HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2009, PH1 - REVIEW OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW BUILDING FOR THE ART CENTER LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN HISTO council � o
j acEnaa nEpoin 't=N
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Phil Dunmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW BUILDING FOR THE
ART CENTER LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC
DISTRICT AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY ZONE (1010
BROAD STREET; U-111-02).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to approve the use permit based on findings and subject to condition, including
a condition to return to the Architectural Review Commission to review minor design changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, provide direction for building design changes
and, per previous Council direction, return to the Council for final approval.
Introductory Statement to the Report
This introductory statement is a little different from those included in most staff reports. This is
because staff's role in the processing of this project has been unusually challenging, and some
context about staff s role may be helpful in considering the information set forth in the report.
This project has posed a challenge but not because the Art Center proposal is uniquely complex
or because a new Art Center is undesirable at the current location. A new Art Center is a very
desirable and exciting prospect, and the proposed location is perfect. The challenges stem from
the special tension that has accompanied the review of this project — a tension created by a
passion for creativity and "break through" architecture tugging on one end of the issue, and
existing City policy tugging on the other end.
In reviewing any proposal, staff s role is to properly express City policy and past Council
direction, and to evaluate a proposal in light of existing policy and past direction. With respect
to our Downtown, and particularly in proximity to the historic Mission and Mission Plaza, our
policies are quite specific, prescriptive and protective — not surprising, given the value our
community places on these assets. Past Council direction has been quite specific,too.
On the other hand, there is certainly an allure to very different architecture than what our policies
might point toward, and "break through" design is exciting and desirable in many circumstances.
However, it is not staff's role to bring such subjective value and taste judgments to our review of
design proposals, regardless of personal opinions. If that kind of subjectivity began to guide
staff s recommendations, we would undermine a sense of consistency and fairness in the process.
P14 1 - (
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 2
Our role is to provide the policy framework to help decision-makers do the hard work of
reconciling conflicting interests, opinions, and value judgments. And, it is this policy framework
and analysis that we attempt to provide in the balance of this report.
The City Council, on the other hand, has much more latitude in the values and interpretations that
it may bring to bear on a final decision. Should the Council wish to go in the direction of
supporting the design as proposed, staff stands ready to assist in developing appropriate findings
and follow-up direction.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
A new Art Center building has been proposed to replace the existing building on the southeast
corner of Monterey and Broad Streets. When the Council approved a previous request to rezone
the property, the Council directed that the final design be reviewed and approved by the City
Council. At that time the Council also directed that the final design be compatible and
complementary to the existing nearby historic buildings, including the Mission, the Carnegie
Library, the Leitcher Apartment Building and other Master List residential properties. The
Council further directed that the General Plan policies be closely followed.
The General Plan policies that are to be closely followed say the new building should incorporate
the forms and materials of the nearby historic buildings. The proposed building is modern in
design. It utilizes curvilinear walls and rooflines, large areas of glazing and other materials not
found in the nearby historic buildings. Consistent and complementary building treatment
typically means that some components of the nearby architecture and materials are incorporated
into the new design. It does not mean reproducing period architecture. Modern architecture is
not prohibited or discouraged, provided the policy requirements are satisfied. It has been stated
that the proposed building achieves the policy objectives by creating architectural contrast that
highlights the features of the different styles. This is a subjective interpretation of what it means
to be consistent and compatible. One of the roles of the City Council is to interpret and apply
City policy; hence it is appropriate that the Council rule on the design currently proposed.
The project has been reviewed by the CHC, ARC and Planning Commission. All of the advisory
bodies found that some additional design changes will be needed in order for the design to be
consistent with City policies, codes and guidelines. The basic form and materials of the building,
in the proposal before Council have not been substantially modified to respond to the advisory
body recommendations.
DISCUSSION
Existing Site
The Art Center leases approximately 8,445 square feet of a 1.3 acre parcel from the City of San
Luis Obispo that extends along the southerly side of Monterey Street and Mission Plaza from
Broad Street to Chorro Street (Attachments 1 and 2). Previously, the site was zoned Public
Facility (P-F) but the zoning was changed to Downtown Commercial (C-D-S) to allow more
flexibility in the building size and coverage. This is a very unique site in that it is within the
'VH / -a-
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 3
downtown, adjacent to the creek, adjacent to the most significant historic buildings in the City,
and within a potential expansion area for Mission plaza. For this reason, the City Council
established the S-overlay, with the intent of carefully guiding building design. It is the unique
setting that makes the design of any new building so important.
The existing building is a two-story building that responds to the sloping site adjacent to San
Luis Creek. Its design is simple, with a masonry block exterior and a low profile flat roof. The
existing structure has been occupied by the Art Center since 1967 with several remodels having
taken place in the last 30 years. The building is not currently listed either a Master List or
Contributing historic resource. According to early Sanborn maps the site was originally occupied
by dwellings and sheds. Buildings that comprise the historic design characteristics of this vicinity
include the Carnegie Library, the Mission, the Lietcher apartment building, historic adobe and
craftsmen residences on Monterey Street, and turn of the century retail buildings that back up to
this property from Higuera Street.
Project Description
The existing 5,429 square foot single-story building would be removed and replaced with a new
50-foot tall, three-story plus building with approximately 23,000 square feet (Attachments 2 and
3). In order to achieve the desired height and building design, the property was rezoned from
Public Facilities Historic (PF-H) to Downtown-Commercial Historic (C-D-H-S), effective May
2008. The design of the building is contemporary with extensive glazing and exterior tile work.
Dominant design features include a curvilinear glass tower feature and unique wall angles.
Materials and colors are described as including stone veneer for the lower walls "recalling the
stonework at the base of the Mission." The applicant states that the upper walls would be a
smooth stone veneer in a light color "that mediates neighboring building colors, including the
Mission's white and the Carnegie Library's ochre." Windows would be clear view glass and
frosted spandrel glass in aluminum frames, and the hardscape would consist of textured and
pigmented concrete compatible with the "Mission Style" sidewalks. Approximately 8 trees
would be removed in order to develop the site. These trees include the olive trees that currently
line Monterey Street and several large pine trees that are currently located to the east of the
existing art center. The Sycamore trees adjacent to the creek bank are proposed to remain.
Previous Council Direction
The City Council viewed preliminary design plans of the proposed new building during the
rezoning for the property at the hearing on April 15, 2008. During that hearing, the Council
expressed specific interest in reviewing the final design plans for the new building. To ensure
this additional review step, the City Council adopted an S-Overlay zone for the property
(Ordinance No. 1514, Attachment 4), that requires the City Council to make specific findings for
the building design in addition to the typical design review by the Architectural Review
Commission. The specific findings in the S-overlay are designed to ensure that any new
buildings are designed to be consistent with this special location in the heart of the downtown
historic district, and therefore be consistent with a wide range of City policies, codes and
guidelines that speak to building design within the district. Furthermore, the Mitigation Measures
#04 l-3
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 4
adopted for the S-overlay ordinance included a list of reference buildings that new buildings
within this vicinity should be compared with (Attachment 5).
Advisory Body Review
The applicant's plans were reviewed by the CHC on May 27, 2008. The CHC recommended the
project be denied due to inconsistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and
General Plan Policies regarding new construction in historic districts (Attachment 6). At a
previous CHC hearing they asked to see the project design be changed to comply with General
Plan policies and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Since the project returned
without changes, the CHC made a recommendation to deny it. No specific design
recommendations were included in the recommendation.
The ARC reviewed the project on July 14, 2008 and continued the item asking for changes to be
incorporated for further compatibility with City policies, however ARC members supported the
overall design theme. Specifically, they asked for additional consideration on how the building
meets the ground while asking for additional human scale to be incorporated into the building
(Attachments 7 and 8). The ARC felt that components of the building design such as rhythm,
massing, fenestration, colors, and materials should better complement the historic setting. At this
time, the modified project proposal has not responded to the ARC's requests and it has not been
returned to the ARC for review.
On October 22, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended the City
Council approve the use permit subject to the project returning to the ARC with minor design
changes (Attachments 9, 10 and 11). These changes include additional variety in the color of the
wall materials, additional texture in the exterior stone material and attention to the pedestrian
scale of the building at Broad and Monterey Street. The Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment 11) provides a detailed analysis of the project.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the majority of testimony was from Art Center staff and
representatives in support of the new building (Attachment 9). Considering staff's
recommendation to deny the use permit based on the building design, the Commission debated
the need to continue the project to see necessary design changes or move the project forward to
the City Council with conditions of approval. Commissioners wanted to see the conditions
recommended by the Architectural Review Commission, such as additional design treatment at
Broad & Monterey Street, incorporated into the project. Initially, the Commission motioned to
continue the item to allow these changes to be incorporated into the building design. However,
that motion failed and a later motion passed, forwarding the item to the City Council for approval
subject to conditions. The conditions included a requirement for additional architectural review
to address the Broad and Monterey Street elevations. More specifically, the condition requires the
project to return to the ARC following City Council approval of a use permit. The ARC would be
responsible for ensuring the design provides for a greater variety in building color and texture on
the street elevations while ensuring that the pedestrian scale be enhanced for the street sides of
the building. This motion passed on a 4:2 vote and the dissenting commissioners wanted to see
the changes incorporated into the project before it was forwarded to the City Council.
V
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 5
Analvsis
Criteria for Review
The design of the proposed art center building is being evaluated for consistency with the
previous Council direction and applicable City policies, ordinances and guidelines. These
include the following:
Ordinance 1514 and Resolution 9975
The General Plan
The Zoning Regulations
The Community Design Guidelines
The Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center
City staff and advisory bodies are charged with determining and making recommendations on
whether proposed development is consistent with the adopted policies, ordinances and
guidelines. There are many design solutions for a given site, some will be consistent with the
City's policies and ordinances, and some will not. A "good" design that is not consistent with
adopted policies and ordinances is normally referred back to the applicant with an explanation of
what is inconsistent with the adopted policies and ordinances with the expectation that it will be
replaced with another "good" design that is consistent with the City standards. This was done
with the subject application at the CHC, ARC and Planning Commission. Applicants have stated
that the proposed design is consistent, compatible, and complementary to the guiding policies.
The following paragraphs of this section describe the applicable criteria for review.
Ordinance 1514& Resolution 9975
The S-overlay zone that was adopted by City Council during the rezoning of this property
(Ordinance 1514, Attachment 4 and 5) was specifically intended to further City Policies by
ensuring that all new development would follow the historic pattern. The adoption of the
ordinance also included the adoption of a resolution that includes mitigation measures that
address the issue of historic compatibility. The ordinance and resolution require that any new
building obtain a use permit that is reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The Use Permit findings require the design of new buildings (or significant remodels) to closely
follow General Plan policies and be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent
properties such as the Mission, Carnegie Library, and other historic buildings. Building massing,
articulation, exterior materials, roof treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and
nearby historic structures. (See Attachment 13 for a guide to historic styles). At this time, the
applicants have provided some new information and amended the exterior tile treatment to
respond to these policies, however, the overall building design remains unchanged. As proposed,
the street appearance of the building continues to stand alone within the architectural fabric of the
Downtown Historic District.
Making the required findings for the subject application requires that the new building be
"compatible and complementary" with adjacent historical buildings. Webster's Dictionary
defines "compatible" as being able to exist together in harmony. "Complementary" is defined as
something that makes another thing complete or perfect. The context for the current application
TTI
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 6
is a building in a historic district. Even these definitions can be interpreted differently. Staff has.
used the existing policy language as guidelines on what "compatible" and "complementary"
should mean. The reason for the staff's interpretation is that the General Plan is internally
consistent, and City development guidelines are consistent with the General Plan. Conservation
and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4 says that new buildings should reflect elements of historic
structures, and Historical Preservation Program Guideline D.2, says that elements of historic
buildings should be "included" in the new structure. This indicates that reflecting and
incorporating historic building forms and materials, or sameness, is an acceptable means of
implementing the "compatible and complementary"requirements.
Proponents of the new building have stated that they find the contrast created by the different
architecture is compatible and complementary. As stated in the Introduction, it is not the staff's
role to bring such subjective value and taste judgments to its recommendations. The Council
may, however, make such decisions for the community.
General Plan Policies
As discussed in the tables on the following pages there are General Plan policies that speak to
land use that support the expansion of cultural facilities, such as the art center, at this location.
However, there are also General Plan policies that discuss how buildings should appear in this
location. The General Plan policies that guide land use are carried through the Zoning
Regulations and the policies that guide design are implemented by the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and the Community Design Guidelines. Although the project is consistent in
terms of land use, the proposed design does not implement the General Plan policies that speak
to design and historic compatibility. The pertinent land use policies are discussed in the table on
page 7 and 8 and a complete text of the applicable General Plan policies has been included as
Attachment 5.
