol-related
activities were common in the area at the time. In conclusion,there is no documented
association among James B.Vail,the Log Cabin and bootlegging operations. Furthermore, if the
Log Cabin had been associated with such activity,this would not necessarily make the property
important locally,regionally or nationally as such activities were widespread.
The alleged use of the building as a bordello similarly did not yield any published records. There
is no published record regarding prostitution activity, raids or arrests being made at the subject
property. In fact,the original plan of the building, one large rectangular room with a mezzanine,
does not easily lend itself to use for prostitution. Generally, brothels are depicted as having a
lobby/living room/reception area,and a number of private bedrooms used for business
transactions. The fact that the Log Cabin was essentially a single open,large room would not
physically lend itself to the operation of a bordello.
Descn'jtion-Exterior
The building is rectangular in plan,two stories in height,and has a segmentally curved roof. It is
approximately twice as long as it is wide,and is clad in half-width, redwood,false log siding.
The roof-wall junction has no eaves,and the front comers of the building feature cwmerboards.
The west,or main facade has a slender,two story chimney, set just south of the center,comprised
of uncut stone, set in random courses. The chimney material is indigenous, or local stone,is
wider at the base than the flue. The asymmetrical chimney culminates in a course of irregular
stone at the top, creating rough pinnacles. A double door entry (two single leaves,set close
together)is located on the same gable wall,protected by a simple, low sloping, gabled pediment.
The redwood doors are single panel,with plain rustic carving and hammer motif hinges. There is
a glazed,by-pass message board next to the main entry. A single door of the same type occupies
the bay on the other side of the chimney. Above the canopy a simple sign reads"House of
Prayer"with a small decorative medallion above. A raised concrete deck wraps around the north
and west sides,with a comer stair,a ramp(at the south end),and simple wood railing. There is
a small,flat-r000fed, single story addition at the rear(east)elevation,and a one story,shed
roofed addition runs the length of the south side. The roof is finished in built-up roofing. Refer
to Attachment 10.
Constantine Palumbo. "The Foreign Born and Prohibition,"Annals of the American Academy of
Politica!and Social Science,September 1932,147-154.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CM
Page 10
Description-Interior
The building is entered through a small, single story lobby. The lobby has a low ceiling,with
hewn beams and there is a large,overpainted, native stone fireplace on the exterior wall. A
narrow enclosed stair on the north side leads to a second floor office. The office is nearly the
same size as the lobby, but has a higher ceiling. A smaller office has been subdivided on the
south end. A contiguous small film projection booth is also on the second level,toward the
center of the building.
The main area of the building is a large, two story volume,with an open,curved ceiling. The
lamella roof framing forms a simple, irregular,diamond-shaped pattern on the ceiling and there
are lateral tie-rods with turnbuckle braces at intervals at the tops of the walls. The room is
arranged with two aisles separating straight rows of upholstered theater seats and low,raised
stage at the east end. The main floor is finished in maple. The"stage has a few different levels,
and a low non-continuous wall. At the rear center,there is a large, fiberglass and plexiglass
baptismal font.
On the south side of the building there is an addition featuring a food service area, and smaller
rooms toward the west end. The addition has banks of multi-light windows which run nearly its
length.
A double loaded hall leads to a rear(stage)door,and turns a corner leading to a pair of multi-
stall restrooms, and a small additional room.
Lamella Roof
The building has a lamella roof. According to the Academic Press Dictionary of Science&
Technology,the word lamella"... in building engineering,means any'of a series of wood,metal,
or reinforced-concrete members joined in a crisscross pattern, forming a vault" It is finther
'described as"a series of parallel arches, skewed with respect to the sides of the rectangular
covered area... intersected by another series of skew arches so that an efficient interaction is
obtained between them." The word is taken from naturally occurring crystal formations that the
roof structure resembles.
The roof seems to have been developed in the mid 1920s and was most popular during the
second World War for use as hangar roofs. During its heyday in the mid-20h century,the lamella
roof was considered"an inexpensive way to span a moderate distance(75 to 100 feet)." 12 Some
12 Telephone interview with J.B.Fowler,PE,FAIR,ICBG,Chief Building Official,City of Pasadena,
Department of Planning&Permitting,by Francesca Smith,August 30,2000.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning m
September 7,2000
Page 11
of the most dramatic examples of lamella roofs were concrete hangars and stadia designed by
noted designer Pier Luigi Nervi, some of which spanned more than 1,000 feet."
The shape of the roof is described by an local professional engineer as"very common"in the San
Luis Obispo area. He cited other local buildings with similar roof forms,including the
downtown County Parking Garage,Old Gymnasium at Cuesta College,Fremont Theater,14 and
Gymnasium at Camp Roberts. Because of the continued existence of these other area buildings
featuring lamella roofs,the building has a relatively common roof type, locally. In addition,the
roof is a very common building feature in the region, with numerous examples in the Los
Angeles metropolitan area 's
"Log"Finished Exterior
Although the building has been called the Log Cabin from time to time throughout its history,
that designation is a misnomer. The building is actually wood framed, with redwood log-shaped
sections affixed to the exterior as a cladding or finish material, similar to shiplap or clapboard
siding. The siding was fabricated by the Redwood Manufacturing Company,in Fort Bragg,
which ceased operations in 19g0.16 Refer to Attachment 7 for similar log siding material. Vail
ordered the siding through the San Luis Mill&Lumber Co.,the company that provided all of the
lumber used in construction of the subject building.17 Refer to Attachment 10, frame E.
For the Log Cabin building finish material,redwood logs were split lengthwise,the final product
was approximately one-half of a log. Flanges and grooves were cut on the top and bottom of the
boards in a consistent method. It typically laid-up in stacked,horizontal rows,and is nailed to
r3 Mario Salvadori. Structure In Architecture. (Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1963) 198.
According to The Works of Pier Luigi Nervi,his most notable lamella roofed designs include Italian air force
hangars(1935,and 1939-41,destroyed in World War ln,numerous sports stadia in Florence and Rome(1930-60),
and exhibition hall at Turin(1949).
