HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006, C7 - RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AT 1029 AND 1033 C council °
j acEnba Report c07
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct r
By: Philip Dunmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RFP REQUESTING EIR CONSULTANT FOR A PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AT 1029 AND 1033
CHORRO STREET, ER115-05
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
A. Approve the workscope for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 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
The City received an application to redevelop the buildings adjacent to the northwest corner of
Higuera and Chorro Streets on June 29, 2005. In all, three buildings on Higuera Street (782 and
786 and 790 Higuera Street), and four buildings on Chorro Street (1029 through 1037 Chorro)
would be either demolished or significantly changed by the project. Of the buildings to be
demolished, two of them (1029 and 1033 Chorro Street) are on the City's Master List of Historic
Resources (see vicinity map, Attachment 1 and project site plan, Attachment 2).
In order to proceed, the applicant's proposal must be evaluated pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In general, CEQA requires that a project's potential
environmental impacts be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures identified before a lead
agency can take action on a project. The Community Development Department staff has
completed a preliminary review of the project. Potential impacts were identified in the area of
cultural resources. A Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to fully evaluate
the potential impacts of the project and to comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act. Attachment 6 is a copy of the draft EIR workscope. The draft workscope will be refined
with input from the Council and the selected EIR consultant.
An initial environmental study was initiated, but was not finalized because it was determined that
an EIR is required for the project. The EIR will address the potential for other significant impacts
Council Agenda Report- .,ohnson Block Remodel (Haman) P'rb,ect EIR RFP
Page 2
to result from the project. This is consistent with Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines, which
states:
If the lead agency can determine that an EIR will be clearly required for a project, the
agency may skip further initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR
process described in Article 9, commencing with Section 15080. In the absence of an
initial study, the lead agency shall still focus the EIR on the significant effects of the
project and indicate briefly its reasons for determining that other effects would not be
significant or potentially significant.
Backaround/Proiect Description
In response to seismic retrofit requirements, the owner of these buildings is proposing to
redevelop the properties with mixed uses in new and remodeled buildings. The existing building
on the northwest comer of Higuera and Chorro would not be affected. The adjacent buildings
would be replaced by new 3-story buildings constructed to accommodate new retail on the
ground floor, offices on the second floor, and residential on the third floor. The project would
include a new paseo that would allow pedestrians to access the public areas bordering San Luis
Creek from Chorro Street.
The CHC reviewed this item on September 26, 2005 and November 28, 2005 and found that the
structures located at 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street continue to meet City eligibility standards for
historic listing as Master List properties, however they also acknowledged that the final project
was in keeping with the character, massing, and scale of the historic downtown district (see CHC
action letter, Attachment 3 and CHC staff report Attachment 4). The CHC determined that
although the proposed project fit the scale and character of the downtown, the demolition of
1029 and 1033 Chorro Street is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the
treatment of historic properties. At the hearings, the applicants presented information regarding
1029 and 1033 Chorro Street and the difficulty of seismic retrofitting these structures without
removal and reconstruction of the entire buildings.
Demolition of a listed historic property is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior's
Standards and is considered by CEQA to be a substantial adverse change. CEQA, Section
21084.1, states "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource is a project that may have a significant impact on the environment". Because
there is no way to mitigate the impacts caused by demolition, the project will result in significant
unmitigatable impacts. The City must make findings of overriding considerations to approve the
project. An EIR is the only vehicle for making these findings.
A focused EIR is different than a standard EIR in that it does not analyze the full range of
environmental issues found in most EIR's. Instead, it focuses on the potentially significant
effects on the environment specific to the project. Focused EIR's are commonly used to review
smaller projects that are surrounded by urban development and where multiple significant
environmental impacts are not present.
Staff has developed a workscope for the EIR, which is part of the RFP excerpts attached to this
report. The standard City RFP attachments outlining general terms and conditions, insurance
Council Agenda Report- eohnson Block Remodel(Haman) Pro,act EIR RFP
Page 3
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 will be sent out to qualified
consultants on February 28th, with consultant proposals due back to the City on March 28th. The
schedule included in the RFP anticipates interviews to be held on or about April St'and a consultant
contract awarded on April IId'. The RFP specifies that the Administrative Draft EIR will be
delivered to the City within 60 days after execution of the contract.
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 may be lengthier than that estimated above for a consultant, and other staff
work program items would be further postponed. In addition, staff resources would need
to be supplemented with consultant expertise to adequately evaluate the historical
background of the properties.
2. Continue consideration of the workscope and RFP with direction to staff on necessary
changes.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map
Attachment 2—Reduced scale plans
Attachment 3- CHC action letter
Attachment 4- CHC staff report November 28, 2005
Attachment 5- Historic Evaluation prepared by Andrew Merriam
Attachment 6- Excerpts from Draft RFP including the Scope of Work
Attachment 7—Proposers List
Available in Council Reading File—Entire Draft RFP
GAPdunsmore\CHC\ARC 115-05(Narcan block)\ER 115-05 RFP CC 2-21-06.doc
C �7- 3
AL ,
1
I �
a�a�■rnmium�l■
I d�
3i3gg '` a ;I
:II{� s�'I it la!•,I i- �., 'I I� Nlfs i � 1 .
-15
c l J -
A; II
Ism N
imm
ism
E: 1s■
1�•' IO■' 'I�1I
—; .711..■ � �.�( ISI ., =.
•
' ' 11� �ml \ ,.I
11_11 �� � 1
Is
PI'
�iIG• R,O ..Jn.i.■ s ISI.?x�. v ale
���,�� _��_+r.ys:A�:1 �S-,� ■■■1 �. III� '
't 7, Iw �■ �I." . 1
I1 J :
r
i
C,�
hz�iSJ.+vd'r' -a�''rQ ,y`x4 x1wp1 1�11112
4 • ,. {,S�'4.��L' gy���I,■I11�11111� }".hfi ry r qi
A..I ,•n�i.4.�Itt"I�SY>tAi kJF� N �••'i .tl�� .�`�}�u�.'j
5� ..*"�ts"'.n'ri�aro 'a�f^a ✓`c` �-�r t� rk.� P„+!'��"`
Fy(.+m r:4`c �C'�1 w '. } tii'f • cry Ydr �:-�
o Fr ^ .z$4 5t pry.i9t_Y�� 5 r�Jv ..'i`,}3rs•X'� >� c
= jW M�Yg4 rt �1 YW y� t
ac,q, 1•c l,� �r�€^. �1I4 � r� >v qs. a
S
�' /�1�.3�r3"r��-5fi�.�'�'�S•�{��+n tea'��:`yG-.�t�s�',S'n ,n�' � -
f-`���'.N;�.i`���I///� 1,�?.i��ir°'�'svto.�nr�• jy,S�', ,4,'I
ttyyt'e.?4,�.i
jt ,r T
- Gn}tea
-n'�t�� r^£ r"`�^'.-rx �-^t-�, �'.'C n , rsr�u tijC�'..�y'"�y,-^�'��s 1� Y T-tee ?fv�' rr a• r'F.�� t:`�
.. � '� A il3 s�,•3, 7 ��y,�l t� 4 s. t1 � � sv`! �*1 iT .i 1"+'• H d:},{ r� 1p.', aY gr,'lyt'a.- I�I
.^Csiru ,e'S':': ,n.rs _1C 4.T-�1 x'+ � Sti�."- F� _�- 'G'+.y {r xro.,, s� u.�t xr � Jt,xwJ✓..'
_--
rrrr�� Attachment-I 2
C'e) doll
iU
6
0
,d
AS
S&
■
d 1 V1
d g Y s
pans Esq
Attac menl 2
�1thE1
j JIM
e
EED
e
I
a
09 OR r)
d
d _
r-
a ® �
Co
�
taaas�!H .
Attachment 2
ills
�
1332115"3f1JIH Jim
{64
= - -o a - _ - _ -®moo�ru
bg . 44.t. C;-e
�
n1w -- 1
I
n- I !
m us W 1 I
0 � I �
F a I I
m W
..w I.
Ix w I N I
li c'yi I
n l0
M Cfl
� I
P C 0 I
. n I
!