Many of the applicable General Plan policies use the term "should" rather than "shall".
Consistent with pat Council interpretation, "should" is a permissive, "shall" is directive, i.e. it
must be complied with. Because the Council direction from the adoption of Ordinance 1514 was
to closely follow the General Plan, staff is applying the "should" policies at face value to the
proposed building.
Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center
Land Use Element Policy 4.19 directs the City to consider implementation of the Conceptual
Physical Plan where appropriate. Based on City policies, including the Conceptual Physical Plan
for the City's Center and General Plan policies that discuss appropriate land uses for the
downtown, the proposed location is an ideal location for expanding the Art Center. The Concept
plan also proposes that Mission Plaza extend westward beyond the location of the proposed Art
Center remodel. Many of the General Plan policies and Community Design Guidelines discussed
in the attached Planning Commission staff report describe the need for new buildings to
complement the Downtown Historic District (Attachment 11). The Downtown Historic district
is comprised of building designs that reflect architectural influences of the mid 1800's to the
early 1900's
Council Agenda Report _
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 7
Communi1y Design Guidelines
As discussed in the charts on the following pages, the guidelines contain language that provide
specific direction to building design within the downtown. Of noteworthy discussion in the
Guidelines is Chapter 1.2. This introductory chapter discusses the applicability of the guidelines
and suggests innovation as a guideline;
"Variety in architectural style is particularly appropriate for civic, quasi public, and
institutional buildings on larger sites outside of downtown, but the City will consider
buildings that present high quality alternatives to these guidelines in other locations
as well. "
This section provides some design flexibility for qausi-public land uses such as the Art Center,
however it does not exempt projects from General Plan policy consistency or Ordinance 1514.
All new development must be found consistent with the General Plan. Chapter 1.2 of the
Community Design Guidelines is written to provide design flexibility where it is consistent with
General Plan policies and other applicable standards. Furthermore, variety in style is not
mutually exclusive with the requirement to reflect some forms and materials of nearby historic
buildings. Implementing the policies and provisions of Ordinance 1514 does not require
reproducing period architecture. In summary, sensitive compatibility issues such as form, mass,
and exterior treatment need not be ignored for a qausi-public land uses in general or modern
architecture in particular at this location.
Tables 1 and 2 on the following pages summarize the pertinent components of the project and
how it compares to various City policies, guidelines and ordinances. A complete analysis of these
policies and the project has also been discussed in the attached Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment 11) and the complete text of General Plan Policies has been included in Attachment
5.
As identified in Table 1 there is no question that the Art Center is an appropriate land use for the
downtown. There are many policies that support cultural facilities and similar land uses in the
downtown, especially in the vicinity of Mission Plaza. Land Use Element policy 4.3 mentions
that the downtown is appropriate for such land uses, unless the size of the building is not suitable
for such a location. Chapter 1.2 of the Community Design Guidelines states that architectural,
variety may be acceptable as long as the design meets other policies, especially those of the
General Plan and the provisions of Ord. 1514.
7
P� �-
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 8
Table 1: Land Use and Location of Art Center
Policy/Standard Inconsistent Consistent Potentially
Consistent
Land Use Element 4.1
Land Use Element 4.3
Land Use Element 5.2.2
Land Use Element Goals
23, 24
Community Design Guidelines
1.2
Conceptual Physical Plan for the
City's Center
The design review of the new building is the purpose of the S-overlay zone (Ord. 1514) and the
City Council's review. The policies, ordinance and guidelines noted in the table on the previous
page are all crucial to the design of any new or remodeled building at this location, regardless of
land use. In order to approve the Use Permit the City must find that the building design is
consistent with each of the policies noted in the column at left. Complete text of each policy can
be found in Attachment 5. And the applicant's explanations of how it should be found consistent
are contained in an August 27, 2008 transmittal (Attachment 3). In summary, each of these
policies asks that buildings be designed to be compatible with the vicinity in terms of height,
mass, scale and architectural detailing.
T�
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 9
Table 2: Art Center Building Design
Policy/Standard Inconsistent Consisten Potentially Consistent
t
Conservation and Open Space If modified to reflect form, spacing and
Element 3.3.4 materials of nearby historic structures.
Land Use Element 4.16.6 J If entries and windows are oriented
towards the sidewalk.
Land Use Element Goals 29, 33, 34 If design follows neighborhood pattern,
respects architectural heritage,
com lements the abric of the vicinity.
Ordinance 1514 J If design is compatible and
complementary to reference buildings in
the vicinity.
ER- 64-07 J As noted above.
Community Design Guidelines 4.2 B If height and scale provides human
proportion and complements vicinity.
Community Design Guidelines 4.2 C If design provides architecture that
complements other downtown facades.
Historic Preservation Program If design further promotes the historic
Guidelines character of the vicinity.
Solutions
In formulating a recommendation to the applicants, the City Council should determine what
specific design features are necessary in a new building in order to be consistent with the City
policies in Table 2. When the project was reviewed by the Advisory bodies, design
recommendations based on the policies noted in the chart above were included in the
recommendations to each body. The design solutions should be based on the reference buildings
noted in the mitigation measures that were established for Ordinance 1514 (Resolution 9975) and
include the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Lietcher Apartment building and the historic
residential structures lining Monterey Street. Photos of these key reference buildings and a
inventory of architectural features that comprise the City's Historic district can be found in
Attachment 11. Based on the charts above, and a review of other buildings within the downtown
historic district staff has listed the following key elements that would need to be included in a
new building design. These items can be used to formulate direction to the Art Center project:
1. Ensure the building is compatible with historic buildings in the vicinity. Ordinance
1514 requires the design of new buildings to be compatible and complementary to
structures on adjacent properties. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials, roof
treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
The size, height and orientation of the building at the sidewalk needs to be compatible
with other significant buildings in the area. The dominant pattern of buildings in this
location includes one and two story buildings with significant articulation, and windows
and doorways that are single story in scale. �L
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 10
2. Pedestrian orientation and street presence. The building should be oriented towards
the street, with ground floor windows, entries and a design elements oriented towards the
sidewalk. Historic buildings in the downtown typically have storefront entries, street
facing design elements, and other features that are oriented to the sidewalk.
3. Increased street yard setback. The building should be set back from the sidewalk a
minimum of 10 feet similar to other buildings along the block. The characteristics of
other buildings in the vicinity include 10 to 20 foot landscaped streetyards such as the
Carnegie library, Lietcher apartment house and the residential structures on Monterey
Street. The increased street yard setback will also reduce the apparent mass of the
building while enhancing the pedestrian experience.
4. Include complimentary design features. Dominant features that are apparent in historic
buildings in San Luis Obispo include ornate parapet details, recessed storefront windows,
significant entry facing the street, transom windows, ornate tile and metal work, and
repetitious window and door features. The stonework for the exterior of the Art Center
could include a quarried, rough texture stone that is similar to a lot of the quarried granite
found on other downtown buildings such as the Carnegie Library. The proposed design
does not accomplish this.
5. Reconsider curvilinear building features. The curvilinear features and angled windows
on the Art Center are the design elements that significantly depart from the typical design
themes found in historic buildings in the vicinity. The theme of historic buildings
typically includes flat walls, parapets, awnings and recessed entries. It may be possible to
incorporate some of the historic forms and materials while retaining the curvilinear
features, but the options will be diminished. Attachment 13 illustrates key design features
that are common to complementary buildings in the downtown.
Summary
The Art Center is an appropriate land use for this location and supporting the expansion of the
center at this location is consistent with City policies. City policies say that the design should
incorporate some historic building forms and materials. The architecture of the proposed
building stands alone in the Downtown Historic District. In considering these differences
between subjective design review and policy interpretation the Council should also refer to the
correspondence from Ken Schwartz, Attachment 12.
Should the Council desire to approve the use permit as recommended by the Planning
Commission, specific conditions should be provided to the applicants to bring the project into
compliance with City policies in order to substantiate the finding that the proposed design is
complementary and compatible with the historic buildings in the vicinity.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works, Fire and Building Department have reviewed the project and found the
proposed project design to be acceptable.
7-rl
Council Agenda Report
ART CENTER U 111-02
Page 11
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the use permit, based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and Ordinance 1514. If
this alternative is pursued, the Planning Commission recommended resolution can be
modified to remove the requirement to return to the ARC, and findings and conditions can be
modified as suited.
2. Deny the use permit without prejudice, based on findings of inconsistency with the General
Plan, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, or
Ordinance 1514. The attached Planning Commission staff report contains a discussion of
policies that would pertain to the proposed building design to allow the Council to craft
findings for denial. The denial recommendation could include a list of items that the building
design would need to include in order to succeed at this location.
3. Continue the project if additional information is needed, with specific direction given to staff
and the applicants on changes to the project or what information is needed in order to take
action.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale project drawings
3. Applicant project description/letter
4. Ordinance 1514
5. Key Goals, Policies, and Standards applicable to request
6. CHC action letter, May 27, 2008
7. ARC Meeting Minutes July 14, 2008
8. ARC action letter
9. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
10. Planning Commission Resolution
11. Planning Commission Staff Report
12. E-mail discussion from Ken Schwartz to Andrew Carter, July 25, 2008.
13. Guide to Historic Arch. Styles in SLO and photos of typical historic buildings.
14. City Council Resolution to approve the use permit as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Use Permits\111-02(ART Center 1010 Broad)\Art Center CC report Final edition 3.doc
PHt- 11
NO F,
ILI
jL
m
Ad
,US Lo
VICINITY MAP
1- 010 Broad
Attachment 2
I �,y v Z
o a
W
Ljj
IL
LU
00
N¢O
Co
t V-14irx.
nam X� i fn
I
a ;>tI_r +fry
�J�,
ft
SAT •..? e'am �s CCS: >
rr
[d f./r{5''v�. .µ -•:BJP 4 t '
'R t.
Cn
a
ui
.. �
I f I
C
I 'j i`r�•".'���' � + �C..SYS Y-WA
� n- 'cv h'e I -N �-L ♦ J;-
t ,
-PM 1 - l3
Attachment Z
z Mo
LLJ CL
LU UJ
r
M
LU
� . 5
W ~Z
F �
LU
cc
CD
Q
ai ^ti
Er
.� r�v"i.'�„���' 'Fir-`•3'a�,.�' �k+ moi-'Sn�,�y..tL7.t-'-.� � � 4n' .. ti, t Z O
1 �Y
-
:W74qr{-r
5'S Y -(y. N l '� 1 Y�'+ i JF • YZ�iYU
w#° S..Z4
LL
l x a
Rw—
MMU
LU
x ; W
P.
�"p N
s � r
�.,� ✓Y .rtF t t t l m Z
p
Attachment 2
0 W
r
W O
!� S
o a ccw
d a O
N¢
cc
a. c . Vis• m 00
Co
Mi
111H eL��
^��• -;vu Ttyii. � Sl
X11 r Y.
S N'
t • z 4§ . r . � 7� rr,
44•.r'1 r Ar � I�F -A Fr1y.
_W
x
W
n i � W
r
� P
1 1
'kL��Th�v X41' ri-Cs i4
Ei..• �/ i1sF s ,r. �9:i-165+ ! +,to '_
l-+• �l}Y \\ It ':!T/'4 C ,• '
F 5
h
Vfk
r Yti i .7
-- oil
Attachment 2
Z
d,fr�,FL_. .,L ,' ' 9. ^n ,yr,• 5 Y..r�C 3 5 + O W a
COD
LU
LU
1— O W
} d W
F
�t y >✓C aF (!D
y NIR YArt t t g Q
m
cn
k
<E
y*WL
e.u:r
IBX '}`}y'pw..Ct rd=1,.°' t'•a�,tl��a�arsff I,>�''`�>x�� I - `� of -
�
.G
t, n
• ,err�
7l. Y I � •t r .:
�4�f ti.k �.p�N•l �, 4 � IzMI �I �
r•1 tI S a-iPTr tJ:', .31.,`i �, fi,[j 1 ,�. ' � W
Y �.� W
� ---
e
1 10
- '
d �r �•Ke t ,�C 1 s
919A
.�•'-a� o�U.L ,]Cit .1���'3 tii � af�^ c. 4 ', \� ` � �'�( * s, •
l TG• I.L.
�?"vlf �92Y't '� S�a '.k �''�" 1'at.[fF G'�'�'vrtl rj.1:,, I �j •
'T•3 - �.q t � T T y'xj`rv.Y.r y.¢7& - `�' 'f j iG;�S fA°1
O P.