14 Telephone conversation with Mike F.Smith,P.E.,partner in Lampman&Smith,by Francesca Smith on
August 25,2000. Mr.Smith has been a professional engineer in the San Luis Obispo area for 20 years.
15 Some examples of buildings with lamella roofs in the Los Angeles metropolitan area:Los Angeles
County+USC Medical Center Central Files Building,Michael's/Che Derby Restaurant,and Webber's Bread
Building. There are at least three lamella roofed buildings on Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena:Starlight Skating
Rink(now vacant),Colorado Theater,and a nearby thrift store.
16 Telephone conversation with Gerard Parsons,long time San Luis Obispo resident by Francesca Smith,
August 25,2000. Mr.Parsons is a 64 year veteran in the lumber business. His father owned the San Luis Milling
and Lumber Co.from 1911 until his death. The mill was subsequently owned by his mother and later co-owned
with his brother.
17 Parsons.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CM
Page 12
the building frame. A similar"log"siding was manufactured in six,eight and ten-inch wide
dimensions. The redwood siding was a stock or standard material,which was dressed in a
conventional manner to remove bark and impart a uniform appearance to an otherwise random
material.
The building was not originally and has never been, a"log cabin." Log house construction can
be traced to Scandinavian origins in the Viking period,approximately 1000 to 800 AD." Log
construction was historically limited to one or two rooms,called"pens." As originally designed
and constructed,the subject building was a single large room with a mezzanine. It was
subsequently subdivided into additional smaller rooms and additions were added to the south and
east sides, enlarging and distorting the original rectangular footprint. Refer to Attachment 5.
True log construction consists of hewn logs,placed horizontally (laid one on top of the other),
and most importantly"held together by carefully interlocking or notching the squared timbers
where they join... at the comers of the buildings." 19 The corners of an authentic log building
would exhibit one of five basic, log comer,carved,notching systems. Refer to Attachment 6. At
the comers,the finish material variously has comerboards and is fit together at 90-degree angles,
or mitred. The subject building does not have the critical feature that would make it log
construction: interlaced logs at the comers. It is not the work of an artisan or a particularly
skilled carpenter. The redwood cladding that gave the building its name was a standard siding
material and its existence does not make the building an authentic or true"log cabin."
As it was originally constructed,the siding was untreated, or perhaps had a clear stained or oiled
finish. In the late 1980s,the siding is said to have been overpainted,and the paint finish
remains. Overpainting the siding diminishes integrity, or ability of the property to impart its
original appearance,much like overpainting a brick or stone building. Because of the porous
nature of the siding,overpainting on surfaces such as redwood is most likely irreversible.
Integli
Historic integrity is defined by the National Park Service as"the authenticity of a property's
identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property's
historic period."20 For a property's integrity to remain,the physical characteristics that made it
la Mary Mix Foley,The American House. (New York:Harper Colophron Books: 1980)49. The ancient
Norse name for this single room,windowless basic shelter was"eld-hits,"meaning fire or hearth house. The
English word house is thought to be derived from this term.
19 Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide To American Houses. (New York:Alfred A.Knopf 199 1)
36,82,83.
20 US Department of the Interior,National Park Service. "Guidelines for Completing National Register
of Historic Places Forms" 1991:Appendix IV,2.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning M
September 7, 2000
Page 13
important during its historic or significant period must be present. For a property to qualify for
inclusion on the National Register, it must possess some combination of the following seven
aspects of integrity: location,design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
Neither the California Register nor the local ordinance meaningfully address the question of
integrity. Use of National Register integrity standards is necessary because it is the only
substantive written guidance on the subject.
The most significant alterations that have been made to the subject building are: permanent
infilling of the many exterior windows, modifications to the front entrance and deck,additions to
the south(side) and east(rear) elevations of the building, and overpainting the redwood siding
material. Refer to Attachments 8,9 and 10.
On the interior,a small lobby with a low ceiling has been created, a second floor office was
added,a projection booth remains(from the period the building was operated as a theater),and
hundreds of upholstered theater seats were added during the theater period. The mezzanine has
been,for the most part,been removed, and the original fire pole and slide no longer exist. The
main stage area has been modified over the years,currently a large fiberglass and plexiglass
baptismal font occupies the rear center of the stage,and a large amount of lighting and sound
equipment has been added(including alteration of a tie-rod to accommodate stage lighting).
The side, or south elevation has a single story, lean-to addition. It has a shed roof,and
continuous multi-light windows. The south addition obscures the entire fust floor of the south
elevation and there is no extant or original log siding on the south elevation. At the rear,or east
elevation,there is a single story,lean-to addition that covers most of the end wall. It is flat
roofed,has a large amount of HVAC equipment above, and forms a right angle to meet the side
addition.
'Plans prepared in 1981 for modifications to Station 5121 show a number of significant alterations,
and/or existing conditions that no longer remain. The no longer extant features include: a double
door main entrance on north elevation, at least 13 exterior windows(now infilled or removed)on
the north and east elevations,and a two story exterior stair on the west elevation. Other changes
include: demolition of original front entry canopy roof on the north elevation and of a chimney
on north side of the rear addition;existing wrap-around entrance deck modified,handrail being
removed and replaced,new concrete steps built at north(original)entrance. Numerous interior
modifications were made,consisting of: removal of mezzanine at stage area; new mezzanine
supports added,and construction of walls circumscribing stage and office areas.
It can be assumed that the windows were infilled for the theater use,which began circa 1982.
The same log siding was used to infill the window areas, so although the modification is not
21 Steven Pults,AIA."Plans for Station 51" 2746 Edna Road.September 8, 1991. sheets A-1,-2 and-3.
Ms. C.M. Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning q
September 7,2000
Page 14
undetectable,the siding appears to be continuous, but there are"breaks"where the windows once
were. Most likely, the original siding was removed from the south elevation(where none now
exists)and reused to infill the window openings. Refer to Attachment 9.