° I
tl'0'96£128 �I
P
0111
P I
j 1
um I
° 1 � I ggg77ge�ei
P 1 I 3s Sol
fi
I ° E
I
Ow
I
7- q
Attachment 3
December 6, 2005
Naman Family Trust
c/o JDR Real Estate Services
1180 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: 778, 782, 786, 790, 796 H.iguera Street and 1029, 1033, 1035, 1037,
1039, 1041 Chorro Street,. - ARC 115-05
Review of seismic ofismic retrt, building demolition, new buildings and
remodel to Porch Home and Garden
Dear Applicant:
The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its,'meeting of November 28, 2005, took two
actions on your projects 1). They determined that the structures located at 1029 and
1033 Chorro Street continde.to meet City eligibility standards for historic listing as
Master List properties, consideiing ."all of the buildings' features, and 2) They
determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and General Plan policies regarding historic resource preservation
and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
due to the proposed demolition of the historic structures located at 1029 and 1033
Chorro Street.
The decision of the CHC is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of
the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are
available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for
filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation.
As staff had indicated at the hearing, the determinations are not a denial of the proposed
project but do define the process needed to complete review of the proposal. Because of
the first determination that the two buildings are considered historical, demolition of those
buildings is defined as a significant and unavoidable environmental impact under the
California Environmental Quality Act. In order to move forward with the proposed project
this requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to at least address
this impact; This can be done with an EIR focused on that issue although an EIR will
often review other potential impacts and propose mitigation measures as appropriate.
An option to the focused EIR would be to redesign the project to avoid demolition of the
buildings including portions identified in the historical background report prepared by
Andrew Merriam. From the information we have received so far including testimony at
the CHC hearing, this option may difficult to achieve, but you need to be aware that it
exists.
� 7/D
ARC 115-05 i Attachment 3
Page 2
The Cultural Heritage Committee's second action on this project finding that it is not
consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and General Plan policies
regarding historic resource preservation and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties covers the entire project because the proposal
covered the entire project. In their comments on the proposal, however, all of the
committee members did acknowledge that the final project was in keeping with the
character, massing, and scale of the historic downtown district. This will be important if
the project moves forward either as a demolish-and-construct, or if redesigned to
preserve the buildings at 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street.
If you have questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at (805) 781-7522
Sincerely,
Michael Draze
Deputy Director of Community Development
Long Range Planning
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Historic Address File
Pierre Rademaker Design
738 Higuera Street, Suite F
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Leslie Naman, Tre Etal
2656 SW Vista Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
2
C 7-11
Attachment 4
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO: Cultural Heritage Co
VIA: Jeff Hook, Senior Pl n
FROM: Philip Dunsmore, Asso iate Planner
MEETING DATE: November 28, 2005
SUBJECT: Item #3: ARC 115-05 (782 Higuera) -Seismic retrofit and redevelopment of
several properties within the downtown historic district at the corner of
Higuera and Chorro Streets.
This is a continued review of the proposal to redevelop the buildings surrounding the historic
Johnson Building at the northwest corner of Higuera and Chorro Streets. This project was
forwarded to the CHC because it involves Master List historic properties and is adjacent to
Contributing properties within the Downtown Historic District. In all, three buildings on
Higuera Street (782 and 786 and 790 Higuera Street), and four buildings on Chorro Street (1029
through 1037 Chorro) would be either demolished or significantly changed by this retrofit and
redevelopment project.
Proiect Description -
As part of a seismic retrofit plan, the applicant would like to demolish the structures at 782 and
786 Higuera, and 1029 through 1039 Chorro Street. In place of the demolished structures, a new
3-story mixed-use building would be constructed to accommodate new retail on the ground floor,
offices on the second floor, and residential on the third floor. The project would include a new
plaza that would allow pedestrians to access the creek area from Chorro Street. The building at
the corner of Higuera and Chorro, the historic Johnson Building (a Master List Historic
Building), is not a part of the project.
Proiect History
The CHC reviewed this item on September 26, 2005 and continued consideration to allow review
of nearby development projects in terms of mass and scale, and project consistency with local,
State and Federal preservation standards (refer to attached CHC report from September.26, 2005
for a detailed project description and historic background). At the hearing, the applicants
presented information regarding 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street and the difficulty of seismic
retrofitting these structures without removal and reconstruction of the entire buildings including
the front facades.
Demolition of Historic Properties
Following the previous hearing, staff determined that demolition of the Master List historic
properties at 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street would be a significant adverse impact to a locally
listed historic resource. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064:5 (b)
states the following:
7 ia-
ARC MI 115-05 ' .- Attachment 4
782 Higuera
November 28, 2005
"A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on
the environment"
CEQA defines adverse change as "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of
the resource". However, CEQA also provides that if a project follows the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties it shall be considered as mitigated to
a level of less than significant. Staff believes that complete demolition and reconstruction of a
historic resource would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Therefore,
a seismic retrofit plan that results in demolition, relocation or significant alteration of these
buildings would be considered a significant impact to a historic resource and therefore require
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
At the hearing, the applicants will provide additional information on why they believe it will be
necessary to demolish the buildings that span the creek to accomplish the seismic retrofit. The
project engineer will also be available. At this time, a written report on the engineering details is
not available.
The CHC should determine whether the existing Master List historic properties at 1029 and 1033
Chorro should be preserved (which means an alternative engineering scheme to support the
buildings should be designed), or whether the current plans may proceed as proposed. This
approach will require the applicants to commence the EIR process to demolish the structures.
The CHC's discussion should include the overall significance of these particular buildings. If the
CHC chooses to support the demolition, than specific conditions and mitigation measures to
preserve and reconstruct particular building features should be discussed. It may be possible to
re-use transom windows, brick and other materials in the proposed reconstruction. Additionally,
the CHC should comment whether the new building should reflect the form, mass and general
design theme of the existing buildings. If the CHC confirms that the buildings are historically or
architecturally significant, than the CHC should refer to the historic background report prepared
by Andrew Merriam to determine which building features must be preserved in their existing
state. The historic report discusses the particular interior spaces at 1033 Chorro are character
defining:
"Concerning the interior of the historic 1033 Chorro building, the defining
characteristics are the overall rectangular characteristic of the space with its high
ceiling and the full long display case along the south wall. Both of these characteristics
are associated with the retail patterns during the period of historicity and are strongly
reminiscent to many old time San Luis Obispo residents."
With this information it appears that the interior space of 1033 Chorro, currently the bead shop,
is significant to the historic fabric of the building.
Compatibility with Historic District
As discussed in the September 200 report, the project proposes a highly detailed style of
architecture evocative of late 1800's architecture with cast stone bases, brick veneer, copper roof
caps and flashings, slate roofing, and window details that complement the Downtown Historic
C7 �13
ARC Ml 115-05 ' �� Attachment 4
782 Higuera
November 28, 2005
District. The three story building would replace single story structures at this location. At the
previous hearing, CHC members expressed concern regarding the height and scale of the
structures. CHC direction included a request to return with information regarding other proposed
projects in the vicinity. There are several other multi-story projects in the downtown that would
meet or exceed the maximum height limit for the downtown district. The following is a list of
development projects recently submitted:
1. The Ah Louis Museum and Commercial Building. Located at the corner of Palm and
Chorro Streets this project proposes a 4-story 55-foot tall office and retail structure at the rear of
the Ah Louis store adjacent to the parking structure. The applicant is preparing additional site
information including a historic background report and a phase 1 archeological report.
2. The Chinatown project. Located in the block between Palm Street, Mono Street, Monterey
Street and Chorro Street this multi-story mixed-use project will include underground,parking
(184 spaces), retail, office and residential uses (57 units) in a multi-story, multi-building project
that may be as tall as 78 feet above grade. The project would be built on the existing parking lot
and would include the demolition of 955 Mono Street (City offices) and the rectangular building
at 861 Palm Street.
3. Warden Building Rehabilitation and Addition. Located at 770 Higuera within the
immediate vicinity of the Johnson Block remodel this project proposes two new structures at the
rear of the site adjacent to the creek with the tallest being approximately 56' tall. The tallest
building will be 4 stories and include retail, a hotel and residence. The other building will
include retail on the first level and a restaurant on the second story.
4. Hira Project. Located at 733 Higuera this project proposes to demolish an existing single
story Contributing building (also part of Bubble Gum Alley) and construct a 48' 6" tall, mixed
use building with retail, office and residential on three levels with lofts and a basement.
5. 1221 Nipomo Street. This project is at the corner of Nipomo and Marsh Streets andis the
location of the former pet shop across from Foster's Freeze. Although a design plan has not been
submitted, the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment to allow the project to move
forward, The project is anticipated to include a multi story mized use project that will include
approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 36 residential units in a 4-story
building.
Reduced scale site plans and project renderings for the projects mentioned above will be
available at the CHC hearing. Since these items are not currently scheduled on the CHC agenda,
the CHC may not comment or discuss the proposed projects, however these proposals could be
analyzed for comparison with the Johnson Block project.