LAW �f
A na
Al-
Al I
gg
y
J
Attachment 2
Q O
rWu W a
� '� Et ¢ Z m
(� W O
.I es. p V LD
?. ;fir s J•. QO r 7
Co �. Z
r rY O
Q. W
4cc so
}� c� lr,� �• ,.. �� I Cyt. �'. 'tet dR;}'vk° 111 m �
rYt•""11 .r943\b " J.J'e _r 1 h a• rnn..s n:�v W CL
1''FY•14A�4�`.k.�Y,2.0 #.-,q kF i`0. f -.n Y �},J 1n�� 1 �y ` \ ...\.,..... � p F N5' Z J O
uj
1 ''1�Zt�7j^''3••a`s'f. \ .�3{ ,c. �,lL t} y .{'..t�"y ;f. at' (� Z �
a 1-71- 2�y�-i
r.� \ems•' 1 �j i ;Tu, yr � 4' �Fy� � � I � t 4. ��
I 4 R/ <i "� Y�I J'A�p kt iw'� 1 ii � Y• her
4a 'ahe,vxYa`Y1 b� }`j ,L � "t '• °��' ; r J,/
` 4"•Nb+•I 1`ia'ft'.:v?xS�"+VSt r � � , \ 1 f.x q w.
n1.+T`9'tr
r v y
�+�„�
14;per� 4.+�SK'- r }: q Y �,"TI yarn ,� •F wr'`
t l.✓i �
r^frlj�t >r�Y� �•7.ho t r�,�M u v5 r �1� � <��`
1 r. M � "�o� "'^^' ar i_ �"�f ✓e..fy fid' r y�tr-r E
a
Wg,.\ '" (y, it'ty�''a ��rr G r 1• -d'
Cf1�1$�i��lr
2
��
An '`-Y° °"`�", .f `y„'Y'-'as^v.ry': - }r, ♦"'i'u5 �'+�",'
�r .r {t1 kir � r t T 4 ,fir >�t '15,i`1�i ��� �I ✓ \,f�A 33 ,b.
r
' { . _�= yJ,�� Tr `' ,t i'�'Sdr`i�I�1„ �.� `a �' 4 .yc,`L•..'r,4.,-.,fit,
'T
IF1^si°i rtn"•,«,r s}� r,,.:`Yl `+'"'��2i 9` e'krr�' U�� iG'•�� � "i k\•...
tx� _'_y i`r-a`.6•.1•"t y�:r•Sy��:" £' �yyy S'
9'r"Jy"-±�...y "'
}c` 7z• ri ��ro ry} � rr✓�s�� Y 4 �6r ��: _��+t,4�'�.'r',7y'F
y ,�i zfi.%�'xt^1.w.r',n�r y1"2 "�u�5�i, ny✓r� 'a �mit,
y3 Sw° 1 tory fyJ� � � 7 d'
pp �- l�
Attachment 2
t� E, ® r Mo
a s w m
LU O
65 0
w
«1 F-
'`� 'rts>t" � aJsS.jS.:Qx r S .�. �, L'
50
D
" -whys, I>"`` fi.';xs V.'= `'•�
I
NAp
�'
44 -
.al�
t �
' I �� YF�zn �4 1!t �t Kf1 '
� a f
I
s1. Y'nb )yYr Cj>>
D1 I
Attachment 2
C
100
yah kf t'r> 4 `' .r f -0 v °""1 r<+�� Y,•,' o w J
y [
rl V x 4 , - L •� .
h. n 1' �i•
HJ "
tai d W
Ln Lu
a. �• t
Al{me°"` rM a >�Oa < ';'.. c -•{ Q Q
oN
,�Y w Er
� Z Om
y�•« tt! v: - Q�> "« ^4rY SnaY}'1 r� rb � T�� � 9 6. V/
ip
.^.y�y L.y�ap�.y �J}eo, .,P�E"`. ��i._'`t'L.W 4. '•� . I :., o
w 4 J •4n W JJ a� �!•
tF y-.4 xV. 'Y rt-C`c �" 4! Y 1 L'•`._'-/�'
f
...a.. w
4
2 •ear" `� q,
�����FS.i'sn r i I�N TP' {.' ➢fit'' �p,.: 4
n ,fi nay n��� w i�a46• '..5 '
;•3 i C:c i az i.s_.•y.� °i � S" ' _.a r z
jr I
NQ 0 $ �{ v z ! At ' chment 2
m8 q �2 Z p
02 YE Td Q� } `j
Q
to igg
Will
a M
r a
I � w
� v
r \ �
I ~ O\
y
W r 1)Pc ,k,
a �,��
,w
T
Ci r
LLs� b A
eL
I �
[L I $A e
a
axn"=uxwe y e
i x r E a{9
I A-} ---u'roinccxn m3N o3soaow --_�'-- —r ��Y
1 3 3 H 1 S O V O H B
� s
• -G - FWNIONX}N]
_ -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
co LUS Aft hent
Z
p 0
g U 3 Eaillla
m�j,cb � ad t� `3g E��� O Z �
py 3g Q
a 4
U)
�� sols vma
ro
I \ gggg
a I
I
I
> r I
6®� m=
- ---- --- --
d
1 3 a u a 5 o r O u B y o
A4 f -ate
a-�a�Co� s ! LLoUH
a
At
chment 2
NW a tU) o=N
o gIL
0Z
o#
rna
I 6
MIS VLVId
I®& i
a yy
®Q� I
im
�1
6 ye
_J
6
pppgpW.YY Hr.
VIV l.u9dN4LYAT+9W.MP1�61't .C4f'OY'MII
I-o23
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'` At clement 2
N�nB � _' a tl � . � a � o 0
qq w
O z eag as + g5 �! z y0
v e 1� m Y 0 g 0 N
{� a _ Q
atl _
JV
BI \
\ 3
' V
B Ij
I � j
a:
8e
� � LL
9{W AY M.
t chment 2
t; ;; 4
N6S u y " 1 �� 7 . 4 a S x p
es � a3 + )3 f.'i t w A
vj o_ all u;. w o 5 o CV
'� Q
LL � g■
Y
Z
r�
j -------
IN;4®a
II _ a
inn �
rw.va®mcaavm.mwmmmslx .av♦•mron
A4 i-a5
Aftachment
3
sail Wilt ®BIIiP®§RT CEIITEIt
1010 Brood greet
San We Obtipo. OA 95401
27 August 2008
TRANSMITTAL
TO: City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
RE: Submission of Application and Documents for Planning Commission
and
Architectural Review Commission Review
Enclosed please find a PLANNING APPLICATION, check in the amount of
$2,977.00 and ten (10) copies of the following documents:
Desian Rational and Response to ARC Review Comments (8 '/2 x 11)
These diagrams, prepared by Barcelon and Jang Architects, describe the
design rationale for the Project and are in specific response to the
Architectural Review Commission comments provided in the 16 July 2008
letter from the Community Development Department. They demonstrate
how the design complements the rhythm, massing, fenestration, colors
and materials of the historic setting of the proposed Art Center design.
Complete colored views of all sides of the building, which include how the
building meets the ground, are included in the full sets of design drawings.
It may be helpful to review the diagrams in conjunction with the colored
elevations.
Full Set of Desian Drawings including Perspectives, Site Plans, Elevations,
Floor_Plans-and Sections (11 x 17)
It is the conviction of the Art Center Board, Staff and Design Team that the
design as presented complies with the provisions of the Special
Consideration Zone defined in Ordinance No. 1514;that the design is both
compatible with and complementary to the historic district and adjacent
structures. This design does the following:
Attachment 3
Relates the building to the site geography, taking advantage of the
sloped site and adjacency to Mission Plaza and San Luis Creek
through large glazed openings along these facades. The building
fits the lay of the land and maintains the historic connection
through the facility from the Carnegie Library/Museum, Mission and
Plaza on Monterey Street to Broad Street and the downtown.
• Is consistent with the spirit and intent of the "Physical Concept Plan
for the Historic Downtown" reinforcing the idea of a cultural district
along Monterey Street.
• Respects the established views and vistas of its neighboring
structures and the walk along San Luis Creek.
• Honors the scale of the neighborhood -acting as strong focal point
at the south end of Mission Plaza and as a transition from the
cultural and public uses along Monterey to the commercial uses of
Broad and Higuera Streets.
• Uses materials and construction methods of equal or greater quality
than the existing historic buildings in the district.
• Creates the opportunity for new views from and of the Art Center
facility and site that will add richness and texture to the experience
of the Historic District.
• As the Library/Museum and Mission reflect the traditions of their time
of creation, so too does the proposed Art Center. Expresses its time,
function and place as a center for art and art education -in a 21 St
century form - creating a new icon for the City of San Luis Obispo..
• Recognizes its historic neighbors by complementary materials, color
and mass - offering an opportunity for invigorating the development
that will follow along Monterey Street from Broad to Nipomo Streets.
We request that a Use Permit be granted for this project. If you have
questions about this submission contact either Bruce Fraser (544-6161) or
Russ Seacat (544-4299).
Thank you
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. 1514(200iSei iea)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT
667 THROUGH 669 MONTEREY STREET AND 1019 THROUGH 1023 BROAD
STREET FROM OFFICE-HISTORIC(O-H)TO DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL-
HISTORIC-SPECIAL
OWNTOWN-COM ERCIALHISTORIC-SPECIAL CONSIDERATION(C-D-H-S)AND FROM PUBLIC FACILITY-
HISTORIC(PF-H)TO DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL-HISTORIC-SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROPERTY AT 1010 BROAD STREET AND'FROM OFFICE
(0)TO PUBLIC FACILITY-HISTORIC(PF-H)AT 1045 BROAD STREET
(GP/R/ER 6407)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on February 27, 2008 and recommended approval of Application GP/R/ER 6407, a
request to amend the City's Zoning Map designations as noted above; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 15,
2008, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 6407; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project;and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the -proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations,and other applicable City ordinances.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2..Findines. The City Council makes the following findings:
I. The City Council finds and determines that the.project's Mitigated Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and
reflects the independent judgment of the Commission.
01514
- Attachment 4
Ordinance No. 1514(2008 Series)
Page 2
2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element policies
regarding Downtown zoning, which designate such districts for locations that are
appropriate to serve cultural facilities,mixed-use projects and specialty retail uses.
3. The proposed land use amendment will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center and will help to stimulate redevelopment of
underutilized properties within the downtown core.
4. A Special Consideration (S) overlay zone shall be applied in order to ensure adequate
review of building massing and setbacks and create a specifically refined list of allowed
land uses. The proximity to the creek, the size and configuration of the property and
adjacent lower density office and residential uses warrant the refined land use list and
requirement for a Planning Commission Use Permit.
SECTION 3. Action. The, Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 64-07) is
hereby approved as shown in Exhibit A, and subject to an S-overlay zone with the following
criteria:
1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shalt be.required for all new structures or substantial
remodels and additions to existing structures.
2. In reviewing the Use Permit,the Planning Commission shall find that the design of structures
shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties. Complementing
the design of historic structures shall take.precedent over complementing design of other
existing buildings. Building massing;,articulation; exterior materials, roof treatment, and
quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
3. The following land uses shall be prohibited unless.approved as an accessory use to a hotel or
restaurant:
Night Club
Fitaess/Health Facility
Bar/Tavern
4. Due to traffic, noise generation, and development character along the street, the following
land uses shall be prohibited facing Monterey Street between Broad and Nipomo Streets:
Medical Services
Fitness/Health Facility(when allowed as an accessory use)
Night Club(when allowed as an accessory use)
Bar/Tavern(when allowed as.an accessory use)
Banks and financial services
5. The following uses may be allowed with approval of an administrative use permit:
Attachment 4.
Ordinance No. 1514(2008 Series)
Page 3
General Retail-more than 2,000 square feet
6. Maximum building height shall not exceed 50 feet as measured from average natural grade.
7. Final design plans for the Art Center at 1010 Broad Street and the redevelopment of the
Lietcher Apartment site at 667 Monterey Street shall be subject to review and approval by the
City Council.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 15m day of April 2008, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 20,' day of May 2008, on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Council Members Carter, Mulholland,;and Settle, Vice Mayor Brown and Mayor
Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
-' 1 hw*W 01MY OW this dgpunrM hs.a
Audrey Hooper and in"=WW at No.�
main"City Clerk and that the ordhvm wn pu bftd pw wow
to Chwer 8 Humaw
APPROVED AS TO FORM: '—
J na
well
City Attorney
i6rt Aerrt 4.
Ordinance 1.514
General Plan Amendment l Rezone 64-07
PF-H
°'H
ap•
vP C-D-
-S
CA . P-F-H P-F-H
ZA
oho c
d9NI 31
Attachment 5
Key,Ordinance, Goals. Policies and Standards
Ordinance 1514
Ordinance 1514 was approved by City Council to rezone the property from Public
Facilities- to Downtown Commercial with a Special Considerations (S) Overlay
(Attachment 7). The S overlay requires the project to meet certain findings that are to be
reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council.