Comparison of Comparable Properties
The subject property was compared against other related properties because, as a public meeting
hall, it is not a rare or unique property type in San Luis Obispo. In addition,the building does
not clearly possess the defined characteristics required to strongly represent the social hall
context. National Register guidance recommends evaluation of the property by comparison to
comparable buildings in the same context. The Log Cabin as a meeting hall is not the first, nor
do its physical features make it a rare property type within the community (refer to Lamella Roof
discussion). Its design is not distinctive nor significant,and the much altered building does not
convey the integrity of its original design.
There are at least five other public meeting hall buildings in the San Luis Obispo area. They are
listed in the table below and depicted in Attachment 11:
Name Address Serial Number•
Masonic Temple 859 Marsh Street 0123-03C
Monday Club 1815 Monterey Street 0137-03C
Odd Fellows Hall 520 Dana Street na
Trinity Han 6565 Broad Street na
Veterans Memorial Building 801 Grand Avenue na
* Serial number from the Master List of Historic Resources,adopted July 1983,updated December 1990.
Among the other five buildings,two were found to appear eligible for inclusion in the National
Register. Based on a recent windshield survey,the Odd Fellows Hall appears to be locally
significant,and may qualify for listing in the California Register because of its distinctive
Streamline Moderne/Spanish Eclectic design. The Veterans Memorial Building,while not 50
years of age,also appears to be architecturally significant,at least at the local level,and when it
attains the requisite age, should be evaluated more completely. Trinity Hall,while it has strong
cultural significance to the Portugese community,has been significantly altered. Therefore,of
the five comparable properties,two have been previously evaluated as eligible for historic
resource designation and two should be finther evaluated for historic significance.
"Log Cabin"
811 El Capitan Way/2746 Edna Road,San Luis Obispo
The consultant's analysis found the subject property to not possess requisite significance
or integrity to qualify for historic resource designation at the local, state or national level.
The Log Cabin building does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places because:
• It is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of history(Criterion A).
• The developer,James B.Vail was merely a local builder and therefore property was
not"associated with the li[fe] of[a]person.. significant in [the community's] past"
(Criterion B).
• It is a large redwood sided building with a common, lamella-type roof,not an
authentic log cabin and therefore does not"[e]mbody the distinctive characteristics of
a type,period,or method of construction;represent the work of a master,possess high
artistic values; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction" (Criterion Q.
• It has not and does not appear likely to yield archaeological information important in
prehistory or history(Criterion D).
Furthermore,because of the significant alterations to the building, it does not possess
sufficient integrity to qualify for National Register consideration.
The building does not appear to qualify for listing in the California Register,because it
does not possess significance at the local, state,or national level under any of the four
applicable criteria:
• It cannot be demonstrated that the building was"associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or
the cultural heritage of California or the United States"(Criterion 1).
• The property is not associated with the lives of any persons important to local,
California,or national history (Criterion 2).
• The building's simulated log siding and lamella roof do not embody"the distinctive
characteristics of a type,period,region,or method of construction, or represent...the
work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3).
• The property has not yielded archaeological information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area,California, or the nation(Criterion 4).
Although consideration for the California Register does not have the integrity
requirements as required by the National Register,the building has been considerably
altered and does not resemble the original design.
For local designation,the building does not appear to meet the historic resource
Architectural Criteria under Style, because:
• it is not a pure expression of a traditional style, it is a false log cabin with a common
lamella roof(Criterion I-1);
• it is not a rare type(meeting hall)or style(redwood sided, lamella roof) (Criterion I-
2);
• it does not reflect traditional,vernacular or eclectic influences(Criterion 1-3); and
• the much-altered building has not maintained sufficient integrity (Criterion I-4).
The building does not fulfill any of the Design Criteria:
it cannot be described as notably attractive or aesthetically appealing, nor is it unique or
artistically meritorious, it does not possess exceptional details or craftsmanship (Criterion
II-1);
the building was not constructed using particularly fine craftsmanship (Criterion II-2); it
is not"an expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders"
(Criterion II-3).
In a community with a large number of significant 19`'and early 20`s century buildings,
the subject property is undistinguished(Criterion III).
There is no evidence that the building was designed by an architect(Criterion N-1
through 4).
The spatial relationships between the building and its site, environment,and setting has
been much altered throughout its life. The building never had strong associations with
these elements,particularly the street and creek. It is not a contributor to a district or
geographically definable area,therefore it does not possess Environmental Design
Continuity (Criterion V-1 through 3).
The building has no connections to any persons who have contributed significantly to the
history of the community (Criterion VI-1 through 3).
There is no association with any historic events; there is no evidence of illegal liquor-
related activities associated with the property,and such activities were commonplace in
the San Luis Obispo area. As described in this report,the adaptable building has been
variously used as a restaurant, social hall, dance venue,theater and church,none of these
uses has been long-lived,no significant event or pattern of events occurred at the building
(Criterion VII-1 through 3).
The building is not associated with,nor is it illustrative of predominant patterns of local
history,and the site and building have been altered several times which diminishes the
relationship to its immediate context(Criterion VIII-1 through 4).
In that the building is not a historical resource under CEQA,the proposed project would
not result in the"physical demolition,destruction, relocation, or alteration"of any
historical resource or adjacent setting. Therefore,no substantial adverse change to
historical resources would be caused by the project.
Ms. C.M.Florence
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning
September 7,2000 CM
Page 15
CONCLUSION
In conclusion,the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse changes to any historical
resource. The subject property is not a historical resource,and would not be affected by any
proposed project,therefore no historical resources impacts under CEQA are expected.
Should you have any questions,please call (818) 788-7954.
Very truly yours,
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING& PRESERVATION, INC.