Policy Analysis
.As noted above, there are several significant projects that are proposed in the downtown vicinity.
In many ways these projects implement General Plan policy in terms of supplying a mixture of
uses, particularly housing within the downtown core. General Plan policy also encourages
additional density in the downtown core, and in some cases additional height. However, as
c-/-/y
ARC MI 115-05 Attachment 4
782 Higuera
November 28, 2005
discussed below, scale and compatibility with existing buildings is important. Additionally, the
CHC needs to determine if the new development is consistent with the historic character of the
downtown. The following excerpts are from the General Plan Land Use Element and are
followed by a staff response.
General Plan Land Use Element
LU 6.6.1: Historical Resources
Historical resources should be identified, preserved, and where necessary and possible,
restored.
Staff Response: The City clearly encourages preserving historic resources such as the Master List
properties involved in this project.
LU 6.6.2:Building Conservation
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.
Staff Response: In this case, the primary question is whether or not the buildings must be
demolished in order to accommodate the required seismic retrofit improvements. Demolition
may be necessary to accommodate the proposed expansion and remodel project but not for the
seismic retrofit. This is a very important factor for the CHC to consider. The project engineer
will be available at the hearing to assist the CHC in determining whether demolition of the
historic facades is essential to remove a threat to health and safety, or whether alternatives exist
that would preserve the historic resources.
LU 6.6.3:Remodeling and New Buildings
Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be
consistent with the original structure. New buildings in historical districts, or on
historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby
historic structures.
Staff Response: If the CHC supports an addition to, or replacement of, the historic structures,
than the form and massing of the new building should be consistent with other historic buildings
in the vicinity. However, as discussed in the Secretary of Interior Standards, the addition should
be clearly differentiated from the historic building by introducing a change in materials and
setting back upper stories from the existing historic fagade. At 1029 and 1033 Chorro, the
significant building feature that will need to be accomodated (unless the building is demolished)
is a tall parapet wall. Preserving the tall parapet wall and the appearance of the existing historic
facade will require the second story to be setback from the first floor therefore modifying the
proposed building design.
ARC Mr 115-05 Attachment 4
782 Higuera
November 28, 2005
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 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.
Staff Response: This is an important General Plan policy for the CHC to consider when
reviewing the mass and height of downtown buildings. The Architectural Review Commission
will be closely examining this policy prior to taking action on any of the downtown projects
noted above. Staff believes that the Johnson Block project at the corner of Higuera and Chorro is
consistent with this policy. This is the geographic center of the downtown which is an
appropriate location for additional density and massing. The proposed location of the buildings is
mid-block and not at a corner. The third story is set back, maintaining a lower street facade
compatible with adjacent buildings. Additionally, the buildings do not exceed maximum height
limits specified in the zoning regulations for the downtown district (50 feet).
City Form San Luis Obispo should:
31) Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are
reached, maintaining a compact urban form.
Staff Response: As one of the general goals of the General Plan Land Use Element, this goal
encourages the densification of the downtown core rather than restricting downtown
development and encouraging additional sprawl. This is significant, since development
constraints in the downtown may easily encourage larger commercial and residential
developments to seek options outside of the downtown.
LU 4.2.1:Existing and New Dwellings
Downtown residential uses contribute to the character of the area, allow a 24-hour
presence which enhances security, and help the balance between jobs and housing in
the community. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core
should be protected, and new ones should be developed. Dwellings should be
provided for a variety of households, including singles, couples, and groups.
Dwellings should be interspersed with commercial uses. All new, large commercial
projects should include dwellings. Commercial core properties may serve as
receiver sites for transfer of development credits, thereby having higher residential
densities than otherwise allowed.
Staff Response: Nearly all of the proposed significant downtown projects introduce a residential
component on the upper floors. Since residential uses are not allowed as a ground floor use in
the downtown, these projects rely on second and third stories to support a viable mixture of
commercial and retail uses within the same building. This further supports the theory of /
ARC MI 115-05 Attachment 4
782 Higuera
November 28, 2005
"compact urban form".
LU 4.16.6:Sidewalk Appeal
Street facades, particularly at the street level, should include windows, signs, and
architectural details which can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks.
Staff Response: The proposed project includes storefronts with matching or similar widths to
existing and adjacent historic storefronts.
Historical Preservation Prouam Guidelines
D. 2. New Construction projects
New primary structures within historical districts should further promote the
historical character of those areas. Careful attention to building form, bulk, scale,
siting and site landscaping is encouraged. All new buildings need not be designed in
the same style of surrounding structures. However, elements of theses styles and
building forms should be included in the new structure and it should complement the
architectural character of the area.
Staff Response: This guideline applies to the proposed new buildings and should be utilized by
the CHC in consideration of the new building design for consistency with the Downtown
Historic District and remaining adjacent buildings.
D. 3.Demolishing Historic Buildings
The City promotes the long-term maintenance and restoration of designated
Historical Resources and buildings in historic districts. The City wants to work with
property owners to explore alternatives to demolition, such as rehabilitation and
reuse of the building, use of the alternative building code's provisions to make
rehabilitation more feasible, or possible relocation of the structure to a more
suitable site.
The demolition of a Historical Resource is the least.favored option and should be
done only when (1) the condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety
or welfare of community residents or people living or working on or near the site, or
(2) the project sponsor demonstrates that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate
the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site..
Staff Response: Since the City has determined that these buildings will require seismic retrofit
may not mean that these buildings need to be demolished. As noted in the guidelines, options to
demolition of 1029 and 1033 Chorro should be encouraged. However, as noted in the second
paragraph, when a building condition poses a safety risk demolition may become an option. As
discussed throughout this report, however the primary question is: are there reasonable options to
demolition that will allow for the seismic retrofit and continued use and viability of these
buildings?
e7-17
Attachment 4
ARC MI 115-05
782 Higuera
November 28,.2005
Conclusion
The CHC is being asked to provide direction on two significant items:
1. Whether 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street continue to meet criteria for historic building
designation, and.
2. Whether the proposed project is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and
the Secretary of Interior Standards.
If the CHC confirms that the buildings at 1029 and 1033 Chorro continue to be historically or
architecturally significant, staff will determine the level of environmental review that is necessary
in order to complete the seismic retrofit project. Preservation of the exterior facades and general
interior form of 1033 and 1029 Chorro may preclude the need for an EIR. With item 2, the CHC
simply needs to determine whether the form, mass and design of the new project is consistent
with the historic character of the downtown. The CHC should consider the following action
alternatives:
Action Alternatives
1. Determine that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior Standards-and consistent with the
Historic District provided the following changes to the design are implemented: A. Provide at
least a 3 to 5 foot setback for the second story elevation above 1029 and 1033 Chorro Streets
and modify the design to preserve the existing parapet; and B. Create an engineering plan that
preserves the exterior facades and character defining interior spaces of 1029 and 1033
Chorro. Refer the matter to the Architectural Review Commission with recommendations on
changes to the proposed design.
2. Continue the item to a date certain with specific information or project modifications to
return to the CHC.
3. Determine that the proposed project is not compatible with the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, the Secretary of Interior Standards or the historic district and recommend project
changes that would be required to create consistency/compatibility with these standards or the
historic district.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale project plans