In addition to land use restrictions that are not relevant to the Art Center, the S-overlay
includes the following requirements:
1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shall be required for all new structures or
substantial remodels and additions to existing structures.
2. In reviewing the Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the design of
structures shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent
properties. Complementing the design of historic structures shall take precedent
over complementing design of other existing buildings. Building massing,
articulation, exterior materials, roof treatment, and quality shall be compatible with
adjacent and nearby historic structures.
3. Maximum building height shall not exceed 50 feet as measured from average
natural grade.
4. Final design plans for the Art Center at 1010 Broad Street and the redevelopment
of the Lietcher Apartment site at 667 Monterey Street shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Council.
Mitigation Measure for Ordinance 1514
The rezoning of the property required staff to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for
the project. One of the approved mitigation measures speaks to the City's Land Use
Element. Mitigation measure three addresses this potential issue:
Mass, scale,form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to
be rezoned shall be compatible and complementary to existing significant
historic structures such as the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Leitcher
apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties on
Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior standards, the City's Community
Design Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect
historic resources shall be closely followed when modifying existing
structures or building new structures within the subject properties.
General Plan.Land Use Element
Land Use Element Goals
23. Provide for high quality education and access to related services such as museums, art
galleries,public art, and libraries.
ZOLJ
TH l 30I,
Attachment 5
24. Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education; transportation;
visitor information; entertainment; cultural,professional, medical, and social services;
community organizations; retail trade.
Land Use Element policy 4.1 Downtown's Role
Downtown is the cultural, social and political center of the City for its residents, as well
as home for those who live in its historic neighborhoods. The City wants its commercial
core to be economically healthy, and realizes that private and public investments in the
downtown support each other. Downtown should provide a wide variety of professional
and government services, serving the region as well as the city. The commercial core is a
preferred location for retail uses that are suitable for pedestrian access, off-site parking,
and compact building spaces. Civic, cultural and commercial portions of downtown
should be a major tourist destination. Downtown's visitor appeal should be based on
natural, historical, and cultural features, retail services, and numerous and vaned visitor
accommodations.
Land Use Element 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.
Land Use Element policy 4.3 Entertainment and Cultural Facilities
"Cultural Facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be
downtown,..Locations outside of downtown may be more appropriate for facilities that
would be out of character or too big for downtown to accommodate comfortably..."
Land Use Element policy 5.2.2 Mission Plaza Area
An appropriate area for cultural facilities is the vicinity of Mission Plaza(Figure 5).
General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4
"...New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect
the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of
buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be
maintained."
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.5
In evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify and protect
neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
Community Design Guidelines
Chapter 4-Downtown Design Guidelines
"Many downtown buildings date from the late 19`h and early 20`h century. The plaza
around historic Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, including open portions of San Luis
A14/-33
Attachment 5
'd
Obispo Creek, is the venue for a variety of special events. Nowhere in the city is design
more important."
4.2 Design and Development Guidelines
13. Height, scale
1. The height and scale of new structures should complement existing adjacent buildings
and provide human scale and proportion.
C. Facade design. New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows,
doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that
complement existing structures,without copying their architectural style.
Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with
parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines, or large
pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be avoided.
Historical Preservation Prosram Guidelines
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines D. 2. New Construction Projects.
"New primary structures within Historical Preservation Districts should further promote
the historic 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 these styles and building forms
should be included in the new structure and it should complement the architectural
character of the area"
Attach
' , �►II�aBl�lll IIIIIIIIII
PO
iiy
` 'co sans o�� -
Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
June 2, 2008
Karen Kile
San Luis Obispo Art Center
1010 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 111-02: 1010 Broad Street
Review of the proposed demolition of the Art Center building and
reconstruction of a larger facility in the Downtown Historic District
Dear Ms. Kile:
The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of May 27, 2008, recommended that
the Architectural Review Commission deny your project, based on the following finding:
Finding
1. The proposed new construction is not consistent with the City's Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and General Plan Policies regarding new construction in historic
districts.
The decision of the CHC is a recommendation to the ARC and, therefore, is not final.
This matter will be scheduled for public hearing before the ARC. The date should be
verified with the project planner.
If you have any questions., please contact Phil Dunsmore at (805) 781-7522.
Sincerely,
Kim Murry
Deputy Community Development Director
Long Range Planning
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
City of San Luis Obispo -- Parks and Recreation Department
Bruce Fraser, AIA
Fraser Seiple Architects
971 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 69P `35
oThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
O _� r'LLLCi L:?`""tAr1
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 2008
OATH OF OFFICE: Swearing in new Commissioner Chris Weber
City Clerk Audrey Hooper administered the oath of office to new Commissioner Chris
Weber.
Present: Commissioners Jim Duffy, Steven Hopkins, Zeljka Howard, Anthony
Palazzo, Chris Weber, Vice-Chair Greg Wilhelm, and Chairperson Allen
Root.
Absent: Commr. Steven Hopkins
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Deputy Director Kim
Murry, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate
Planner Philip Dunsmore, and Recording Secretary Michelle Lakey
ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The Comment & Discussion items were handled in between Public Hearing Items 1 & 2.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1040 Broad Street. ARC 111-02; Review of a new Art Center building at the corner
of Broad and Monterey Streets; C-D-H-S zone; San Luis Obispo Art Center,
applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the ARC
continue the item to a date uncertain with direction to incorporate specific modifications
into the project to provide for compliance with the General Plan and Community Design
Guidelines. Mr. Dunsmore presented the history of the proposed project to the
Commission. He stated that the Art Center is located in the Downtown Historic District
and that General Plan policies, architectural guidelines, and ordinances require new
buildings in this location, such as the proposed Art Center, to complement historical
architectural features and materials. He provided the Commission with photos of
nearby existing buildings to show how they complement each other. He referenced
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4, which states `New buildings in
historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and
materials of nearby historic structures'. He explained that staff and the ARC are
charged with interpreting policy rather than interpreting what good design is.
Attachment 7
f ARC Minutes
July 14, 2008
Page 2
John Mandeville, Community Development Director, reinforced the importance of the
ARC reviewing the proposed building in terms of existing General Plan policies. He
explained the use of "should" vs. "shall" in City policy documents and how it affects the
Commission's review of the project. He noted that "should" statements are intended to
be followed unless there is another prevailing goal that would be achieved if the policy
was not strictly followed. He stressed the importance of making findings to document
any deviation from established policies as part of the decision-making process with the
review of a project.
Wayne Barcelon, project architect, pointed out why he believed that the proposed
building does not encroach over the property line. He explained the purposes of the art
center are to be inviting, to be made for the people of today and the future, to enrich and
inspire the community, and to provide a memorable building for the public. He stated
the property would provide more opportunities to engage the public with the park-like
setting that is around the creek. He explained that the proposed materials for the
project were taken from some of the historical buildings in the neighborhood, but with a
modern style to them. He stated there would be a five-foot setback from the sidewalk
with landscaping in between. He explained that the building's large windows would
allow for expansive views of the immediate setting and the mountains beyond. He
stated that the cut stone on the upper part of the building would not consist of large
pieces, the windows would be insulated glass, and the frame of the building would
primarily be steel.
Bruce Frasier, Art Center, mentioned they have had a unanimous vote in favor of this
.project from the Art Center's Board of Directors. He disagreed with some of the
analysis included in the staff report. He stated that the proposed plan is not radical and
would fit in well with the surrounding buildings in the downtown district.
PUBUC COMMENTS:
Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, liked the proposed project presented by the Art Center
and felt that they needed a new building. He stated that the project was consistent with
the Downtown Concept Plan in that the project is adjacent to. Mission Plaza which is the
cultural center of the downtown.
Chuck Crotser, member of the CHC, stated when the CHC reviewed this project they
considered its compatibility, while not relaxing the guidelines. He stated that more
clarity is needed where the building meets the ground. He indicated his support of the
project pointing out that the context here is different than on Higuera Street and that
complementary character was somewhat of a judgment call.
Wendy George, Morro Bay, stated she sees this building as a large piece of art. She
felt it would be a building that will be looked upon for years to come as a landmark in the
community.
Attachment 7
ARC Minutes
July 14, 2008
Page 3
Jack Biesek, San Luis Obispo, supported the project. He felt it can echo some history
and provide some history in the future. He felt that by restricting the applicant on the
design of this building would be a bad idea. He read an excerpt from a letter to the
editor published in the Tribune from a local resident about the proposed project.
Deborah Cash, Downtown Association, felt the proposed Art Center building would be a
great addition to the Downtown Historic District.
Karen Kile, Executive Director of the Art Center, stated that this would be the first
modem building to be designed to fit the surrounding creek and park-like area. She
fully supported the proposed Art Center building.
Nixson Borah, San Luis Obispo, felt the building is very modest and not a radical
statement. He felt that the building should complement its surrounding area, but be of
its own time.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, supported the Cultural Heritage Committee's and the
staffs recommendations for this proposed project. He stated that a modern design
could be crafted that would better fit the historic nature of the setting than the proposed
project.
There were no further comments made by the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Howard stated that the ARC could justify deviation from the guidelines and
policies that govem the construction of new buildings given the civic nature of the
proposed building. She felt that strict adherence to the guidelines would prevent this
project as presented from moving forward. She would like to re-examine how the
building meets the ground on the creek side of the building.
Vice-Chair Wilhelm felt that the site of the Art Center is very unique and special as it is
surrounded by open space. He supported the building as proposed and felt that it
complemented its setting. He would like all the renderings developed in as much detail
as the Broad Street rendering presented tonight. He felt the setback proposed is fine on
both Broad and Monterey Streets.
Commr. Palazzo expressed that the tools had not been presented to properly portray
the building design and indicated that the renderings needed to include more detail. He
stated he feels the building looks a bit busy and that its design could be simplified. He
would like to see much more detailed plans and a complete materials board. He would
also like to see some simplicity to the design. He felt there is a lack of rhythm between
the Broad Street and Monterey Street elevations.
AIDC Minutes Attachment 7
July 14, 2008
Page 4
Commr. Weber agreed with Commr. Palazzo that the drawings and renderings were
lacking in detail and simplicity. He felt that more information including a model would
help to evaluate the design.
Commr. Duffy stated it would be a shame to have a historical prototype building at this
location, but felt there were a lot of missed opportunities with the building presented.
He challenged the applicant to come back with some changes. He indicated that the
building was not very inviting and seemed to turn its back on the street. He suggested
that the vertical circulation within the building could be featured through the design. He
stated that some angles and curves of the building seemed contrived, quirky, and a bit
chaotic. He felt the pedestrian level windows were a token response to the guidelines
to complement the nearby buildings and more effort could be taken into account. He
felt that the building should have a natural edge and exhibit more restraint. He felt the
projections seemed arbitrary and the public entry should be celebrated.
Chairperson Root felt a contemporary response at this location was perfect, but did
agree that the design was busy and that he would like to see more detail. He stated the
entrances could be heralded a little more. He would like to see more information on
colors and materials presented the next time the applicant brings the project back to the
ARC.
On motion by Vice-Chair Wilhelm to continue the. item to_a date uncertain with the
following direction: 1) Provide complete, colored views of all sides of the building that
illustrate building details and materials. 2) Additional consideration shall be given to the
creek elevation and how the .building meets the ground. 3) A contemporary design is
appropriate: however, additional human scale shall be incorporated into the Broad and
Monterey Street elevations. A specific historical style need not. be applied, however
components of the proposed building design such as rhythm, massing, fenestration,
colors and materials should be complement the site's historic setting. Seconded by
Commr. Howard.
AYES: Commrs. Duffy, Howard, Palazzo, Weber, Vice-Chair Wilhelm, and
Chairperson Root.
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Hopkins.
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
The Commission took a break at 7:58 pm.
Vice-Chair Greg Wilhelm recused Nims Item 2.
ARC 4 ; Review form-based codes for the South Broad Street
Corridor Plan; o an nt. (Jeff Hook)
J0441-37
��III�uIIIINhIII�����IIIIIIIhDIIIIIIIII II �.�
Attachment F
111
Crt o sanvu'rs OBISPOy
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
July 16, 2008
San Luis Obispo Art Center
Attn: Karen Kile
1010 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 111-02: 1010 Broad Street
Review of a new Art Center building at the corner of Broad and
Monterey Streets
Dear Ms. Kile:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of July 14, 2008, continued the
project to a date uncertain with the following direction:
1. Provide complete, colored views of all sides of the building that illustrate building
details and materials.
2. Additional consideration shall be given to how the building meets the ground.
3. A contemporary design is appropriate; however, additional human scale shall be
incorporated into the Broad and Monterey Street elevations. A specific historical
style need not be applied; however, components of the proposed building design
such as rhythm, massing, fenestration, colors, and materials should better
complement the site's historic setting.
If you have any questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at 781-7522-.