By:
1kc1bert Jay\Cttel,AIA
Cq
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Single page rbsum6s of Robert Jay Chattel, AIA and Francesca G. Smith
2. Chronology
3. "Formal Opening of Log Cabin on Wednesday"Daily Telegram. 4 May 1931: page 3
4. Advertisement for opening of the Log-Cabin [sic] Daily Telegram. 4 May 1931: page 4
5. Record of Survey, prepared by Wilson Land Surveys, annotated to show the approximate
location, size and layout of the building on the property,November 1999 and September
2000
6. Log Comer Notching Systems, excerpted from Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field
Guide To American Houses. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 1991)page 36
7. "Siding"catalog cut sheet
8. "Plans for Station 51" by Steven D. Pults,AIA, 2746 Edna Road. September 8, 1981.
sheets A-1 through A-3,note windows clearly shown on first and second floors, as well
as no longer extant portions of the mezzanine
9. Sketch of Log Cabin building depicting original arrangement of doors and windows,
based on Pults' plans and physical inspection, prepared by Chattel Architecture,2000
10. Contemporary Photographs of Log Cabin Building
11. Photographs of Comparable Properties
Chattel
Architecture,
'-aping&
servation,
Inc.
ROBERT JAY CHATTEL,AIA
Preservation Architect
Robert Jay Chattel,AIA has over 18 years' experience in the fields of planning,design,and
construction. Mr.Chattel's unique qualifications include: meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history and historic architecture,and;
licensure as both a general contractor and architect in California. He specializes applying the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment and interpreting Federal, state and local
historic preservation law and regulations.
As director of programs for the LA Conservancy,he developed walking tours and brochures. As
project planner for the LA Community Redevelopment Agency,he managed development within
two National Register districts in downtown Los Angeles. As a real estate developer with H.T.
Greene,he handled projects ranging from single-family tract developments to high-rise
commercial office buildings. Following the Northridge earthquake,Mr. Chattel conducted a
National Register eligibility review of over 1,000 earthquake-damaged buildings for the
California State Office of Historic Preservation.
Mr. Chattel holds a B.A. degree in Architecture from U.C. Berkeley and a M.S. degree in
Historic Preservation from Columbia University. In 1997,he initiated a popular series of courses
in historic preservation for UCLA Extension.
In 1991,Mr. Chattel received the California Preservation Foundation's President's Award for his
work on the Beverly Hills Waterworks and the expansion and renovation of the Los Angeles
Central Library. Most recently, Mr. Chattel received a regional American Planning Association
Focused Issue Planning Award for City of Orange, Local CEQA Guidelines for Historic
Resources.
Continuing a relationship established on the Central Library project, Mr. Chattel has partnered
with Mellon&Associates on a variety of survey,documentation and strategic planning projects.
These projects have included preparation of an historical assessment and artifacts inventory of
the Regina Winery in Rancho Cucamonga,nomination of the San Bernardino County Court
House to the National Register of Historic Places,consultation on a specific plan for
development of underutilized property surrounding the Hotel del Coronado,and representation of
the University of Southern California on sale of the Embassy Hotel and Auditorium. Dr. Knox
Mellon and Mr. Chattel currently represent Lennar Mare Island,LLC,master developer in reuse
of over 500 historic resources at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo.
As a volunteer board member of the Jewish Historical Society of Southern California,Mr.
Chattel directs physical assessment,planning and design for rehabilitation of the Breed Street
Shul,a historic former synagogue, in East Los Angeles. An official White House Millennium
Council"Save America's Treasures"project,the collaborative effort of Latino and Jewish
communities to create a museum,cultural and educational center is being recognized as a model
for community-based historic preservation.
Chattel
Architecture, 1
Planning&
Preservation,
Inc.
FRANCESCA G. SMITH
Planner/Architectural Historian
Francesca Smith has 15 years of experience in the fields of planning, design review,and
constriction management. Mrs. Smith's qualifications include: meeting the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history,and qualification as an
Architectural Historian by Caltrans. She has broad experience applying the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Treatment(Secretary's Standards) and interpreting Federal, state and
local historic preservation law and regulations.
Mrs. Smith holds a M.S. in Real Estate Development with a historic preservation focus from
Columbia University, and a B.A. in Political Science with a minor concentration in architectural
history from The College of Charleston(South Carolina). Mrs. Smith recently presented at Los
Angeles Central Library on"Los Angeles River Bridges: Past, Present&Future"with Clark
Robins in the LA City Historical Society lecture series. She has lectured with Robert Chattel and
others for UCLA extension courses on historic preservation practice and theory,the history of
Los Angeles water and railroads, and construction management. In addition, she has performed
design review for the cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena, as Historical Property Contract
Manager for the Cultural Affairs Department of the City of Los Angeles, and as a planner for the
Design&Historic Preservation section at the City of Pasadena
Her relevant project experience includes preparation of environmental documentation for public
agencies(shown in parentheses), including:East Central Interceptor Sewer(ECIS) EIR(City of
Los Angeles,Bureau of Engineering), 1351-53, 1357-59 South Alvarado Street and 1336-38
South Hoover Street and Adeante Eastside Redevelopment Project(CRA), Del Amo Boulevard
Overcrossing,(City of Carson,Caltrans,Federal Highway Administration,FHWA), and Mid-
City Red Line Extension (Final Supplemental EISIEIR) (MTA,FTA). She has evaluated the
,following bridge rehabilitations,relocations, seismic retrofits and bridge designs for compliance
with the Secretary's Standards: Fletcher Drive Bridge(currently in progress),North
Broadway/Buena Vista Viaduct,and Olympic Boulevard Bridge(all for the City of LA,Bureau
of Engineering,Department of Public Works); Rehabilitation of Rock Creek Bridge(with
construction of adjacent new bridge),and Relocation of Duck Creek Bridge(both for Dallas Area
Rapid Transit,DART). Mrs Smith has conducted thousands of bridge evaluations for Section
106 compliance, including: Alameda Corridor(Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority),
Barham Cahuenga Improvements Project Historic Resource Evaluation Report(City and County
of LA,City of Burbank, Caltrans,Federal Transit Administration,FTA), Conrail/Norfolk
Southern and Union Pacific/Southem Pacific railroad mergers, (Surface Transportation Board),
Northeast Corridor Environmental Assessment and North Central Corridor DEIS, (both for
DART),Mt.Vernon Bridge, (City of San Bernardino),Main Street Viaduct, (City of Barstow),
and Interstate-10 High Occupancy Vehicle Project(Caltrans,FHWA).