3. September 26, 2005 CHC report and Historic Evaluation prepared.by Andrew Merriam
4. Previous CHC direction.
Available at the meeting:
Color rendering and model of the project
G:\Pdunsmore\CHC\ARC 115-05\ARC.115-05.CHCreportll-28-05.doc
�-7 �/�
Attachment 5
Historic
Evaluation
for
1033 & 1029 Chorro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA
August 2005
Prepared by
Andrew G. Merriam, Architect
CITY Or S,qN LU!S OBIS.,PQ
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C� "� C�
Attachment 5
Table of Contents
1029— 1033 Chorro Street
A. Overview and Intent I
B. Construction History 2
C. Social and Cultural History 4
D. Project Impacts 5
1. Historic Characteristics and Period of Historicity
2. Defining Architectural Features
3. Historic Fabric and Intactness of the Existing Structures
4.Application of Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment
of Historic Resources
List of Figures
1. Location map within City of San Luis Obispo
2a _ Sanborn Map: 1874
2b Sanborn Map: 1886
3a Sanborn Map: 1903
3b Sanborn Map: 1926
4a Current Zoning: 2005
5. Photos: 1908 Street Level
6. Photos: Circa 1908 Arial
7. Photos: 1930/2005 looking southeast
8. Floor Plan overlay of original structures
9. Chorro Street Elevation(proposed)
10. Section through 1033 Chorro Street
11. Photographs of 1033 Chorro (August 2005)
12. Photographs of 1029 Chorro(August 2005)
Preparer Information
Appendices
A Historic Resources Inventory: San Luis Obispo
B Introduction from Treatment of Historic Properties
C Excerpt from Newspaper
D Comments from Structural Engineer
E Building Permit History
F Chain of Title
ktachment 5
A: Overview and Intent
This document is provided to the City of San Luis Obispo to summarize the historic
construction as well as the social/cultural history associations relevant to the preservation,
reconstruction and adaptive reuse of the existing structures located at 1029 and 1033
Chorro Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. The intent is to identify the periods of
historicity and the remaining structural fabric that can subjected to some form of
preservation or reconstruction following the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. This document is not an.analysis to consider eligibility
for the subject structures as this has previously been done by the City wherein they listed
1033 Chorro(Durhi Building, c. 1885)as of local importance based upon its association
with local patterns of history. 1029 Chorro is not listed. Nor is it a comprehensive
documentation of the historic construction record.*
The applicant proposes commercial retail uses similar to those in the structure's past
(which have, according to the historic record, included an optometrist and saddlery,
grocery store,.paints and hardware, stationery and, in the very early years,a residence at
the rear of 1033 Chorro). The current incarnation of the historic fagade (a post 1956s
remake of the circa 1908 structure)will be retained including the entries and transom
windows and the lower portion of the old(but modified) false front. Also proposed for
reconstruction is the general configuration of the floor plan which again has historic basis
going back over fifty years according to the Sanborn Map record. The reconstruction is
required by seismic retrofit requirements and the adaptive reuse of the whole site. (See
Figures 8, 9 and 10 for the current plans identifying the historic fabric to be retained or
replaced.)
The adaptive reuse plan calls for the replacement of bridging members over the creek,
foundation,shear walls and floor and roof structure as well as the addition of a second
and third story over this portion of the whole block(not just the structures at 1029-1033
Chorro). A letter from the structural engineer providing more comment on the structural
and un-reinforced masonry requirements is provided in Appendix D.
Section 2 reviews the construction record as derived from historic photographs and the
Sanborn maps prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo as well as from other resources
where they could be identified. Section 3 identifies the historic characteristics and period
of historicity when the structures are considered to contribute most or be most closely
associated to events in the City's history. Section 4 concludes with an evaluation of how
the applicant's proposal affects the historic aspects of 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street_
*Note: While we have sought to identify the major surviving architectural and structural features of the
subject structures,this study is not meant to provide documentation to the level of a Historic American
Building Survey(HABS)or a Historic American Engineering Record(HAER)which are designed to
provide reoords and photographs to the Library of Congress for scholars to study American History and the
growth of the built environment.
A+tachment 5
Bc Construction History
1. 1033 Chorro
The first known indication of activity on the site of 1033 Chorro is shown on the 1874
Sanborn Map wherein the original wooden bridge over a"small brook in bottom of
gulley 20' deep" (later identified as San Luis Obispo.Creek)is located in the Chorro
Street right of way. Also of interest are several small springs which were reached by
"Spring Lane"which connected to Chorro in the general vicinity of the subject structures.
For ease in tracking the history,we have reproduced the various Sanbom Maps at 1"
equals 100 feet and with the footprint of the two structures enclosed by a red dashed line.
(See Figures 2 through 4.) By 1886 a small commercial structure has been erected on the
site with a"balcony street"on the creek frontage provided to reach a small two story
dwelling located at the rear. The front of the structure also projected over the creek and
probably accounted for the"balcony"aspect of this early structure. The footings were of
stone. Based upon the 1886 Sanborn Map,the footprint of this original structure,
excluding the balcony but including the dwelling,was 16 feet wide by 80 feet deep.The
"Balcony Street" appears to have been 8 feet wide.
By 1903 this earlier structure and balcony have been replaced by a slightly shorter
rectangular building identified as a grocery store. This is almost certainly the structure
that can be seen in the 1908 photograph shown in Figure 5. The northern corner of this
structure required bridging above the slope of San Luis Obispo Creek. As will be
detailed in Section 4 below,the era starting in the 1890s is a period of great transition in
the core of San Luis Obispo when the older single story wood structure started giving
way to the more typical two story masonry structures still associated with the downtown
today. This can be seen when comparing the 1886 Sanborn map to the 1903 map. It was
during this era that more modern steel and iron bridges replaced the earlier wood
structures for the main downtown streets. Some insight into the importance of the
bridging is given in the September 1903 newspaper article about letting contracts to
replace the wooden bridges along Chorro Street(See Appendix Q.
The single story structure has a recessed entry and high false-front,typical for the era,an
awning and a highly articulated facade capped by a heavy cornice and a banner sign. A
high angle photograph taken from a balloon in 1908 is shown in Figure 6. Close
examination of the 1908 fagade reveals that the proportions and major windows are
different than the facade and storefront apparent today. Thus while the footprint and
possibly the structure of the building constructed sometime prior to 1908 may remain,the
visible storefront has been significantly modified with the smaller transom windows,the.
loss of the wood panels under the windows. From the angle of the picture it is difficult to
determine if other changes such as the recess of the door and window spacing were also
modified.
This fagade was to remain in place until sometime after World War II when there was a
general architectural"upgrading"throughout the downtown. This meant that the classic
sheet metal work on cornices and facades were rusting out and the"Victorian"
2 c7-�-
Attachment 5
commercial character was considered"old fashioned"and expensive to replace. The old
facade was stripped down and stucco was applied to create the form visible today which
retains the recessed entry,plate glass windows, a wood ceiling over the showcase area
and marble panels below the windows. A building permit for both 1033 and 1029 was
issued by the City in 1954 for the removable of tin and wood on the front confirms the
date for this additional modification. (See 2005 color photo of Figure 7 and Figure 11.)
With the exception of the storefront,the perimeter walls were masonry and the ceiling
and roof formed of joists spanning from one wall to the other and draining to the rear.
The most visible interior features included the eight foot high display shelving system
along the southeast wall and a small dumbwaiter providing access to storage. Other than
the addition of the stucco and numerous interior revisions over the years,the basic shell
remains much as it was constructed approximately 100 years ago.
2. 1029 Chorro
The 1029 Chorro frontage was entirely over San Luis Obispo Creek.(See the 1886 and
1903 Sanborn maps.) Thus we surmise that it was not realistic to build at this site until
the original wooden bridge was replaced somewhere around the tum of the 2e century.
The first known photographs of this area(See Figures 5 and 6)taken in 1908 show the
1029 Chorro Street site as vacant. By the 1926,however,a structure is in place and.the
relatively plain facade,when compared to 1033 Chorro,can be seen in the 1930 photo of
Figure 7. The front half of this structure rests entirely on spanning girders over the creek.
With the exception of its construction date,the overall characteristics of 1029 Chorro
Street are similar to that of 1033 Chorro Street described above. The storefront remains to
the present,the overall size and rectilinear shape as well as the construction
characteristics are the same. There is,however, less architectural definition on the
facade. While it is difficult to determine without destructive testing,it is probable that the
present stucco facade is a replacement for an earlier facade of similar character. The
stucco facade was certainly in place when the 1982 photograph of the City Historic
Resources Inventory was prepared and itis probable that it was the replacement for the
earlier facade the was replaced in 1954 per a City building permit. Certainly there has
been additional modification to the stucco treatment above the entry since that date. The
storefront,transom windows and entry area appear to be original. It is probable that the
pink tile panel under the storefront windows also dates to 1954 as it is more typical in
material and color of a remodel of that era. Other than the rectangular interior shape of
the commercial space,there are no defining architectural characteristics that are unique to
this structure.
3 ' �aJ
Attachment 5
C: Social and Cultural History
1. 1033 Chorro Street
Given the general retail character of the structure,relatively little social or cultural history
has been specifically recorded. The social importance of this site rather lies in its general
contribution to the San Luis Obispo downtown as the commercial and retail center of the
County especially in the eras prior to the 1950's.
Some of the uses for the site can be derived from the Sanborn maps which identified
them for fire insurance purposes. These are listed as follows:
• 1874 vacant
• 1886 1"building: 16 x 60 foot commercial space(use illegible)+dwelling
• 1903 2°d building: 22 x 70 foot commercial space for a grocery
• 1914 Chamber of Commerce offices(City historic report)
• 1926 2nd building: 22 x 70 plus some of 1029 space for hardware and paints
(according to City historic report opened in the late teens by George Isola,owner)
• 1950s to 1990s: Burriss Saddlery (use most associated with property)
• Present: Bead and incense shop
One of the more distinctive uses and the one most associated with the 1033 Chorro Street
address is the Burriss Saddlery which was noted for its leather goods and nostalgic recall
of an earlier era both in its display of goods,the personal business relationship of the
owner to clients, and of course the nature of the goods which recalled the era of San Luis
Obispo as a cow county. While many will recall Mr.Burriss,his status within the
community is not such that it reaches the threshold that would define him and his family
as persons important to local, California, or national history.