Sincerely,
0q
Pam Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Bruce Fraser, AIA City of San Luis Obispo
Fraser Seiple Architects Parks and Recreation Department
971 Osos Street 1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
-�o
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
f }
Planning Commission Minutes Aftachmnxnf--T
October 22, 2008 -
Page 2 ---
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
On a motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Gould, the
Commission voted 6:0 to recommend approval of the tentative tract map and mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact, based on findings and subject to
conditions and code requirements.
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Gould, Brodie, Carpenter, Stevenson, and Ashbaugh
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
The motion carred on a 6:0 vote.
2. 1010 Broad.Street. U 111-02: To allow new art center building in S-overlay zone
within downtown Historic District; SLO art Center, Attn: Karen Kile, Applicant (Phil
Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Planning Commission adopt the resolution, recommending the City Council deny the
use permit based on findings and subject to conditions. Staff stated that the design of
the proposed new building is the key issue of the review process. Staff stated that the
design of the proposed art center building must be evaluated for consistency with
applicable City policies, ordinances, and guidelines. Staff further explained the role of
City staff and the advisory bodies was to determine and make recommendations on
whether proposed development is consistent with the City's policies, ordinances, and
guidelines, not what 'good' design is.
Bruce Fraser, applicant, stated that he took strong exception to the staff report and
findings. He stated that this is a unique facility with a unique mission, and that it is
setting a precedent for the downtown.
Wayne Barcelon, Barcelon Jang Architects, San Francisco, stated that the scale of
building is fluid in regard to the uses of the center and that the circulation patterns are
designed to engage the public. He further stated that the setting of the community,
beyond the adjacent buildings, was considered in design.
Commr. Brodie questioned the choice of stone. Mr. Barcelon stated the darker stone is
textured, that the upper level stone is smooth, and it was designed to reduce the mass
of the building.
Chair Stevenson requested the building's height be addressed. Mr.- .Barcelona stated
the elevation specifications of each side of the building.
04r'-�f
_
Planning Commission Minutes - A,:Zachrap.nt 9
October 22, 2008
Page 3
Commr. Ashbaugh asked to address ARC condition 3 from the July meeting. Mr.
Barcelon stated that there were no changes. Mr. Fraser confirmed that no changes had
been made to the design.
Commr. Ashbaugh addressed the human scale experience.
Commr. Carpenter asked if it was still staffs position that the ARC's requests to change
the building design had not been met. Mr. Dunsmore stated that it had not been met.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jack Biesek, San Luis Obispo, supported the project. He stated it is a unique,
thoughtful, breath of fresh air in change of style.
Bob Seeley, San Luis Obispo, supported the project and stated that it inspires creative
ideas.
Diane Blakeslee Brocato, San Luis Obispo, supported the project.
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, supported the project. He stated that institutional
buildings deserve a different point of view and that this building meets the City's policies
and guidelines. He further stated he would like to continue to see this building proceed
in discussion.
Joanne Beaule Ruggles, San Luis Obispo, supported the project. Supported the
modem architecture and said that all buildings were modem in their time.
Robert Reynolds, San Luis Obispo, supported the project.
Dave Hennings, San Luis Obispo, agreed with staff. He stated that the design is too
dated and was concerned with the comer's proximity to the street.
Karen Kile, Director of the Art Center, supported the project. She also stated that staff
has a bias on the project. Commr. Ashbaugh asked where the Center would be located
while construction was underway. Ms. Kile replied that plans and contingencies were in
place.
Joseph L. Timmons, Board of Directors for the Art Center, supported the project. He
stated that the staff reports were misrepresenting.
Muara Johnston, San Luis Obispo, supported the project. She stated that the use of the
building is critical and requires a visually-creative space.
Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, supported the project. He stated the project embodies
the downtown concept plan. It is a fine building, not one change is required. Space is
important focus. Business community recognizes cultural activity.
JD Li �
Planning Commission Minutes A.&achraent 9
October 22, 2008
Page 4
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chairperson Stevenson thanked staff for their presentation and reiterated that staff
evaluates projects within the City's policies and requirements. Chair Stevenson stated
that staff does not have bias towards the project.
Chairperson Stevenson supported the use permit and an iconic building at this site.
He was concerned that the stone material is too light. He also expressed concern with
the proposed solid wall and the entries to the building.
Commr. Multari thanked staff for their analysis. He stated the building height was
acceptable for its location. He reiterated staff's position that urban space is the focus of
the Commission, not architecture. He felt that he could make the findings for approval
for the project as presented..
Commr. Gould did not support staffs recommendation. She supported the architectural
style and stated that it meets the City's downtown concept plan.
Commr. Brodie thanked staff for their presentation. She voiced concern that the ARC
recommendations have not been met. She was further concerned with the mass of the
building and the choice of color for the stone. She stated that there was a missed
opportunity to have a view of Cerro San Luis. She stated that use of the project was
appropriate.
Commr. Carpenter thanked staff for their presentation. He stated that he supports this
project. He further stated that the Mission is the cornerstone of the downtown and that
the proposed project's form follows function of the area. The education and display are
compatible and complementary and that the ARC will follow the use permit
requirements.
Commr. Ashbaugh stated that he had no objection to contemporary design. He was
concerned with the process in relation to setting a precedent for future projects in the
area. He expressed concern with the lack of attention to pedestrian circulation on
Broad and Monterey. He made a motion to return the item to the Planning Commission
with input from the ARC.
Commr. Multari questioned the return time line for the issues discussed tonight by the
Commission. Staff replied that it would take three or four months. Potentially, January
for ARC with Planning Commission following.
Chairperson Stevenson suggested the item return to the ARC when the previous
requirements were met. He further stated the desire to see (1) pedestrian experience
(2) building materials-texture and color of walls.
Chair Stevenson seconded motion for approval. He was disappointed there were no
changes in response to the ARC issues.
PAI-43
A:'ach►fient 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2008
Page 5
The motion failed in a 3:3 vote.
After considerable discussion, Cmmr. Multari stated that. he felt that a compromise
would not be reached this evening. He said that he would support a motion to approve
subject to conditions in order to move the project on to the City Council who could
decide if further design changes were warranted, but not because he could not make
the findings for approval of the proiect as submitted.
On a motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh, to forward the item to
the City Council for approval subject to conditions. The conditions included a
requirement for additional architectural review to address the Broad and Monterey
Street elevations. More specifically, the condition requires a greater variety in building
color and texture on the street elevations and requires that the pedestrian scale be
enhanced for the street sides of the building.
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Gould, Stevenson, and Ashbaugh
NOES: Commrs. Brodie and Carpenter
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
The motion carried on a 4:2 vote
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Janet Miller
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on _November 19, 2008
Ryan K. Betz
Supervising Administrative Assistant
�N l- 4/V
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION NO. 5511-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ART CENTER BUILDING DESIGN
AT 1010 BROAD STREET; APPLICATION NO. U 111-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
October 22, 2008, for the purpose of considering a Use Permit to allow the Art Center to
construct a new building in the Downtown Commercial Historic, Special Considerations Zone
(C-D-H-S) Zone at 1010 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the hearing is to make a recommendation to the City Council
on the merits of the Use Permit in consideration of the S-overlay zone; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findin s.
1. The proposed new building is compatible or complementary to structures on adjacent
properties as required by Ordinance 1514 since, as conditioned, the building massing,
articulation, exterior materials, and roof treatment is compatible with adjacent and nearby
historic structures.
2. As conditioned, the proposed new building is consistent with General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element Policies that are designed to protect and enhance the City's historic
districts.
3. As conditioned, the proposed new building is consistent with the Historic Preservation
Guidelines which require that new primary structures within Historical Preservation Districts
should further promote the historic character of those areas. In this case, the building design
contrasts with the existing historic buildings; however, it creates its own place in history.
4. As conditioned, the proposed building design is consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines since the height and scale of the proposed new structure complements existing
adjacent buildings and will provide human scale and proportion. m' ,/
(t'�'f/— 7
i
i I
Attachment 10
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5511-08
U 111-02 (10 10 Broad Street)
Page 2
.5. The development project does not require additional environmental review because the
rezoning of the property (Resolution 9975) examined the Art Center proposal in an
environmental initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was approved
by City Council.
SECTION 2. Recommendation. The Planning? Commission does hereby recommend the
City Council approve application U 111-02 subiect_to the following conditions:
1. Following a review of the use permit by the City Council, the project shall return to the
Architectural Review Commission to address the ARC'S comments and the following items:
a. Additional variety shall be added to the color of the wall materials, especially on the Broad
and Monterey Street building elevations.
b. Additional texture shall be included in the exterior stone material so that the texture of the
material can be visible from the street.
c. Attention shall be given to the pedestrian scale of the building at Broad and Monterey Street.
On motion by Commissioner Multari seconded by Commissioner Ashbaugh, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Gould, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: Commissioners Brodie and Carpenter
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Christianson
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of October, 2008.
- , av�-�- - &n�-
Doug Davidson, Ocretary
Planning Commission
��(I-��
CITY OF SAN;LUIS,OBISPO r
Att-ra"ch-Tent 11
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: October 22,2008
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director 1],t:>.
FILE NUMBER: U 111-02
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1010 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Review of a new building for the Art Center located within the Downtown Historic
District and Special Consideration overlay zone (C-D-H-S).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends the City Council deny
the use permit based on findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The San Luis Obispo Art Museum would like to construct a new three-story building to replace
the existing structure. Due to the S-overlay zoning that was adopted through City Council
Ordinance No. 1514 (Attachment 5), the project requires review and approval of a use permit by
the Planning Commission and City Council in addition to the typical design review by the
Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission. The S-Overlay was
adopted to ensure that new structures and land uses are sensitive to the creek and designed in the
context of the historic district. In accordance with Ordinance 1514 "the Planning Commission
shall find that the design of structures shall be compatible and complementary to structures on
adjacent properties. Complementing the design of historic structures shall take precedent over
complementing design of other existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior
materials, roof treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic
structures:" What makes this use permit unique is that it crosses the boundaries between a
traditional land use request and design review. Rather than examining the land use, the Planning
Commission's role, will be to examine how the building meets the General Plan policies,
ordinance criteria and previous mitigation measures. Although this is normally the responsibility
of the ARC, the Ordinance and environmental review document that was prepared for the
rezoning of this property shifts a portion of the building design review to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
The modem architecture of the proposed new building is in the center of the review process.
Many City directives exist to preserve the historical character of the historic districts.
Furthermore, previous Council actions establish specific findings that must be made to support
General PIan policies and design guidelines that direct that the architecture on this site to be
complementary to and compatible with adjacent historical buildings. The Planning Commission
is being asked to determine whether the proposed architecture accomplishes this.
U 111-02
1010 Broad Attachment 11
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 1010 Broad
Applicant/Representative: SLO Art Center/Karen Kile, Russell Seacat
Zoning: C-D-H-S (Downtown Commercial-Historic-Special-Considerations)
General Plan: General Retail
Environmental Status: The project to construct a new Art Center building is exempt from
CEQA in accordance with section 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. An initial study of
environmental impact was prepared for review by the Planning Commission and City Council
during the rezoning of this property. A copy of the Resolution approving the initial study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been attached.
Existing Site
The Art Center leases approximately 8,445 square feet of a 1.3 acre parcel from the City of San
Luis Obispo that extends along the southerly side of Monterey Street and Mission Plaza from
Broad Street to Chorro Street (Attachments 1 and 2). The building is a two-story building that
responds to the sloping site adjacent to San Luis Creek. Its design is simple, with a masonry
block exterior and a low profile flat roof. The existing structure has been occupied by the Art
Center since 1967 with several remodels having taken place in the last 30 years. The building is
not currently listed either a Master List or Contributing historic resource. According to early
Sanborn maps the site was originally occupied by dwellings and sheds.
Project Description .
The existing 5,429 square foot single-story building would be removed and replaced with a new
50-foot tall, three-story plus building with approximately 23,000 square feet (Attachment 2). In
order to achieve the desired height and building design, the property was rezoned from Public
Facilities Historic (PF-H) to Downtown-Commercial Historic (C-D-H-S), effective May 2008.
The design of the building is contemporary with extensive glazing and exterior tile work.
Materials and colors are described as including stone veneer for the lower walls "recalling the
stonework at the base of the Mission." The applicant states that the upper walls would be a
smooth stone veneer in a light color "that mediates neighboring building colors, including the
Mission's white and the Carnegie Library's ochre." Windows would be clear view glass and
frosted spandrel glass in aluminum frames, and the hardscape would consist of textured and
pigmented concrete compatible with the "Mission Style" sidewalks. Approximately 8 trees
would be removed in order to develop the site. These trees include the olive trees that currently
line Monterey Street and several large pine trees that are currently located to the east of the
existing art center. The Sycamore trees adjacent to the creek bank are proposed to remain.