She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles City Historical Society and serves
as its Preservation Officer. Mrs. Smith previously served on the board of the Society of
Architectural Historians/Southern California Chapter.
CM
CHRONOLOGY
The following chronology is an abstract of events related to the subject property. A number of
complex transactions are described herein,although certain brief transfers of the property may
not be included. This timeline represents the most objective,complete and accurate overview
prepared for the subject property.
1885 James Benjamin Vail is born to Victoria and James H. Vail in Canada.'
1906 Map of San Luis County Suburban Tract, lot 104 (subject property)is recorded
on February 6th.
1919 On July ?;Prohibition is instituted.'
circa 1921 James B. Vail arrives in California.
1930 On October 16th, sale of lots 103, 104 and 105 of the San Luis County
Suburban Tract to James B. Vail by Nancy C. Rose is recorded. The
consideration amount is$10.
1930 Alice Louise"Dagmar"Vail, wife of James B.Vail(at the time), transfers
seven properties, including the subject property,to James B. Vail by quitclaim
on the 2"a of December.
May, 1931 The Log Cabin opens as a dining and dancing facility on Wednesday, May 6 .
In an article entitled"Formal Opening Of Log Cabin On Wednesday,"the
building is described. It is furnished with"a slide,a fireman's pole and ladder
[are] provided in the hall for those who do not care to use the stairs to the dance
floor from the balcony,and these are also a source of entertainment for the
guests."3 Refer to Attachment 3.
May, 1931 A large advertisement featuring elegant art work describes"...the most gala
opening [sic] of anything of this type,"with dinner for"$2.50 per plate,"and
"Gentlemen$1.00... Ladies 50¢"admission.4 Refer.to Attachment 4.
' County of San Luis Obispo.Certificate of Death. June 1, 1965.
2 Volstead Act. 181 Amendment to the United States Constitution.
3 "Formal Opening of Log Cabin on Wednesday"Daily Telegram. 4 May 1931:3.
4 classified advertisement Daily Te legram. 4 May 1931:4.
-1-
Cq ,
May, 1931 A surprise birthday party is held in honor of Miss Dolly Martin's 17`h birthday
on May 6 . The event is organized by three local matrons the guest list is
exhaustively enumerated in the local paper on the society page. The formal
party is described as having"a charming air."s
June, 1931 Classified advertisement in the local paper: "DANCE and Dine, Log Cabin
Wednesday night. Music by Log Cabin Seranaders."a
July, 1931 Announcement for"Dance at the Log Cabin,"to be held"every Wednesday
and Saturday,"with a dance prize of"A Dancing Elephant Given Free to the
Best Dancers"as well as other prizes. The Saturday "all night dance"is
enthusiastically described as"fun for all"with"special music."
August, 1931 "Whoopee Dance"advertized in the local newspaper for the night of August
8'. The evening includes$1. admission,with"music by Seranaders"and not
only"Ladies Free,"but promises"PRIZES and GIFTS for Every Lady."'
October, 1931 Newspaper advertisement for an"all night carnival dance...at the Log Cabin"
discloses that it is"Under New Management."9
1931 Newspaper announcement"Log Cabin will be the scene of one of the jolly New
Years eve parties ... plans are being made for one of the most enjoyable social
fimctions of the winter season. A supper dance is being announced by Ray
Bailey and Cush Branch,who have recently taken over management of the
popular dance hall." 10
1932 Judgement made against James B. Vail for$634.37,on January 12, 1932 for
San Luis Furniture Company.
s "Surprise Birthday Parry is Charming Event at Log Cabin" Daily Telegram. 6 May 1931:2.
e classified advertisement. Daily Telegram. 17 June 1931:3.
7 advertisement. Daily Telegram.29 July 1931:3.
a advertisement. Daily Telegram. 8 August 1931:4.
9 advertisement. Daily Telegram.24 October 193 1:np.
10 "Log Cabin to Feature Supper Dance New Years." Daily Telegram. 31 December 1931:np.
-2-
i
CM
1932 Victory luncheon held at a Paso Robles area Methodist church to celebrate the
twelfth anniversary of Prohibition.'
1932 "Collegiate Dance at the Log Cabin'is advertised in the local paper"every
Friday night." Prices are"Shieks 50¢, Co-eds Free,Extra lady 25¢,"although
there is no definition of what an"extra lady"might be. On the same page as
that advertisement,there is a small announcement"For Rent By Night: Log
Cabin-Parties banquets,dances, etc. Accommodate 500 people. Phone Mr.
Vail 2074." 12
1933 Incorporated clubs publicly claim that their incorporated status makes them
eligible to sell liquor. Local authorities throughout the state are nevertheless
urged to act immediately against such businesses which violate the law."
1933 Prohibition is repealed on December 5`h.
1933 Odd Fellows and Rebekahs hold their annual dance at the Log Cabin. An
advertisement features"Turkey Prizes"and music by the Paramount Dance
Band-14
1935 Articles of Incorporation are filed for the non-profit"Log Cabin Country Club"
by J. Ben Vail,John H. Vail,J.W. Kimball, and W.C. Kelsey, 15 all citizens of
San Luis Obispo County. Among the purposes for which the club was formed,
it was:
(1)To provide,solely for use of the members thereof,club rooms,bar
rooms,card rooms, rest rooms,reading rooms,where the members thereof
may engage in any and all lawful games and amusements; swimming
pools,golf courses,tennis courts,riding horses,and facilities for all other
sports.
(2)To prohibit any unlawful games or other unlawful conduct on any
premises owned, leased, or controlled by said corporation.
1 "Less Drinking Says Teacher." Daily Telegram. 18 January 1932: 1.
12 advertisement Daily Telegram. 8 April 1932:up.
" "Speakeasies Raided by Officers of State Board" Daily Telegram. 8 December 1933: 1.
14 advertisement. Daily Telegram. 8 December, 1933:np.
is Log cabin Country Club. Articles of1worporation. dated June 26, 1935,filed June 28, 1935.
-3-
Cq
1936 James B.Vail and(new)wife Lorene J. Vail make a Declaration of Homestead
on the subject property on February 3 .