2. 1029 Chorro Street
The Sanborn map record for this address is more general and summarized as follows:
• 1874 vacant land
• 1886 vacant(though it appears that there may have been an outhouse on site)
• 1903 vacant
• 1926 Stationery store (with the rear area utilized by adjacenthardware store)
• 1990s Optometrist
• 2005 a swimming apparel shop
This structure has no distinctive cultural or social history attached to it other than being a
component of the core area of San.Luis Obispo during its development and growth as a
regional center and county seat.
47�y
Attachment 5
D: Impacts
1.Historic Characteristics and Period of Historicity
In the general literature on historic preservation and specifically in the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,the first step in determining
how to apply the various treatments is to 1)identify those characteristics of the subject
property which are most associated with its historic uses and 2)what the time period is
which is most representative of these uses.
For the purposes of this study, development in the core area of San Luis Obispo may be
classified as falling into five general eras. The first is,of course,the Spanish or Mission
era which for our purposes may be said to have lasted between the relocation of the
mission to its present location(1772)and the initiation of San Luis Obispo as a county
seat in the newly formed state of California(1850-60's).Adobe was a defining material
of construction in this era. The second period might be classified as the"developmental
period"during which the present street configuration was fixed, the creeks bridged with
light wooden structures. Most new structures would fall into the general category of a
western town with the majority of the structures being in the single story wood false front
category.
This second period drew to a close starting in the mid 1890s when many of the early
structures began to be replaced by brick structures of two stories with residential or office
uses on the second floor. This is the"classic"downtown or main street era when all
functions were centralized in the City's core. The use of imported metal and storefront
glass became a less expensive proposition with the connection provided by the Southern
Pacific railroad to the San Francisco Bay area in 1894. This era generally lasted until the
1950s.
At this point the coming of the automobile and the feeling of a need to"modernize"
swept the nation including San Luis Obispo,though fortunately in a delayed and not very
vigorous fashion. This might be classified as the "modem"era. Old Victorian and
classical cornices and ornamentation were replaced by clean(and cheap)stucco. The
rapid extension of roads and highways meant that shopping and work places could occur
at locations outside of the downtown. Thus this period is often associated with decline of
the core area Buildings had more marginal retail and office tenants and there was a
general loss of architectural definition and visual continuity in the core area.
The current era began in the last decades of the 20th century with the cleaning up of San
Luis Creek and the redefinition of the kind of activities that would occur in the
downtown—the most significant changes being the loss of large scale convenience
shopping,grocery and drug stores,and their replacement with more specialty shopping
with a focus on tourism and lifestyle retail. Perhaps the present era could be defined as
"the new urbanism".
In the case of 1033 Chorro,the site was part of both the developmental period and the
classic period. However the structural fabric of the original building(the early structure
5 C7—�
A+tachrnent 5
of the 1880s)was completely replaced by the structure shown on the 1903 Sanborn
Figure 3b and pictured in Figures 5 and 6. We know that a major storefront remodel
occurred in 1954 and perhaps there was an earlier one as well. Thus for defining the
period of historicity,we are limited to the classic and modem eras(1903 to 1990). From
an architectural point of view,the remaining storefront best fits the classic era(1903 to
1954). While some of the cultural uses lasted far into the modem era,they are really a
carry over from the classic period such as the saddlery. As far as the actual structures are
concerned much of the street facade has been modified with stucco overlay and loss of
the earlier cornice and ornamentation.
2. Defining Architectural Features
The defining physical and architectural elements in place today are the storefront fagade
including the configuration of the shop windows,the wood ceiling above them,the wood
entryway and door,and the transom windows. The overall fagade retains the general
proportions of the original structure but as noted above. However the new stucco
treatments have replaced the original material and any ornamentation. It is apparent that
the existing storefront windows and underlying panels are not relevant to a great portion
of the period of historicity, but belong rather to the modem era.
In the case of 1029 Chorro Street, since the building is not listed, a lengthy and detailed
discussion is not warranted. It is noted,however,that in any redevelopment effort the
same factors and period of historicity would apply as that for 1033 Chorro. The structure
at 1029 Chorro did come into existence during the downtown classic period and survived
into the modem era. In fact,the modern revision to its facade in this later era is much
more intact and in character than at 1033 Chorro.
The document Treatment of Historic Properties raises the question as to whether the
additions and changes through the era of historicity, in and of themselves,form a
significant component of the historic record. In the case of 1033, this reviewer does not
feel that the addition of plate glass windows and marble panels and the change to a stucco
Made in 1954 in the context of a more classical false front structure are meaningful.
Concerning the interior of the historic 1033 Chorro building,the defining characteristics
are the overall rectangular characteristic of the space with its high ceiling and the full
long display case along the south wall. Both of these characteristics are associated with
the retail patterns during the period of historicity and are strongly reminiscent to many
old time San Luis residents. Concerning the construction process and techniques, like so
many storefronts,the character and craftsmanship are more of an issue of standard
procedures and materials rather than forming a unique or special consideration requiring
preservation or reconstruction.
The one truly unique character of both structures is their relationship to San Luis Obispo
Creek by major foundation walls and steel bridging members. This condition,however,
is not visible to the average passerby. Even those pedestrians who view the creek as it
6C '_a�
A'tachment 5
exits from under the present day Mission Bar and Grill will not be aware of this
relationship given the angle of the creek's flow.
3. Historic Fabric and Intactness of the Existing Structures
The concluding aspects of an historic analysis look at the integrity or intactness of the
defining features of a structure during its period of historicity. Literature on preservation
has defined seven criteria which apply to determining whether an historic resource has
enough features remaining to be worthy of some level of treatment.
According to National Register Bulletin 16A, a resource that meets one of the historical
criteria and possesses integrity is eligible to be listed. "Integrity"means that"the quality
of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of
location,design, setting,materials,workmanship, feeling,and association." Integrity is
the ability of a property to convey its significance as a historic structure. According to
National Register guidelines,historic properties either retain integrity or they do not.
Integrity is composed of seven aspects of quality and are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the history property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the fora,plan, space, structure,
and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
• Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property.
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during a given period of history.
•
Feefin is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
In the present case,we are less concerned with the"listing"of the structure than in
determining what components that remain of the subject structures and the level of
preservation,renovation or reconstruction treatment are appropriate.
In the case of 1033 Chorro ,the location,setting,and association criteria are met. The
difficulty occurs when the design,materials,workmanship and feeling criteria are applied
to the existing structure when compared to its period of historicity. As we have presented
above,the c. 1885 structure was completely replaced sometime prior to 1903. This
structure had its storefront heavily modified at some point,probably in the 1930 to 1950
time period,to the storefront visible today. Then in 1954 the classic fagade with the
metal cornice was replaced by the stucco configuration visible today. The interior
remains relatively intact in its spatial configuration.
'C7-:�77
Attachment 5
Discussing these criteria in order:
Design: the design of the facade for the classic era is totally gone and has been
replaced by the present facade. Only the storefront retains historic association for
at least 50 years. The stucco facade while over 50 years old,has little relevance
to the period of historicity. The overall interior space and the location of the wall
display shelves do demonstrate design characteristics associated with the period
of historicity.
Materials:As with the property of design,the historic visible facade retains no
known materials from the 1903 structure. Only the more recent storefront has
integrity of materials. The transom,wood entry, ceiling and marble panels under
the large windows appear original for the later period. On the interior,the wood
display shelving has the original wood and forms that can be associated with the
period of historicity.
Workmanship: The workmanship discussion is parallel to the discussion above for
materials.
Feeling: While the feeling of the classical era is considerably diminished by the
loss of the 1903 era fagade, the existing storefront does recall the smaller
commercial retail shop of an earlier era and is certainly associated with the
Burriss Saddlery. The interior space and display shelving also provide a strong
association with history.
In conclusion for 1033 Chorro Street:
• The existing storefront and spatial characteristics of the interior including the
display shelving are essential to the historic character of this listed structure,
• While the proportions of the facade do provide recall of the classical commercial
structure,the design,materials,workmanship and feeling categories given the
stucco replacement of the earlier facade,have lost integrity and relationship to the
earlier classic commercial structure.
In the case of 1029 Chorro,the structure is not listed and there are not specific
regulations regarding the retention of any historic fabric.