EVALUATION
Previous Review
On November 26, 2007, the CHC reviewed the project and recommended changes to the project n
� 1— IV .
U 111-02 ` ' - Attachment 11
1010 Broad
Page 3
for consistency with the General Plan and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The
applicants chose not to revise the project, and on May 27, 2008, the CHC reviewed the plans and
determined that the proposed new construction is not consistent with the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and General Plan Policies regarding new construction in historic districts
and recommended the ARC deny the project design. The ARC reviewed the project on July 14,
2008 and continued the project to a date uncertain asking for additional consideration as to how
the building meets the ground and asking for additional human scale to be incorporated in the
Broad and Monterey Street elevations. The ARC has determined that an exception to historical
architecture in this location is acceptable to promote another General Plan objective, the
Downtown as a hub for cultural facilities. The ARC also agreed with the applicant's assertion
that contrasting architectural styles can be desirable. Although the ARC determined that the
modern design was appropriate, they asked that the building's design complement the site's
historic setting(Attachment 6).
Since the ARC hearing in July, no changes have been incorporated into the project and the
applicants are now seeking approval of a use permit. Rather than continue to work with the
design approval through ARC, staff recommended that the project proceed to review the use
permit, since the use permit findings regarding compatibility with historic structures are strongly
tied to the design. If the City Council approves the use permit, the project will still need to return
to the ARC for a final review of the design details.
The Criteria for Review
The design of the proposed art center building must be evaluated for consistency with the
applicable City policies, ordinances and guidelines. In addition, the project shall be reviewed
with ordinance 1514 that was adopted for this property during the rezoning last year as well as
conforming to the mitigation measures for that ordinance. The city staff and advisory bodies are
NOT charged with determining what "good"design is. Rather they are charged with determining
and making recommendations on whether proposed development is consistent with the adopted
policies, ordinances and guidelines. There are many design solutions for a given site, some will
be consistent with the City's policies and ordinances, and some may not. A"good" design that is
not consistent with adopted policies and ordinances will be referred back to the applicant with an
explanation of what is inconsistent with the adopted policies and ordinances with the expectation
that it will be replaced with another"good"design that is consistent with the City standards. This
was done with the subject application.
Policies and Ordinances
The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project with Ordinance 1514, applicable General
Plan Policies, the Community Design Guidelines and the Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines. Policies are in italics followed by staff's response.
Ordinance 1514
Ordinance 1514 was approved by City Council to rezone the property from Public Facilities- to
Downtown Commercial with a Special Considerations (S) Overlay (Attachment 7). The .S
PAI-/-/y
U111-02 �_..� `__._J"
111-02Attachment 11
1010 Broad
Page 4
overlay requires the project to meet certain findings that are to be reviewed by both the Planning
Commission and City Council.
In addition to land use restrictions that are not relevant to the Art Center, the S-overlay includes
the following requirements:
1. A Planning Commission Use Permit shall be required for all new structures or substantial
remodels and additions to existing structures.
2. In reviewing the Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the design of
structures shall be compatible and complementary to structures on adjacent properties.
Complementing the design of historic structures shall take precedent over complementing
design of other existing buildings. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials, roof
treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
3. Maximum building height shall not exceed.50 feet as measured from average natural
grade.
4. Final design plans for the Art Center at 1010 Broad Street and the redevelopment of the
Lietcher Apartment site at 667 Monterey Street shall be subject to review and approval by
the City Council.
Evaluation:.
Through the adoption of these special criteria it is clear that the City Council has a significant
interest in ensuring that the design of this important property is consistent with City adopted
policies and guidelines. This process requires that both the Planning Commission and City
Council review the design in addition to the ARC and CHC. In order to make a recommendation
to approve the use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed building design
is consistent with items two and three above. As proposed the building is consistent with item
three since the height does not exceed 50 feet. However, the building design is not consistent
with item two. The applicant has testified that the building design is a high quality design that
creates its own mark on history. Although this may be true, the design does not complement the
design of the Carnegie Library, the Mission, or other historic residential structures on Monterey
Street. Instead, the proposed new building contrasts with these other buildings. The building's
mass is out of scale with the neighborhood and the lack of articulation on the Monterey and
Broad Street elevations does not contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. As
discussed in prior CHC and ARC hearings, the building could be modified to meet these
requirements. However, as of this time, the applicants have been reluctant to modify the building
design. As recommended by the ARC, changes to the building should be incorporated to
enhance its compatibility and increase the human scale at its public street frontage.
Mitigation Measure for Ordinance 1514
The rezoning of the property required staff to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the
project. One of the approved mitigation measures speaks to the City's Land Use Element. In
order to avoid conflicting with the environment, a project must be in conformance with City
General Plan Policies. Mitigation measure three addresses this potential issue:
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be
rezoned shall be compatible and complementary to existing significant historic
r.
U 111-02 Attachment 11
1010 Broad
Page 5
structures such as the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Leitcher apartment
building, and Master list historic residential properties on Monterey Street. The
Secretary of Interior standards, the City's Community Design Guidelines, and
General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic resources shall be closely
followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the
subject properties.
In addition to the Ordinance and policies noted earlier, the Commission will also need to
consider the adopted mitigation measure when making a recommendation to the City Council.
Compatible and Complementary Design
Ordinance 1514 and the mitigation measure adopted call for compatible and complementary
design. Making the required findings for the subject application requires that the new building be
"compatible and complementary" with adjacent historical buildings. Webster's Dictionary
defines "compatible" as being able to exist together in harmony. "Complementary" is defined as
something that makes another thing complete or perfect. The context for the current application
is a building in a historic district. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine and
recommend to the City Council whether the proposed modern architecture is in harmony with the
historic setting of the Downtown Historic District and adjacent historic buildings. In addition,
does the proposed building"complete"or make perfect the setting in which it will be placed.
General Plan Policies
Land Use Element policy 4.3 Entertainment and Cultural Facilities
"Cultural Facilities, such as museums, galleries, and public theaters should be
downtown...Locations outside of downtown may be more appropriate for facilities that would be
out of character or too big for downtown to accommodate comfortably... "
Evaluation:
The downtown is an ideal location for the Art Center. The Conceptual Physical Center for the
Downtown identifies this part of the downtown as a cultural facilities area. The Art Center use is
consistent with its location. An expanded art center can act as an anchor for the west end of
Mission Plaza, increasing pedestrian level activities and creating a vital cultural facility for the
downtown. However, the design is very important and a design that is too contrasting or
imposing would be better sited outside of the downtown historic district. As discussed in further
detail below, the intent of the downtown historic district is to protect existing historic buildings
and to guide new development so that it complements existing historic buildings.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4
"...New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the
form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings
which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. "
' . U 111-02
1010 Broad Attachment 11
Page 6
Evaluation:
The Art Center is located in the geographic center of the Downtown Historic District. The design
needs to reflect and complement adjacent Master List properties. The proposed design of this
new structure does not reflect the form, spacing or materials of the nearby historic buildings;
rather, it sets its own unique standard and style.
Although it is an exceptional design in its own merit, the design must also be compatible with
surrounding historic buildings in terms of massing, height; scale, and architectural detailing.
Nearby buildings include the Mission and associated adobe structures, the Carnegie Library,
residential dwellings that were constructed at the turn of the century, and commercial buildings
in the downtown that were constructed in the late 1800's. The Carnegie Library is constructed of
quarried stone and tile, nearby residences are plaster and tile, and the Mission is adobe, plaster
and tile. The predominant feature shared by these historic buildings is human scale doors and
windows. Instead of human scale doors and windows, the proposed building has wall planes and
windows that will extend up to 40 feet above the right of way. A human scale entry feature is not
clearly evident on the elevations. Instead, the tall wall planes appear to dwarf the pedestrian due
to the close proximity at the edge of the sidewalk.
The building design need not copy another historic design such as a Mission theme or Main
Street storefront design from the late 1800's, but should include the features identified above.
The current art center design includes large quantities of glazing, large unadorned wall planes,
curvilinear building features, and other proposed features that are not complementary to the
Downtown Historic District.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.5
In evaluating new public or private development, the City should identify and protect
neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing
or Master List historic properties.
Evaluation:
The City has identified the Downtown Historic District based on the contributing and Master List
properties found within its boundaries. This district is mixed, however its architectural style is
enhanced by the Carnegie Library, the Mission, nearby commercial storefronts from the late
1800's and several 1920's era residences on Monterey Street that are on the City's Master List of
Historic Resources. The Mission and the Camegie Library are probably two of the most
significant historic structures in the City and greatly contribute to the character of the Downtown
Historic District. In order to be consistent with General Plan policy, new primary structures
within the Downtown Historic District need to reflect these styles and the building materials
used. While attractive in its own right, the proposed building design does not respect the site's
historic context and is aesthetically incompatible with existing historic properties.
Community Design Guidelines
While the Community Design Guidelines are typically the review criteria utilized by the
Architectural Review Commission. However, in this case since design is the leading review
U 111-02
Attachment 11
1010 Broad
Page 7
criteria for the use permit, based on Ordinance 1514, the Planning Commission should look to
the Design Guidelines for policy guidance.
Chapter 4- Downtown Design Guidelines
"Many downtown buildings date from the late 19`h and early 20`h century. The plaza around
historic Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, including open portions of San Luis Obispo Creek,
is the venue for a variety of special events. Nowhere in the city is design more important."
Evaluation:
Chapter 4 of the Community Design Guidelines speaks specifically to the downtown. As
mentioned above, the area around the Mission Plaza and Creek are to be the venue for special
events. The Art Center building must relate to this area so as to reinforce its use for special
events. This can be done with porches, plazas, balconies or outdoor areas that face the plaza and
creek.
4.2 Design and Development Guidelines
B. Height, scale
1. The height and scale of new structures should complement existing adjacent buildings and
provide human scale and proportion.
Evaluation:
As evidenced by photo simulations provided by the applicants, the height and scale of the
proposed new building contrasts with adjacent structures and will appear out of proportion with
other buildings in the vicinity. Although the main structure of the Mission at a height of
approximately 35 feet is similar to the height of the proposed art center building, it is setback
from the roadway and Mission plaza. Additionally, the Carnegie Library site atop an elevated site
and is a prominent building, however its landscaped setbacks help it integrate with the site. The
proposed art center would be located at the back of sidewalk on both Broad and Monterey Street
and its height is approximately 50 feet. The building should provide additional setbacks,
especially at the second and third levels. The need for a third story should be closely examined,
and if found to be necessary, the top level should be reduced in size and accented by outdoor
decks that do not extend beyond the wall plan of lower levels.
C. Facade design. New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors,
entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features that complement
existing structures, without copying their architectural style.
Evaluation:
Although the exterior stone material of the proposed new building will be a color similar to some
nearby buildings, the style of the building, including window treatment and other architectural
features distinctly contrast with other buildings in the neighborhood. Other buildings in the
vicinity (such as the Carnegie Library) that use a stone material, use a roughly quarried stone,
while the art center proposes a smooth, precision cut stone material that does not complement the
vicinity. Aluminum trimmed windows proposed on the Art Center are much larger than those
found on adjacent buildings and are similar to those found on a contemporary retail storefront
with sections of frosted glazing. Windows on historic buildings are generally smaller with
gsmall
U 111-02 Attachment 11
1010 Broad
Page 8
divisions and wood or steel framing. Some of the architectural features of the art center,
including the curvilinear "tower" feature are clad in a metal finish that will contrast the organic
finish found on many historic buildings in the vicinity. Other features that are characteristic of
historic buildings are dominant front entry doors and articulated, recessed entries. Downtown
historic buildings often include crenulated parapets at the roof, transom windows and extensive
ornate detailing. The proposed art center instead relies on artistic architecture as a visual
statement,rather than a building that has ornate detailing or human scale.
Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped rooflines with
parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or curvilinear lines, or large pointed or
slanted rooflines should generally be avoided.
Evaluation:
The building has a predominantly flat roofline. The delineation of the roof line lacks detail and
ornamentation found in the historic buildings downtown; in addition, the wall planes contain
round and curvilinear features that conflict with the desired overall character for this vicinity.
Buildings such as the Mission, the Cam_egie Library, and other nearby historic properties do not
contain such curvilinear features.
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines D. 2. New Construction Projects.
"New primary structures within Historical Preservation Districts should further promote the
historic 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 these styles and building forms should be included
in the new structure and it should complement the architectural character of the area. "
Evaluation:
As mentioned in the guidelines above, the new structure does not have to match the style of.
surrounding structures; however, it should complement and be compatible with them in terms of
form, spacing and materials. The CHC reviewed the project for compliance with these guidelines
and voted 4-2 to recommend that the ARC deny the proposed new art center design.