1936 Vail is released from San Luis Furniture Company judgement on August 261.
circa 1938 Subject property is foreclosed on by Amos Reilly "Bun"Hathway, long time
local cattleman Mr. Hathway soon dies and the property is operated by his
estate.16
1938 The Log Cabin on Edna Road is listed in the County Directory under
"restaurants."
1942 Vail and wife Lorraine are listed in the city directory living at Vail's Villas.
1940-1950 The Log Cabin functions as"a regular, old-time dance hall"with dance
hostesses and a saloon, operated by Bun's son, Cam Hathway" The hall is
frequented by soldiers stationed at nearby Camp San Luis.
1950 Anita M. and Ella Hathway (daughters of Bun Hathway) record sale of subject
property to Edna Farm Center.18 With that sale,the building's use as social hall
continues. Their activities are described:
They served dinners as a money-raising project to pay for the building,
besides holding their own meetings and parties. It was a rustic hall with a
barnlike open-beamed ceiling,hooks on the wall for wraps, and folding
chairs or bales of hay for seating. The only hall in the area spacious
enough to accommodate a large crowd,it was not very glamorous to attend
in furs or evening clothes.19
1965 James B. Vail dies of natural causes at the age of 80, at San Luis Obispo
Hospital. His residence is listed as the Rancho Motel, room 14420 Although
Vail is said to have been married six times,he was divorced at the time of his
16 Telephone interview of Murray Hathway,76-year resident of San Luis Obispo,and great nephew of
Amos R."Bun"Hathway,by Francesca Smith,August 25,2000.
" Ibid.
IS County of San Luis Obispo. Grant Deed dated February 6, 1950,recorded April 7, 1950.
19 Rose McKean, Parade Along the Creek(San Luis Obispo:np, 1988),93 and 94.
20 Certificate of Death.Also Joseph Andre,Lieutenant Deputy Coroner. Coroner's Report. Case No.
2156,printed 5-31-65.
-4-
I
death. The Coroner's Report lists his last occupation as self-employed
"contractor-builder."
1970 In local calendar of events,the following announcement is run in January and
February: "The Bachelor and Bachelorettes singles square dance group will
meet... in the Edna Farm Center."21
1970 Marguerite and James Rentz purchase subject property from the Edna Farm
Center.22
1971 Property listed in the local white pages as"The Log Cabin." No use is cited.
1974 Caltrans is granted a temporary easement of a portion of the subject property
(until 1979)for adjacent bridge construction.23
1975 Patricia and Norman Jackson purchase subject property from Marguerite and
James Rentz.24 Mr. Jackson later describes the building at the time of purchase
as having"80 broken windows"and needing a great deal of work.
1975 Building becomes"American Dance and Performing Arts,"Pat Jackson is
listed as the director."
1975 Local area woodshop teacher fabricates the heavy, rustic carved"buffalo" doors
and hammer motif hinges'
1976 Property known as"Pat Jackson Dance Studio."
21 "Weekly T-T calendar of events." San Luis County(California) Telegraph-Tribune. 24 January and
14 February, 1970:np.
22 County of San Luis Obispo. Corporation.Grant Deed dated February 26, 1970,recorded
March 4, 1970.
23 County of San Luis Obispo. Grant Deed dated September 19, 1974,recorded December 5, 1974.
24 County of San Luis Obispo. Joint Tenancy Grant Deed dated April 4, 1975,recorded
April 8, 1975.
25 Pacific Telephone&Telgraph Co. Yellow Pages. 1975:90.
26 Telephone interview with Norm Jackson(former owner)by Francesca Smith,September 4,2000.
-5-
Cq
1976 Norm and Pat Jackson have a slide fabricated to dramatically transport dancers
from the mezzanine to the main level.17 This slide may or may not have been
similar to the original mezzanine slide. Refer to Attachment 3.
1977 Dance school relocates. Property briefly known as"Redwood Manor,"and is
listed in local directory under"Halls and Auditoriums." Station 51,an
alcohol-free disco at 2746 Edna Road is listed in the Bell System Yellow Pages
on page 65. Their paid advertisement features "facilities to accommodate
parties from 10 to 500."
1979 Patricia and Norman Jackson transfer subject property to Station 51,Inc., a
California corporation.28 Business is listed in the yellow pages as"Station 51,
disco nightclub featuring The Comedy Station."29
1980 Station 51,Inc.transfers the subject property to Hallquist-Morton Investment
Corporation by quitclaim"
1981 Plans for a dance club, Station 51, are prepared by Steven D. Pults, AIA.
Plans show no longer extant double door main entrance on north elevation, at
least 13 exterior windows (now infrlled or removed)on the north and west
elevations,and a two story exterior stair on the west elevation. Other changes
include: demolition of original front entry canopy roof and chimney on north
elevation of rear building; existing wrap-around entrance deck modified,
handrail removed and replaced,new concrete steps built at north(original)
entrance. Numerous interior modifications are made,consisting of: removal of
mezzanine at stage area; new mezzanine supports added,and construction of
walls circumscribing stage and office areas." Refer to Attachment 8.
27 Ibid.
28 County of San Luis Obispo. Individual Crani Deed dated February 28, 1979,recorded March 1,
1979.
29 Pacific Telephone&Telegraph Co. Yellow Pages. 1979:np.
30 County of San Luis Obispo. Corporation Quitclaim Deed dated September 26, 1980,recorded
September 29, 1979.
31 Steven Pults,AIA. Plans for Station 51,2746 Edna Road.September 8, 1981. sheets A-1 through
A-3.
-6-
i
1982 Hallquist-Morton Investment Corporation transfers the subject property to
Vincent Miranda(probably DBA Walnut Investment Co.)."
1982-84 Property is listed in local telephone book as"Log Cabin Theater." Theater is
described by local residents as showing "triple X"-rated films. This may have
necessitated infill of windows. Refer to Attachments 9 and 10.