4. Application of Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Resources
From Introduction to Treatment of Historic.Resources there are four issues raised
concerning the application of these standards to a particular resource. While some quotes
are included below,the full.introduction.is included as Appendix B since this guidance
will be essential to determining the level of treatment that is necessary to address historic
issues especially to 1033 Chorro Street.
8 C���O
Attachment 5
1. Relevant importance to history.
In the case of the 1033 Chorro Street structure,it is relevant as part of the historic
downtown San Luis Obispo and part of the local historic context. It is not classified at a
state or national level of importance.
The focus then is to provide a level of response that retains the feeling or character
contributed by the structure to the San Luis Obispo Downtown. Preservation of the
existing storefront and reconstruction of the character of the interior space to meet current
safety and seismic requirements,the applicant believes does preserve the structures
relative importance to local history and the feeling of an earlier era relevant to the history
of San Luis Obispo. The proposed new and retained fagade treatment is shown in Figure
10.
The applicant does not feel that retaining the full height of the stucco facade is essential
to this historic feeling. The top of the parapet has been reduced in height to facilitate the
urban design and other structural aspects of the larger concept. If it is the Cultural
Heritage Committee's determination that the full height of the remaining fagade is
relevant,then there may be the option of setting the upper stories back to provide a
spatial break between the existing fagade and the new construction. The delineation
between historic and new construction is a,recognized response to this condition in the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
2. Physical condition.
The physical structure has been altered over time especially the original classic facade
treatment above the transom windows. Preservation of the original features will be done
where they exist. Further,the masonry side bearing walls do not meet current seismic
codes,and in the case of 1029 Chorro,there is a common bearing wall with an adjacent
structure. This condition plus the need to strengthen the foundations and bearing
members over the creek necessitate the removal and new construction in these areas. The
applicant will provide retail spaces that essentially recall the historic spaces though the
design calls for some shortening. (See plans and sections Figures 8,9,and 10)
3. Proposed use.
The proposed uses for both structures will be essentially the same as the historic use
commercial retail.
4. Mandated code requirements.
The document Treatment for Historic Resources recognizes that"code requirements need
to be taken into consideration." It further states that such mandated requirements such as
seismic upgrades should be done so that`modifications to the historic appearance should
be minimal"and that"... alterations and new construction needed to meet accessibility
requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 should be designed to
minimize material loss and visual change to a historic building."
The applicant believes that the proposed design does minimize the historic material loss
and visual change for critical portions of the subject structures.
9
T
F
16
FP
2
F
v�
J �a
P
_ A .
V�
cTii' mo.'s\
4
Attachment 5
i_
frp�' $
9 �y"`
' \ 1V
` e
ILIle
5
N
A. Sanborn Map: 1874 1"=100'
�y i •� L v
Z � � ♦ � R
9
O
le
d � �
P ♦ c 4� � yy
a
C� � s $c•
B. Sanborn Map: 1886 1"=100'
1029- 1033 Chorro Street Historical Evaluation-San Luis Obispo,CA
Sanborn Maps Figure 2
C ? 3�
Attachment 5
vop
14�
O = 7
N
Sad
3 �
A. Sanborn Map: 1903 1-=100•
CfB
i � 3
03
� \ v
Gp g"-µvs.' L•f� -,• S '� pd
�n sp 4 C
*e"
e
p\ ♦Si[
N 6fl =
B. SanbornMap: 1926 1-=100•
1029- 1033 Chotro Street Historical Evaluation-Sae Luis Obispo,CA
Sanborn Maps FigmV 3
C� �J�
Machrienf 5
e,1.1tidV 0Wato •:: .., ...
of
r e
e moo`, `°'o
\
�:�° \oda 0'e
VIII t' 1�
.�?� a�'b - �4� ;��` �. .���� .n � _�/� .o�asS, A9���•� .� of �(
A- Current Zoning Map:2005 1"=100'
1029-1033 Chorro Street Historical Evaluation-San Luis Obispo,CA
Current Zoning Map Figure 4
��
• ,4*fachi iguree 5
l { ♦T
:° .� .S'��✓moi`!' 2'�'�� ;.�°:..-rr,el'e 3�
,Y a.,. � may,e✓ 1�., _� 'k -
,. S r
Northwest comer of Chorro and Higuera Streets, 1908
4.
1033 1029
r
i
�J
l+
r=
?< T r
Corm Street detail_ 1908
C7 -3�
_
^1>•! .aJ,: -..-I� F a � •.k ��d �M�.�. r.-�,.. ..e,4 � ^w YM -f'k � ,.. "I
wNO 1
•�• f!'I�:: :zl � � IryAS ''t v•
W M.
(� Y 3Ov r
•'
_ I 1033 1029
AC
Y �
1 t ~ 1
• Attachm, ent 5
Figure 7
l
�i
1029
1033
rte
Y L�
Chorro Street looking southeast, 1930
�-NO�
w�i t'g"`ra �i.d^eHM
v, n e s` Y * h^,. �° ' i ....• y.yv. r
IJ..r s "+"�'ctic _+w �+.k' ar : fy �. ' ' "'aye° r':� y t � y,•'
1033 1029
vyyk
Chorro Street looking southeast, 2005
c7-�
Attachment 5
iz
mo�rw.r +ro.�ogs alsngln. MNIM IIp/ l•1 3••••.a
PPHN vol9 mmup[a'1ml lw+a Yl..+�In •. l.r. l
..al•l lr...
7S=Oq7££O] V 6ZOl Mid 1000 d. I.I.,a DO� (�
a
v
I
i
8 $ -
a o
�s
9� Q
� P
II O
' 1l
'
P
•Lt...__ O ^�
i
_ a
0
rn
C o
o
..-. rY In
C7-37
r
i i 1T
V
Y
�S t
l� Y® J if ^•�` _...
+.i1 �!y` \ CI y.r ri4.. (❑�.w •
tT
y!
�Y I
i' k ii 1
u r
i F a
F r -
i [
XX aa.
} (�'i� �� SSxlx Z� I f•�'�C
E
.rsr•
• n
A-1-tachnnent 5
pp,u,m vm
'IS QLM4:)EEO I Jo*UlljNuao IV uo.uws
40
Rk 12,k
u Ir
L
T.
y tw
'71
o rA
Oe
CD
........... ................
7'
-39
s — _iq
peri.
ro41�, syn 3
x P _
IV
e rs is
14
I
I _ M
✓.1' .i^.s'l
waif ,ate _
Air
i Ell,
r ; •
a
i
n s 3a
t�S
t
y Y
Fp y y y
rid
�rti
x�yY• S� � h ��`
f - w
✓�. 1..�k $ of il.'�V-r
•_�1 .. ,iy S�Fp.:is i Yl�a"�.;,. „
y
Ow
+•�.3-:':�$P'�`�-.whip � a i .•
ti'
7�fa 5��+���• y
ijr a.. .RA§Y:WA
ea
fl-
• _ r�
I r ✓'}
tg 6
A R
� 7
r
,.a .��`w s.''�a[,.�q+H���-•�,' `•' •s..^�,�+ .'Y- ., �'mss^vs�. " i 4� -
ktachment 5
Prepared by: Andrew G. Merriam,Architect
Andrew Merriam is a licensed architect and Architectural Historian meeting the Secretary
of the Interior's professional qualification standards. Mr. Merriam holds a B.S. degree in
Architectural Engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
and.masters degrees in both. Architecture and City and Regional Planning at Columbia
University (New York). During his masters work at Columbia Mr. Merriam also
attended courses on Architectural History and Preservation topics.
Mr. Merriam's 35 years of experience in architecture and urban planning include an
aggregate equivalent of three years of historic analysis and historic preservation and
restoration projects. His most significant projects include preparation of:
• The architectural portion of the historic structures report for the San Luis Obispo
Lightstation now under restoration;
• The historic structures report and for the Avila Grocery Store and the San Luis
Obispo Yacht Club and a Historic American Building Survey for the latter. He
also provided architectural supervision during reconstruction of these structures
during Unocal oil spill clean up.
• The historic structures report as well as restoration and re-use plans for the
Carnegie Library,Paso Robles, California;
• The historic evaluation as well as painting and maintenance plans for the Jack
House located on Marsh Street in San Luis Obispo, California
• The architectural component of the historic structures report and a restoration
concept plan for the Price Anniversary House,Pismo Beach, California.
• The architectural evaluation and concept plans for restoration and re-use of the
IOOF Hall,Arroyo Grande,California
Mr.Merriam has also prepared half a dozen Historical Resources Evaluation and Historic
Property Survey Reports for Caltrans projects.