Environmental Review
Although the redevelopment of the existing site is exempt from environmental review in
accordance with Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial
study was prepared when the property was rezoned from Public Facilities (PF) to Downtown
Commercial (C-D). The initial. study resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration that was
approved by City Council via Resolution 9975 (Attachment S).
Summary
As noted earlier, this staff report evaluates the proposed new Art Center building with respect to
U 111-02 Attachment 11
1010 Broad
Page 9
the goals, policies and guidelines of the City that control new development. In particular, the City
adopted specific conditions and a mitigation measure for a new building at this site that are
consistent with the City's policies and guidelines. Staff's application of these directives to the
proposed building concludes that the new building does not follow the scale, form and design
theme of the nearby historic buildings. However, decisions involving compatibility and
complementary architecture involve subjectivity. What may be harmonious to one person may
not be harmonious to another. Also, what it takes to complete the historic setting of the Arts
Center may be different for different people. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may
disagree with the staff conclusion because community values are a factor in this decision. It is the
role of the City Council, with the advice of the Planning Commission and its other advisory
bodies, to make this value decision for the residents of the City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Refer the item back to the ARC with specific recommendations on design changes that
are needed to comply with Ordinance 1514, General Plan Policies, and the mitigation
measure adopted with Resolution 9975.
2. Approve a resolution to recommend the City Council approve the use permit based on
findings and subject to conditions. The Planning Commission may wish to create
conditions that will allow the project to more closely comply with applicable policies.
Attached:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale project drawings
3. Applicant project description/letter
4. Ordinance 1514
5. Resolution 9975
6. ARC action letter,July 14, 2008
7. Resolution recommending denial of the use permit.
GACD-PLAWdunsmore\Use Permits\I 11-02(ART Center 1010 Broad)\U 111-02(1010 Broad).doc
U-7-1��55�
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 12
Davidson, Doug
From: Mandeville, John
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:44 AM
To: Davidson, Doug; Dunsmore, Phil
Subject: FW: Art Center" design and siting
Please include the following email from Ken Schwartz in the Council agenda report package when the
Art Center goes before the Council.
From: Kenneth Schwartz [mailto:kschwartz25@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 07/25/08 8:02 PM
To: Carter, Andrew
Subject: Art Center" design and siting
Hi Andrew,
Sorry it has taken me a bit of time to get back to answering your two questions about the Art Center: (1)
Design, and (2) Appropriateness of site. Permit me to answer in reverse order.
2.Appropriateness of Site
This site could not be more appropriate! In fact, I can think of no better site to forward the City's intent
to develop an expanded cultural center as described in A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center(often refered to as the "Downtown Concept Plan") adopted by the City Council as a "guide" for
the physical development of Downtown. I recommend you read (or re-read) the City's intent as
expressed on the back side of the Downtown Concept Plan in the section describing what should done to
shape development in "Area 0."
I find it immensely interesting to have heard Debra Cash, as spokesperson for the Downtown
Association, speak before the CHC and the ARC in favor of the proposed Art Center design and location
as an important component to the on-going development of a viable Downtown. Andrew, you have no
concept of the huge turn-around this new DTA position represents. At long last, (it seems like an
eternity to me) the business community is awakening to the very positive interaction that can - and will
occur when business and cultural activies are encouraged to exist side by side and interact
synergistically. The City Council would be greatly remiss in failing to understand the value of the
significant opportunity this turnaround means for our downtown:
Consider too, that this site is City owned and leased to the Art Center for a buck a year. That the
Art Association is a private, non-profit organization which has offered cultural activities that have
enriched our lives and those of our visitors with virtually no City support save the lease of the land.
Contrast this to the millions of dollars the City has spent and the thousands of dollars it continues to
spend to support the performing arts in a facility outside of our City.
I urge you to also read(on the backside of the Concept Plan, the three-column section titled: "City
Projects and Related Property Acquisitions," especially, items#5 and# 16a,b,c. This is where the Ciy's
flowers should be planted; this is why I voted for the half-cent sales tax increase.
1. Design of the Center
8/7/2008
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 12
I believe the proposed design for the Art Center is terrific! As an architect myself and a University
Professor of Architecture for 36 years, during which most of my teaching time was spent teaching and
critiquing architectural design, I can recognize that any architect given this commission would likely
have come up with a slightly different solution to the problem. That is the nature of architecture. But
that begs the question. The Art Association developed a program for its spatial needs in a very workman
like manner. There was interaction between the"building committee" and the membership to refine that
program before selecting an architect who'it believed was best qualified to develop an appropriate
building design at a scale appropriate to the specific building site and that site's location in the San Luis
Obispo Community. (This process is not unlike what our City does in selecting its expert consultants.) I
might add here that this process required an angonizing decision to be taken. After considerable
analysis and debate, a determination was made that the existing Art Center- a composit of an existing
building and several additions - could not be remodeled to accomodate the new spatial requirements and
the circulation patterns needed. The existing Art Center had to be razed and a completely new building
erected. This is a huge undertaking.
I was privileged to sit in on the initial presentation by the Art Center's architect. I thought the architects'
response was very, very good, but not without criticisms from the Art Center membership. These
critiques were taken into account and revisions made which is the normal course of events in any
architectural commission. I have to say at this point that I cannot think of another client whose
membership would have the collective design expertise and understanding of the "language of vision"
than that of a group of artists. Form, proportion, scale, balance, color; texture, solids and voids, light,
shade and shadows, etc., etc., yet the Art Association was able to coalesce and agree on the architects'
refined proposal; the membership agreed the final design not only met their spatial needs but also their
need to have an Art Center of beauty.
My own design philosophy leans heavily on "form follows function" theory. I see the Art Center's
architects have closely followed that design philosophy. The form of the building follows the
relationship that must exist within the building to make it function efficiently and economically. The
forms have been derived honestly and have not been forced into some preconceived idea of what some
other Art Center may look like or another form that apes some preconceived architectural style whether
classical or contemporarty. It is a "clean" design free of applied googaws. This will be a unique
building that will add to the uniqueness of San Luis Obispo as a community where diversity in our lives
and our surroundings is appreciated, admired and saluted.
Andrew, in closing, I hope you might remember our chat of several months ago when I was critical of
the priorities your Council selected for this fiscal year. I gave you the example of the Greek philosopher
who spoke of the value of spending one of two coins for food to satisfy one's stomach and the second
coin for flowers to satisfy one's soul. You promised to buy more flowers. Supporting the proposed Art
Center design and its location is an excellent way for you to keep your promise.
I hope this helps you, Ken Schwartz
8/7/2008
Attachment 13
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY PROGRAM
GUIT TO WISTORIC ARC11IIFOft STYO
IN SAN LUIS OBISM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
990 PALM ST,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
(805) 544-9733
Attachment 1.3
REFERENCES
l
BLUMENSON, JOHN J.G., IDENTIFYING AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE. AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION FOR STATE AND LOCAL HISTORY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, 1977
CITY OF OAKLAND PLANNING, DEPARTMENT, REHAB RIGHT, JUNE, 1978
TONELLO, GREG, THE ARCHITECTURE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. ARCHITECTURE
DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA., 1982
WHIFFEN, MARCUS, _AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE SINCE 1780 A GUIDE TO THE
STYLES, THE MIT PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, 1981
i
��( 1-59
I t'
1 Attachment 13
Architectural Supplement
The following section contains an inventory of architectural details to be used in describing
buildings. Select the detail on the inventory sheet that most closely resembles the same detail on the
building. A single architectural detail may have many variations, some of which may not be shown
on the inventory sheet; therefore, do not let the drawings limit your choice. Each item on the form
should be marked with only one answer,unless a multiple choice answer is specifically indicated.
40 PLACEMENT WITH OTHER BUILDINGS Is ten ham directly
r 4boe1
a
EM
1. BUILDING 2. ONE SIDE - 3.ON END OF A ROW OF BUILD- 4. BETWEEN OTHER BUILDINGS S.WITHIN A GROUP OR COMPLEX S. OTHER
STANDS ALONE AGAINST INGS(OF SAME OR DIFFERENT IN A ROW SURROUNDED OR ATTACHED ON
BUILDING STYLESI SEVERALEIDES {EXAMPLE:
-41 PLAN_ I no come Inspe o I the building IndWfns wine jew EEditjWW 41 twn f1e_m W m. Ugt the closest one—
don't } owl MMII
or
13 L U 0 man
1.SQUARE 2. RECTAN. 1 CENTER 4. LSHAPE 6.TSHAPE S.USNAPE 7. NSHAPE 8.CROSS- B. IRREOULAP 10. POLYGONAL
GULAR SPACE AXIAL
0
11, CIRCULAR 17. OTHER
42 STORIES— The rsamba of floors in ai building etiov4 the', wit(flocs Wow or within the roof Kne count as half smried. .
Sanw buildingshere a meW portion of the bsoNnent Woe pound W40—do not contuse thh with the tint story.
Qr..tray 0
rranr 1r®-tel
r.e.n
O1pB1p`a"t1 1. UNKNOWN 2. 1STORY 3 1%STORIES • S►LITLEVEL S. IPRONT 0. 7FRONT 7. 2STORIES
2 REAR 1REAR
S. 7%STORIES B. 3STORISS 10. 2118TORISS 11.4STORIES 12.BORMORE -1S. IRREGULAR 14. OTHER
43 BASEMENT
1. NONE 2.UNKNOWN 3 BASEMENT 4,.GROUND LEVEL BASEMENT 6:OTHER
PRESENT SUNDER ELEVATED MAIN
FLOOR$
FOUNDATION MATERIAL
I. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3 WOOD 4. smNE 6.CONCRETE BLOCK 8. POURED 7.BRICK 8.OTHER ....
CONCRETE
P1f1 66
1 �
Attachment
EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL
I lams 45 to 51 rater,to matertais that Cowl the oulude wells-sametlrnea more than one tvpap used. Mark env 400roOnats m4triels lucent when thav aooem lust m vnall
area such as porches.Chtm""I",atC I f the origirdU momial IS Cows OWN,w"m plarter or tome Other ihYming ants underlving material is unknown,mark unknown
and mate appropriate tahasthmg material in Item 52.
46 EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL- WOOD Multiple aloe.
flu I
a )1/
1 NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1 ROUGH LOG 4. SHAPED, S. HALF•TIMBE 6. SMOOTH.FLUSH BOARDS OR 7. SNIPLAP B. VERTICAL
(SMOOTH)LOG m000 a PUNKS BOARD AND
PLASTER( BATTEN
9. OVERLAP- 10. STICK 11. PANELOR 12.PLAIN 13 PATTERN[ ti. PATT[II O 16. OTHER
PING BOARDS STYLE PLYWOOD SHINGLE SHINGLE�(FIBH 9HINOLE
ICLAPBOAAOS. .SCALE(' tOTH[R D[BIGN
ETC)
48 EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL STONE Numper dmmm Ibo not ind111de IRell rel of stone,used in Corclla,akhror chmuwva,atCl
e
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3.FIELDSTONE 4. COBBLE S. SHALE OR 0. RUBBLE(IRREGULAR ROCK /. JUT STONE IMAM BE SMOOTH OR ROUGH
iLARGE IRREG. (SMOOTH SLATE BROKEN TO FIT ROUGHLY( SURFACE-DONT CONFUSE WITH BRICK)
ULAR ROCKS) ROUNDED
ROCKS FROM
_ STREAM BECU
B. COMPOSITION 9. OTHER
STONE(MANU_
FACTTJRED
47 EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL-ADOBE OR OTHER EARTH AWMipJ,CJwie,
I
. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1 ApOBE 4. TAMPED OR 500 A TURP 0.OTHER
. 13LP OR1Eof RAMMED
EARTH 6.
48. EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL-BRICK.TILE,OR COMPOSITION MuroprChow
I. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1 3. COMPOSITION(ASPHALT) 4. PLASTER OR S. ASBESTOS B. TILE 7. BRICK 6. OTHER
SHINGLE OR SHEET nNCLUDES STUCCO SIDING
TARPAPEP.a'MITATION BRICK
'g.:1
49 EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL=BRICK OR ADOBE COURSING MuhrpbChOip Match the pattern of the brCksoi adobe block row,to thorn mown
in the illustration -
Narrow Narrow Npt,w
Wide' WNa
Whoa
1 NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3. HEADER 4. STRETCHER S. ENGLISH BOND(ALTERNATING 6. FLEMISH BONO(NARROW 6 7:COMMON BOND(WIDE ROME
BOND BOND (ALL ROVM OP NARROW AND WIDE) WIDE ALTERNATE WITHIN THE SEPARATED BY OCCASIONAL
WIDE) SAME ROW( I NARROW ROW)
l
w Nwr,w
S. GARDEN 9. OTHER .
WALL
. � Attachment 1 �
50 EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL-CONCRETE Nu/nperoeofaa
I
vim
1. NOW 2. UNKNOWN 2. POURED ISMOOTH OR WITH l PLAIN BLOCK,S.SIMULATED 6 PRECAST PANEL(PLAIN OR 7.OTHER
EXPOSED PEBBLES) STONE BLOCK SHAPED)
ICAST STONE)
51 EXTERIOR WALLMATERIAL-METALORGLASS Numpleav&r
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1 METAL SHEET(CORRUGATED. a. METAL 5.ALUMINUM S.CAST IRON 7.GLASS S.GLASS WALL 9. OTHER
RIBBED OR FLAT) PANEL IFRAM.L SIDING BLOCKS
ING VISIBLE) I -
I R SHEATHING NuRipHOi04" OriylruN wel Rieesrlal ao-0 with a diffarant type of mawrilll(ahwthing). Examples: r own
6riek wall aktrnk um sldovw n clanboard wall.