1985 Advertisements are in the local paper for Log Cabin(Theater), showing films
"Rated X,No One Under 18 Admitted." The schedule included:
Firestorm and Debbie Does Dallas(February 2 );
Suzie Superstar and All The Way(February 9th);
Young Blonde&Hot!and Spitfire, featuring Rikki Harte, Chelsea
Manchester and Annie Sprinkle,plus Kinky Business(February 15'b); and
Shauna Grant in Virginia:She Never Outgrew Her Need For Daddy's
Love and Anna Ventura in When She Was Bad(February 27).
Each of the ads boasts"loads of free parking."
1985 House of Prayer church relocates to subject property from Southwood Drive.
1986 George Tate, successor trustee to Vincent Miranda transfers the subject
property to House of Prayer Church of God in Christ,the current tenant."
1992 House of Prayer Church of God in Christ transfers the subject property(back)
to George Tate"
2000 Covey III,a California General Partnership acquires the subject property"
32 County of San Luis Obispo. Grant Deed dated April 29, 1982,recorded May 6, 1982.
33 County of San Luis Obispo. Grant Deed dated November 19, 1986,recorded December 8, 1986.
34 County of San Luis Obispo.. Grant Deed(In Lieu of Foreclosure). dated September 20, 1992,recorded
October 27, 1992.
35 County of San Luis Obispo. Grant Deed dated November 2, 1999,recorded March 24,2000.
-7-
!s to the Evenin ' (Mode Formal O nin j Legion Auxilii
9 � g 1 Important Me(
........ .,.:,...:....�.. .�. .
' Of Lag Cabin Tuesday Even
On Wednes
dGly „I the led J r ili-Al1
rhlxtulc(l .tl!r '1'nt••Ilu'' I �4ar.ehull, whoa tl ill
hnrtslnt inatters will h
Plum for file entrut
filial.,
tLr rnrnial :
slat psirade (tu \Ilt3l
- •: - a11(•I1111_• „r 1111• 1.,,; t';11111! \\'111 Itl.• l.•11�s('ll• 1111(1 7lrrtlll;;t'Illf
r.`y E>>. <.. L(•Id tch(•u un,• ill' flit• unto (•11Ju�•- u;ade fnr a INA lilt-1,:.t• : at t-if t,•rlaitl(t1,•it: t•f Iln• Fea.(ru 1s at•I:11 to talk(- 1111 plat
rn(tIl�rd Lc Illy urulay ,•nu it.
The, oitruin., n111 fr:uln•t• :t (fill. The iittler (if flat-
it
lat-
•. . y•
nPl'•t1a 11,'r, :111,1 :1� :1 rt•,/111 rl int lar 1 11115
i uh • which tclll ht• I
wA` `_ `' ^i (:ul uul}' I>t• uculr f,tr Iltq plaits. \\Ill. ulxt) he takru lilt
rt.rrl':ui,als taloa IK uuldl• hr %V4241- t;,(trlal Ila} tire, 11
nvs,Li y ai,riiiK. funnel• nII he hurt (if the tlul
:_. ..} ?t r1•rtl 711 \ 11'1'1„1•k lend file- 1'l'lllalll' All Iiellillers :11'1• III
?' j `'..:•'w (It•1• ar flit, ott•tling t\Ill lit! ,1.111 :11
., <. • '` � �..' •• I allenthuloe :11 flit lilt- -I
thus in,. (-Ile(Iril(•(l fur ,i t•Int.k
The- hall 1\•I1l h(• (Ilk-11 to et•erytilit• to •
= i\Iltr ,:I I•,•. I(t (,:ilii•(•. :If1I-r ::ill NOminate�Offl
'i±�' o't It•, (;. :Ind ,r,erL•tl fr:(t 111.1•. \\III lit- ('`
?. r ltrmidt•d :Id (Islur•r nlnultrr.. .\u ox• 1-OI• C011llrl� I�(
' a 1Hinuallt fin, ui, In•.Ita ha• Itren
eIign t•d fur I)ii. nlh•toi : eceia •\(I Ili (•ro41Iif . ule••t
,✓ :. :` f'. I . 1 . 11. 1'. 1',.1111•
:hit h rlrunll.('s he uln tial :IndSurLtl . I n,hlrIll lit-ill
t'\(•nlnC iu I. 1
z I
1•hrn tirni •1•• fill• Iht• i•
11:lucrrs I1:1\',• _:II -I'I•II Irnm all
LnI1111Ni1Pit. •1'111• nrrh-t-r.
`_••0.. L' :.;\;-y.>:..,.• V't.l[flits all Ill,• I tt•tt ,l:I ll,•r. In•111 tial-
r ;..::>.....
tirday t \'t iii': and1L,• Ict•t•k 1n'(•- I I':Ivl f're.hlen1, 1lr-.
(/(lin;; ,hal, :nlel it i. e�lt, tlyd. lh:`t I'rt•�id( nl, \ire. .\lrt't.
lit(• air
ffaWvdjiv ll11y r\, ilu;; \\•111
La\(• a rt•t•nrd :Itleid:ni•t'. :\ slidt , 1'!(r 1'nsidl'ul. \li.,
`:`.. :. n InCu..
rll'1'(II:1II N 14th' :111,1 1:111d1-l' :1 re- 11th•
,-lilt in the hall fnr thea• \ehu d„ �''crelar�, \Ire. \I.
nut r:ur In ala Iltr �I:Ilr - In Ih(' Tri-aanrr. \Ire. .1. \.
(little-(' fl(tnr rrnn, Ili,• Laical*-. alit .1hislur ill• ci-ri-int flit'
I1 um. akiI ;II•t• :1 .41111I.e• of eider•hillint-111 [*ill- flit- .-Ilpsis.
\lar hal. \Ire. l:eur;'r
]le•(•rculiuus fnr 111, fornill upt•11• lu 'Idr (:nard, Mrs. \'
IIIh1114
z:.. . il.� mai la• uladt• :u flit Lo I'i:ullrt, \lig. Ihtrolh)
whi,' is 14)1-:114-41 :1 utile. (till ,tat the
h
ICdua read, ur aJ the Atilin \ut1(t11 Nrt•t-(ttrQ, Mrs. .�. I
I'harimi y ;u Ill�ut t;t :oil ('Lotto Air%. L. P. �ilce► \lr-
A•' �(rl•(•1 1 et10UI1 rl.