Mr.Merriam was a member of the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee
from 1981 to 1985 and chaired the committee from 1982-1983. He was involved in the
preparation of the City of San Luis Obispo's Cultural Resources Survey.
As first president and a member of the board of directors of the San Luis Obispo
Lighthouse Keepers since 1994, Mr. Merriam has been very involved in aspects of the
ongoing restoration and preservation of the Lightstation structures as well as assisting in
the Pecho Coast Trail docent training program the pertaining to historical aspects of the
Lightstation.
Professional affiliations include California Preservation Foundation(membership 2001 to
present) and National Trust for Historic Preservation(1992 to present). Mr. Merriam has
attended preservation seminars presented by the Foundation and other California agencies
as part of his continuing education.
Siete of Califomia—The Remur Agency er. No. 0101-2-05C
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS REATION HABS HAER_ NR 5gdC 1i1 �1_
UTM: A 10/71260(., _90643_0a
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C D
IDENTIFICATION Dr, -G�g�Chaff�urriss-Saddlery
--- ----- .._.
T- i'ommon name:
The Sandwish Inn
2. Historic name:
3. Street or rural address: 1029 - 1033 Chorro Street
City ' San Luis Obispo Zip 93401 County San Luis Obispo
4. Parcel number: 02-423-22
6. Present Owner: William E. Burriss Address; 1033 Chorro
San Luis Obispo 93401 g
GL'/ Zip Ownership is: Public Private
6. Present Use: Office/Commercial riRestaurant
Oginal use:
DESCRIPTION
7a. Architectural style: Early 20th .Century Commercial
7b. Briefly describe the present physical descrlpaon of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its
original condition:
This one story commercial structure at 1029 and 1033 Chorro Street is
rectangular in plan. A flat roof covers the structure. This structure
illustrates early 20th century commercial storefronts with .transom
windows, recessed. entrances, plate glass windows, marble window bases,
and retractable awnings. The exterior walls are plaster over brick. This
structure retains most of its original character, with only minor alterations
to the facade.
B. Constructij%mated d8 te:
EstiFactual
Unknown
a Architect
s
10. Builder Unknown
'1 11. Approx.property size (in feet)
J.
x
.Frontage An pepthoff_
or approx. acreage
12. Date(s)of enclosed photograph(s)
Octobex 1982
DPR Appendix A
�� �y-0?
A'_tachi hent 5
13. Condition: Excellent_Good % Fair_, Deteriorated No longer in existence
14. Alterations: Minor alterations to the facade.
IS. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings_Densely built-up
Residential Industrial Commercial % Other:
-I& Threats to site: None known R Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism
Public works project Other:
17.. Is the structure; On its original site? Yes Moved? Unknown?
18. Related features:
SIGNiFiCANCE
11 Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance(include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.)
Burriss Saddlery is one of the oldest commercial buildings in San Luis
Obispo and may have been built as early as the 18801s. It once had a
classic western storefront which in later years was covered and modernized.
The original owner is not known. In 1914, the building was used as an office
for the Chamber of Commerce. in the late teens, George Isola, a local
shopkeeper, opened a hardware store there. Isola eventually had a building
constructed next door (1029 Chorro) where an optometrist's office is located.
locational sketch map(draw and label site and
surrounding streets,roads.and prominent landmarks):
20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH
checked,number in order of importance.)
Architecture -1 Arts& L:eisim
Economic/industrial_Expioration/Settlemerrt
Government Military
Religion Social/Education
21. Source(List books,documents,surveys,personal intervievrsrTr z
and their dates).
Sanborn Fire insurance Maos
(1886, 1891, 1903)
Interview with Mrs. Pike
November 1982
22. Date form prepared .rma 1 S F 19A1A
By(name) -RiA-31-nri n RPa_ c,.rvav c}sa
Organization A J;Vnf Can T.ni a mi apo
Addreng-0 Rnu -321 p .
City —Sat± LUJ s Obi et)o Zjp 93401
Phone: (8051 541_1000
Attachment
Introduction Preservation may be appropriate iFdistinctive materi-
als,features,and spaces are essentially intact and con-
vey the building's historical significance. If the build-
Choosing Treatment for the ing requires more extensive repair and replacement,
Historic Building or if alterations or additions are.necessary for a new
use.then Rehabilitation is probably the most appro-
The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, priate treatment. These key questions play major
but are intended to promote responsible preservation roles in determining what treatment is selected.
practices that help protect our Nation's irreplaceable
cultural resources. For example, they cannot, in and proposed use. An essential,practical question to ask
of themselves,be used to make essential decisions is: Will the building he used as it was historically or
about which features of the historic building should will it be given anew use? Many historic buildings
be saved and which can be changed. But once a can be adapted for new uses without seriously damag-
treatment is selected,the Standards provide philo- ing their historic character;special-use properties such
sophical consistency to the work. as grain silos,forts,ice houses,or windmills may be
extremely difficult to adapvto new uses without
Choosing the most appropriate treatment for a build- major intervention and a resulting loss of historic
ing requires careful decision-makingabout a build- character and even integrity.
ing's historical significance;as well as taking into -
account a number of other considerations: Mandated code requirements. Regardless of the
treatment,code requirements will need to.be taken
Relative importance in history. Is the building a into consideration. But if hastily or poorly designed,
nationally significant resource—a rare survivor or the a series of code-required actions may jeopardize a
work of a master architect or craftsman? Did an building's materials as well as its historic character.
important event take place in it? National Historic Thus,if a building needs to be.seismically upgraded,
Landmarks,designated for their"exceptional signifi- modifications to the historic appearance should be
tante in American history,'or many buildings indi- minimal. Abatement of lead paint and asbestos with
vidually listed in the National Register often warrant in historic buildings requires particular care if impor-
preservation or Restoration. Buildings that con- tant historic finishes are not to be adversely affected.
tribute to the significance of a historic district but are Finally,alterations and new construction needed to
not individually listed in the National Register more meet accessibility requirements under the Americans
frequently undergo Rehabilitation for a compatible with Disabilities Act of 1990 should be designed to
new use. minimize material loss and visual change to a historic
Physical condition. What is the existing condition- building.
or degree of material integrity--of the building prior
to work? Has the original form survived largely intact
or has it been altered over time? Are the alterations
an important part of the building's history?
A. Excerpt from Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historical Resources.page 1
1029- 1033 Chorro Street Historical Evaluation-San Luis Obispo,CA
Excerpt from Treatment.of Historical Resources Appendix B
C�
15,
1
aehi;aept F7—
�UI�DING� OV�� �R�EK.
New Higuera Street Structures
Will Span the Stream.
Arrangements With S.. Koshland &
Co. and Mrs. Brizzolara Are
Practically Complete.
It is understood that a satis-
factory arrangement has been made
with S. Koshland and Co., by
Messrs. Warden, Sandercock and
Fitzgerald whereby the latterare
enabled to crossover to the north
bank of the cieek where a solid
stone wall will be built, and the
proposed new buildings.will now
cover the entire creek.
Mrs.Brizzolara has also accepted
the propositiou made her by Mr.
Warden for the Chorro"street front-
age , so that the entire creek on
that corner will now be built over.
Material is being hauled and the
work will be pushed to a speedy
completion.
It now remains for the other
Property owners along the creek
bank to follow the example set by
the above named gentlemen .and
wall in and build over the creek,
making the block between Chorro
and Morro streets one of the most
valuable in the city.
A. Excerpt from Newspaper,San Luis Obispo Tribune,September 29, 1903
1029 1033 Cho=Street Historical Evaluation-San Luis Obispo,CA
Newspaper Excerpt Appendix C
C7 - y�
2231.Bayview Heights or.
La `os, California 93402A±tachment rJ
(BG..I28.2015 (805)528.2016 fax
1276 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena,California 91106
(626.793.7438 (626)793.7439 fax
oil2118 Wilshire Blvd, suite 360
Santa.Monica, California 90403
(310)452.2450 (800)617:2235 fax
August 3, 2005
Mr.Tim Ronda
SDG Architecture
641 Higuera St., Suite 303
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Johnson Block Remodel
Naman Family Trust
Dear Tim,
I am writing in response to your questions about the seismic support and stability of
the Naman building.
Some of the structures located at 1033 and 1029 Chorro as well as the adjacent
restaurant (Mission Grill) are supported in part by steel 'railroad bridge' girders which
are resting on the existing concrete and stone Walls on either side of the creek. We
can not support any of the new structure on these beams or walls.
If we were to only retrofit these buildings in their current state we would require that
the supporting beams and the walls underneath be substantially reinforced. Further,
the addition of stories to these buildings is not reasonable or advisable as it would
require even more substantial and excessively costly reinforcement under the
buildings.
The proposed structural system will elevate a number of these issues as we will be.
spanning over the creek and supporting all of the new building loads behind and
independent of the existing steel girders and walls. This is not feasible with the
existing unreinforced masonry walls. In addition, the wall adjacent to Mission Grill
which is currently a shared load bearing wall would become independent and thus
support only that structure.
In conclusion, I understand that it is desirable to save the existing store fronts and
this is not unreasonable, however, I strongly urge that the side and back
unreinforced masonry walls be replaced and that all new loads be carried
independent of the creek walls and existing girders.
Should you have any questions or require additional information please do not
hesitate to contact my office.
? FOS,
��
Sincerely, SNS C.Sy�`9C
C41155 ;U
yfa , P. * Exp.0331.07
q CIVIL ?S
CAl l
Appendix D
67 -y7
� Attachment 6
��Illllllllfl�� �� � Cit/ Or
san lues OBISpO
990 Palm Street a San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notice Requesting Proposals for
JOHNSON BLOCK REMODEL FOCUSED EIR
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare a focused
environmental impact report (EIR) for a project in downtown San Luis Obispo that
involves the demolition of historic buildings in accordance with City specification No.
90307: 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 March 28,
2006, when they will be, opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature
opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance 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 Phil Dunsmore, at (805) 781-7522.
® 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.
Attachment 6
Section A
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
_
:.3 ya:p i b5` '.i{, ;�'"a . 'f777.7%
"fin"`A.;g Yu, ":W. V f M�..}
Proiect Description
An application has been filed to redevelop several existing single story commercial buildings
adjacent to the northwest comer of Higuera and Chorro Streets in downtown San Luis Obispo.
In all, seven buildings would be either demolished or significantly changed by this retrofit and
redevelopment project. Two of the buildings are recognized as historic properties (1029 and 1033
Chorro Street) and are on the City's Master list of historic resources.
As part of a seismic retrofit plan, the applicant would like to demolish the structures at 782 and
786 Higuera, and 1029 through 1039 Chorro Street. In place of the demolished structures, a new
3-story mixed-use building would be constructed to accommodate new retail on the ground floor,
offices on the second floor, and residential on the third floor. The project would include a new
plaza that would allow pedestrians to access the creek area from Chorro Street. The building at
the comer of Higuera and Chorro, the historic Johnson Building (a Master List Historic
Building), is not part of the project.
Staff determined that demolition of the Master List historic properties at 1029 and 1033 Chorro
Street would be a significant adverse impact to a locally listed historic resource.
The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant,
which are available for public review in the Community Development Department. A reduced
site plan is attached.
Scope of Work
A preliminary review of this project determined that there may be significant environmental
impacts associated with demolition of historic buildings in accordance with Section 21084.1 and
Section 15064;5 and that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. The applicant is not
disputing the need for preparation of an EIR. Staff has determined that the project qualifies for a
focused EIR in accordance with CEQA Section 15179:5. The following workscope more
specifically identifies issues and tasks that need to be performed to evaluate potential impacts of
the project.
1. EIR Workscope Items
Historical Resources
The proposed project is located within the Downtown Historic District, near or next to
several of 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, the Johnson Building (directly
attached to the project site), the Wineman hotel. Several of the listed structures have
been determined to be eligible or "potentially eligible" for the National Register of
Attachment 6
Historic Places.
In August, 2005, Andrew Merriam; Architect, prepared a Historic Evaluation for the
buildings on the project site (Attachment 1). - This report discusses the potential
significance of the existing buildings that are proposed to be demolished with the project.
There are two buildings that are on the City's Master List of Historic Resources that are
proposed to be demolished. These include single story, unreinforced masonry buildings at
1029 and 1033 Chorro Street. Although there are four other buildings that would be
demolished within.the downtown historic district, the other buildings are not considered
historic and do not contain architectural features or historic uses that contribute to the
character of the district.
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological excavations and construction projects have unearthed an unusually rich
collection of pre-historic and historic artifacts and features considered as significant under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5. Although limited in
geographic area, past excavations suggest that the probability of encountering additional
artifacts and archaeological features due to project grading and construction is high.
Potential Impacts
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
removal of existing historic buildings and excavation in areas believed to contain
significant archaeological remains. Pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines, this will likely require Phase 2 and Phase 3 studies to identify
significant remains and mitigate project impacts to less than significant levels. In
addition, new construction is likely to impact on-site and adjacent historic buildings
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). In
addition to the demolition of existing historic buildings, 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.
There is a very high probability that pre-historic or historic materials will be found on the
project sites. Since the project would involve significant excavation and redevelopment,
the project timeline must allow sufficient time prior to project construction to allow for
identification and evaluation of cultural resources, and for recovery of the significant
subsurface resources that would be impacted by the project in accordance with an
approved mitigation plan.
Issue Area Workscope
-2- C 7-so
Attachment 6
The consultant will incorporate required analysis for cultural resources, including historic
and archaeological resource inventories, and subsurface testing, evaluation, and impact
mitigation (if necessary). Historical buildings will be inventoried and evaluated in the
EIR, which also will offer recommendations for mitigation of impacts to these historical
resources.
2. Additional EIR Workscope items
1. In addition to the above-mentioned significant environmental impact associated with
the proposed development, the EIR should discuss any other significant environmental
impacts that are discovered within the review process. In order to be sure the EIR is a
comprehensive list of all the potential significant items, a discussion of standard CEQA
items that were not considered significant should be included. A description of each of
these items, including justification of why they were deemed less than significant,
including proposed mitigation measures, should be provided.
13. Alternatives
Alternatives to the proposed project design need not be evaluated if the project meets the
description of a focused EIR. If alternatives are to be considered, alternatives need to clearly
indicate how they would address identified project impacts and should at minimum evaluate the
following.
• the "no"project alternative;
• a project of a more limited size and scope perhaps excluding existing historic buildings;
and
• other comparable sites where the project might be developed.
14. Resources
The EIR should address, and rely on as a resource, previous EIR's that have been completed
within the project vicinity and a historic evaluation prepared for the property by Andrew G.
Merriam August 2005. EIR's previously completed within the project vicinity include the
Environmental Impact Report for the Copeland's Project (EIR 192-01 and ER 193-01, August
2002,prepared by AMEC for the City of San Luis Obispo).
-3-
Attachment 7
PROPOSERS LIST
JOHNSON BLOCK REMODEL FOCUSED EIR- SPECIFICATION NO.90307
Envicom ESA Fugrb 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 0401
Dudek &Associates, Inc. Jones and Stokes Associates The Morro Group
621 Chapala St. 12600 V St., Ste. 100 1422 Monterey St. Suite. C-200
Santa Barbara,CA 93 101 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.
510 State St., Ste. B Santa Barbara, CA 93 101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Santa Barbara,CA 93 101
Woodward Clyde Law/Crandall, Inc. Michael Brandinan Associates
Consultants Attn: Roberta Tassey Attn: 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 Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. Planetek, Inc.
Attn: Susan Charles Attn: Michael Josselyn 41 E. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200
1370 Valley Vista Dr., Ste. 150 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. Arcadia, CA 91006
Diamond Bar,CA,91765-3910 San Rafael, CA 94901
Greystone Leighton and Associates, Inc. Brady and Associates
Attn: Jeffrey Harvey Attn: Andrew Price I Attn: David Clore
1211 H Street,Ste. A 31344 Via Colinas, Ste. 1,02 2215 Fifth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Berkeley, CA 94710
Rincon Consultants, Inc. Emeon Bio Systems -
Attn: Stephen Svete Attn: 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 Consulta
4213 State Street, Suite 205 17671 Cowan Ave., Suite 100 Attn: Sandra Fayette
Santa Barbara,CA 931.10 Irvine, CA 92614 4241 Jutland Dr., Ste.-201
San Diego, CA 92117-3653
7 .150
Attachment 7
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 Perspective Planning David Evans &Associates, Inc..
Attn: Kathleen Takata Attn: John Ashbaugh 23382 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 225
600 Fremont Ave. 979 Osos St., Suite E Laguna Hills, CA 92653
South Pasadena, CA 91030 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
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, Duane A..Morita TPG Consulting, Inc.
Inc. 14312 Shadybrook Dr. Attn. Quincy Struve
1461 Higuera St., Suite A Tustin, CA 92680 679 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Helix Environmental Planning,
Inc.
8100 La Mesa Blvd., Suite 150
La Mesa, CA 91941-6476
C7--5.3