Woodcraft To Fnprruu• ll.i
l:•ulher 1 t 7
Meet Tuesday
low
-- - '-- -
: 's
-sufrCd in Hills 1021 Morro St. Phone 988
.c it is packtd In C/• 9 Years in San Luis Obispo
:his process, air,
ilavor of coffee,
'le can and kept
is, even if air- �•:
p coffee fresh. !
.4•11 Hills Tiros.
v name and look Annvuncln tr.... 09
trade-mark—on
'fee, Inc., San THE
Ia. E 1931
FORMAL
OPENING
CH
The '
arblers"
1.0g"Cah® _. .. . _..
)PUFF.... . -
;HOPPE
and Uaffic.cl
a (Wednesday, May 6th)
San Luis Obispo will witness the
most gala opening of anything of thi•
type Wednesday with the for-
mal opening of the Log Cabin. Music
by the Log Cabin Serenaders, with
balloons and serpentine. will help to
r.teate the- most enjoyable atmos-
f.r.ere. Reservations must be made for t
the diwner hour not later than Wed-
readily n%orning.
NG-IN
WAVES ,
rators Ite-A-f- •alions \lu l he Made for
the Dinner
els— Finger -
ing-31anl- $2.50 Per Plate
nc dion.�j�eo This Price Inchides Dinner and
Dancing .111 E%eiting
atrS
GENERAL ADMISSION
Tn Those Not Wanting Dinner .;
itlrium After 7:33 Only
w•
Gentlemen Ladies * 'a
-
E SHOP LOCATED 3 MILES_O-UT ON-_EDNA ROAD
\ew _ :crlw»is
Tickets on sale
-Coats at ; :, .:.�•t.•�
trent Norton's Pharmaciesand City PtrmaoT,
00
4 3
5b 1eb' b GG i ti
DYs, .
oil, MEN!
r
r
CL I
U
W
a
A
a.maet er, N � 9
aQ �
a• wm,wao-,ma „3 O � �7`z�
s \
F, I U lmS
WOE J % a
6 4
E■ t.oOP.ID M � 7� j, s
�6 g pe a Li L rxr.mnn. .. yep
�A i !� '"•'�3 � �� Bt elei
4 ai Mco
.. Qni
Nz � la g • 3
4 a.aries ooqq•.
\ �i •ID a/.n � �
Mum
a,all,
� ,bID•pvaa Y a 119x1 .�.. �=
a a,wua .�.aJmuea yyCe
3 V
CN LZZ AbMHJIH
i
i
rn
I �
'n
Y
d
7
TQ
V
1
VY
v
A
C'
• N
mw
d
!0
�v
N
J
v
� U
v
s
u
°c Z
� a
w
z
a
0
' U
V
SIDING
1S BEVELED y
i
46
SYz�74� YI.-//Ya 3'ia
T-I CO_ONIAL
1/4
BUNGALOW) SIDING
e/re
5h-.7Y4. %-11YL
a DOLLY VARDEN51j6
r. _T
4=-r T
. 5Y=-7k-9P4
(TIOCK) DOLLY VARDEN 3351
T!ri Yz
/ SIDING 1342
7'�b-7%b-9fu-1.%Ir
a. f CCHANNEL RUSTIC
SIDING
F"
5Ys
• / 4 yis
IT6'LOG CABIN SIDING
� L
71R
7/8
/ B'LOG CABIN SIDING
9%a
114 �
--r
/O'LOG CABIN SIO/NG � -�-n �
Li ----L
-..-..... -._.. .. n. —..
.-7.-.+.�.r. . .r_� �.^_ ...... �. ._....
... R!
4
yews. M1t�O�.wed.�•ate wn gra yew hR�'w�.wN oO 'Aqw 'i hM7 CZS
vwu • e c n
I
I
I
• - J
If
it rr I I
I k 6
I �
I I. i
wL
I � 2E
I �
i1 0
OC.)
oo
# fiMu rmI II Id
I
' �.rwn•a �
a v Afii7l 57 a� .�.v�o tY.r+w S�_ r 4
IL "v"A Ya4wrm Il R
z
rty
bbb
� oil
o =�
lily
0
IL
of
A
Goo
29
aao.
- g
i
e -E�
o Lo4l
2
i t1 t4 t €- zii o9� 3i � lg �
°3 ! rz ° T3tlia ark 9 3
mi 0 .10 - 11
O
0
_ a �
let
Ia
o �
_r
- a 0 0
0
O
Sketch of Log Cabin Building
original arrangement of doors and windows,
Chattel Architecture, 2000
CM
CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHS OF LOG CABIN BUILDING
A. Overall view southeast of main elevation, note altered windows, doors and deck.
Compare with Attachment 9.
B. Overall view southwest of rear elevation, note altered windows and doors, flat-roofed
addition and HVAC equipment.
C. Interior detail of lamella roof framing.
D. Detail view of front elevation, log siding and stone chimney. Note ghost lines of infilled
window at center.
E. Detail view of redwood false log siding.
r f, 11t
Ft
' - •.!tali.-.. :/•�+. _ :..t
'i'T �I �T --�� TQ:?I3 �r✓m Q=ti 1� - t -1. ..C-���`\`, � I., ���'�
L M1
�J
M1 r +
1 I 1
J
r r '
att
Y
I�
1 I
I C A
PHOTOGRAPHS OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES
A. Veterans Memorial Building, 801 Grand Avenue
B. Monday Club, 1815 Monterey Street
C. Odd Fellows Hall,520 Dana Street
D. Masonic Temple, 859 Marsh Street
E. Trinity Hall, 6565 Broad Street
:,a;:a:4��,if•
uhf.
-
� i IJ
,
,j
.i
I `/ L
--
L.
�n�ffrtr
t ..
� ....y
,r ,ti .✓ 'H tiG s .1�'v '.y:a„..k' tw �4 � R'Q "f.� � 'ri I -
4:-;
I