.
I. NONE 2.UNKNOWN 1 wo0p a. TILE OR S PLASTER CR !.STONE' 7. BRICK 8. METAL B.COMPOSITION 10. COMPOSITI
TERRACOTTA STUCCO (ASPHALT (IMITATION
SHINGLE.TAR- STONE)
R
11. OTHER
53 WALL DESIGN AND DETAIL hllih/pp amies Design of malor Barts of the building's wells. Saetions 3.5 Brow eta M I the Wm mon
DUKI one Rory Or m8Y D.MINOW from floor to floor a In a multistoried building.
Q
Q � -
1. NONE 2.UNKNOWN 13. RECESSED PANEL MRTN OR 14*WALL SECTIONS SEPARATED6.SOUAREVERTICAL PILLARS B. QUOINS-STONELIKE BLOCKS
WITHOUT WIN DOPIB;.TOP PLAT By EMBEDDED ROUND COLUMNS CONNECTED BY HORIZONTAL ARRANGED VERTICALLY AT
OR ARCHED - OR SQUARE PILLARS CROSS PANELS - BUILDINO CORNERS
7. ENO BOARD B. HORIZONTAL ORNAMENTED_ B. PLAIN OR 10.ARCHED OR STEPPEOCORBE 11. OTHERS
AT BUILDING OR PLAIN BAND-OPTENWITH DECORATED IND ISUPPORTS PROJECTING
CORNERS SHELF B BRACKETS AT OR NEAR HORIZONTAL BAND ABOVE WINDOWS OR
THE ROOF LINE RANO BETWEEN NEAR ROOF LINE)
FLOOR LEVEL!-
i`
' A^r,i '�i W a".b r,•,N.,� t, S�ssrnl
f ��. .:'c r M� t IIIII■
�.-� Z-^�►��..t j } _ ;��ff� � rty`t S' � ��4r' ��: _ •w .C1.7r'" '�'y4i� r>}n+t, rn 1
r '� '�. �` •: y'4
t. '>'1. -^+r �'=�„+ t...- "'�r�ityJ�:i k+/�j�F .l,✓.1 '4` ,K :ii'�-n tl
• P /'
-.Lt,
Fo
RA, `! a '�Cf�ra
GAMBREL X. SHED 27. SALTWx 28. FALSE 79. ESPAOAi;A 30. FLAT
IF ONn FRONT
... '•y � rte. !T� �.- > .v � -thj .. '::` j 't. Y'�*+�r• -.. .mak- .���.--
`�'*4 t e C'^ C c ♦' 7MrM,ayVJ el +
'do
,.Y r, . '.: ,:.Y.. .. r r.Y,r'J,:,��
31. SAWTOOTH 32. A-FRAME 33. MONITOR 34. Dome 31L 66NICAL VAULTED
Ovow.19T 1530,-T STEEPLE 39. STEEPLE 140. STEEPLE
EDGE ALONG FLUSHWITH OUTFROM
9 GLASS 10. CONCRETV
CHIMNEY ONE CHIMNEY
I
�I
Attach - t 1
The following illustration shows the lontiom of Darn of the building discussed in Items Be through 81.
�-DORMER
CORNICE
GABLE end of building
8ARGEBOARD EAVES-horizon I edge of roof
rated or sawn
attedld to dpe of roof \ .-FASCIA-flat board covering rafter ends
SOFFIT-board covering underside of area
-FRIEZE- flat' against wall under awes,either plain or decorated
CORNICE
Proisotad ares at too of well;a decorated treatment of
the eaves
58 DORMER SHAPE A dormer it a window ora louvered vent section which projects above the slope of the roof.
1 NONE 2 UNKNOWN ]. GAS NO a. GABLE WITH S. GABLE.WITH S. GABLE WITH 7.CURVED S.STEPPED 9. MISSION 10. OECORATEO
OVERHANG OVERHANG RETURN PEOIM!NT PEDIMENT GAB'_E STYLE CABLE GABLE
_U6� I
tl. SWEPT 12. HOODED 11 HIPPED te. HIPPED 16. 6ABLET 1B.SHED 17. BAY 18. TRIANGU- 19. GAMBREL 20. MANSARD
GABLE
LAR
0
21 VICTORIAN 23 VICTORIAN 23. OTHER
SEGMENTAL ROUND
59 ROOF TRIM-EAVES This dell with the area Whete the e�wdD�e of Me roof meets the too of the walls. There are many variations of the basic types:
Of the example which most ebsaly resembles the eaves of the building
I NONE 2. UNKNOWN 0. CLOSE a. EAVES PRO. L EAVES PRO. & CORNICE 7. FRIEZE B.PROJECTING 9. FASCIAANO 10.CORNICE
EAVES JECTING.NO JECTING.RAFT- RASCIA ALONE ALONE EAVES AND FRIEZE WITH FASCIA
RAFTERS ERS EXPOSED FRIEZE AND BRACKETS
EXPOSED
11 PLAIN BO%EO CORNICE 12. DECORATE 10. BOXED lt. BOXED CORNICE.SLOPED 15. BOXED 16. BOXED CORNICE,WITH 17. BOXED
fEAVE380%ED IN,RAFTER ENOS 80XE0 COR- CORNICE SOfF1T8 FRIEZE CORNICE,WITH IIEZE d BRACKETS CORNICE.
ENCLOSED] NICE SLOPED BRACKETS PLAIN.FRIEZE
SOFFIT PLAIN
/ w
w
BOXED 19.DECORATED 20. DECORATED 31. BARGE• 22 PLAIN 2S.CRENE4 M IApgPET 23. PARAPET 28. OTHER 27. OTHER
CORNICE. BOXED CORN] 9OXEDTORNI 80Ap0 PARAPET IWAL LATED(CASTEL WITH ENTAB• WITH BALLUS• PARAPET EAVES
FRIEZE FRIEZE PLAIN -FRIEZE DECO. AROUND EDGE LATEDI I.ATURE TRADE
DECORATED RATED OF ROOF) PARAPET
1 1-
I
Attachment 13
f
ROOf TRIM—GABLE END AW/14018Choice Applies Doty to rook baring gables(area formed by the I ling dt the iMgI*d part of a pitched Toot and the e%tMlar
wells). If the gable trim is similar throughout,choose one gable and mark.the number of the drawing which n Clown.
If the bulldilq has several pblas With different trim,YOU May Choose mare than one dlustratlal.
I i (\000 I
-1 NONE�2. UNKNOWN ], EDGE OF [ EDGE OF 3 EDGE OP ROOF PRO•IECTING� e,aLA(N BOXE 7, OECORa7ED B. ROOK EDGES I
ROOF CLOSE TOI HOOF,vpOJE CT- WITH BOARDS ATTACHED AT i CORNICE BOXED CORNICE)PROJECTING.
WALL ING.NOOECO• ROOF EDCE WITH FnIEZE
RATION
♦ a
0 I •
9 ROOF EDGES PROJECTING 10. PLAIN 11. DECORATE 12- BOXED CORNICE WITH 13. PLAINSOXEOCORNICE WITH I L, DECORA7E0 BOXED
WITH ENOBOAR DS IAS IN NO.51 j BOXED CORNIC tioxED COANIC 8RACKETS(WITH OR WITHOUT EAVES EXTENDING PARTLY CORNICE WITH EAVES EXTEND.
FRIEZE WITH FRIEZE WITH egIEZE. FRIEZE) I AgOUNO CORNER)WITH OR I ING'P4RTLY AROUND CORNER
- I WITHOUT FRIEZE) _ )WITH OR WITHOUT FRIEZE)
I i 1
� l
I I '
15- PEDIMENT. IB. BARGE• q.GABLED 18. STEPPED 19:OECORATEDI 20. ESPADAPYA 2t. OTHER
ED BOXED SOAROICAAV• PARAPET "PARAPET PARAPET
CORNICE ED OR SAWN ISTV�LEIN
(PLAIN OR 1 ENO BOARDS) r
DECORATED i
61 ROOF TRIM- SPECIALFEATURES MutripleChoics, Choow n many of this folluwrng features which are found on or now the roof.- -
I I � III11i
�- 1. NONE .2. UNKNOWN ]. CUPOLA a. WIDOWS S. FINIAL. S. CRESTING 7. PENDANT 8. MONUMENTAL PEDIMENT 9. ROOF
IOPEN OR WALK IMETAL OR (USUALLY OVER MAIN FLAGPOLE
CLOSMO WOOD) ENTRANCE)
I
10, STICKWORK IN THE GABLEIL .µADDITIONCABLESfATTACHED TO ROOF EDGE. I (PLAIN12. WEATHER 13, OTHER
OT WALL) N OR DECORATED) VANE -
I
For Items 62 mrOUgn 69 select a Window whj h aupeen to W the MGA Character lstu:Or Tort frequently/ipeated - -
type througnaut this session. Note that lois 11 nota mult,gle Choice section—choose the elements whiCh most CtOnly ese bls thou n he window You have window
chosen. -
' $nuCtuni opening J,+ue
\ Detail surrounding structural
opening
Panna
Sash
(Frame work which holds
glass panni
sill
(horiaorital ledge at
the One of the window)
.1
(
,LOCATION OF MAIN TYRE OF W INDOW Whig Story n the.IOC)tldn of the repesentativa window Chosen for this pan of the inventory?
1 NONE 12,UNKNOWN I 2. aASEMENT • FAST STORY S. SECOND S. THIRD OR
i S�OAY HIGHER
AttachLent1 .
�
63 WINDOWS-STRUCTURAL OPENING SHAPE The shape of the opening in the well in which the window is placed. May Contain more than one wmdow.
n n � n
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN J. FLAT 4. FLATWITH S. SEGMENTAL 0.SEMI- 7. SEMI /. 4-CENTER 9. 7GENTER IO.PARABUII
ROUND ELUPTICAL CIRCULAR OGEE POINTED
CORNERS
11.TRIANGU- 17. OTHER '
LAR
64 WINDOWS-SURROUNDING DETAIL OF TOP OF STRUCTURAL OPENING There M mtny variations-SONCt the 0110 whiCh is most similar to the
win ow on.the buildim.
ri
n��Z'
� 'f e --n
TTf H BM
I. NONE - 7. VNKNOWN 7. PLAIN 4, VK:TOg1AN S. MOLDED 6. CONTINUOUS 7. PLAIN 8. OECORA740 9.SHAPED 10. LABEL
MOLDING DECORATED TRIM TRIM ABOVE- LINTEL LINTEL LINTEL
TRIM(MANY
VARIAT10NS1
FF
11.FLAT WITH 17. FLAT OR ARCHED WITH ay FL.OR ARCH.WITH RADIAT- 14.FC OR ARCH IS.FL.OR ARCH 16.PLAIN-OR 17. PLAIN OR MOLDED ARCH
BRICKS OR RADIATING BRICKS OR STONES 1NG BRICKS OR STONES AND . WITHALTER• WITHSTEPPED - MOLDED ARCH TRIM WITH CENTER KEYSTONE
STONESSET CENTER KEYSTONENATWG RAOI• RADIATING TRIM
VERTICALLY ATING BRICKS BRICKS OR
OR STONES STONES
ze1'
I
18, SHELF 19.TRIANGU• 211SEGMENTAL 21. DOUBLE 22.BROKEN 27. Ig04WITH OR WITHOUT 24. CURVED HOOD,WITH OR 26.OTHER
LAR PEDIMENT PEDIMENT CURVED PEDIMENT BRACKETS WITHOUT BRACKETS .
PEDIMENT
66 WINDOWS-SURROUNDING DETAIL OF SIDES OF STRUCTURAL OPENING
I '4
I
I. NONE 2. UNKNOWN J. PLAIN 4. MOLDED 5.TILED 6. QUIONS 7. ROUND OR I.OTHER 9. OTHER
TRIM TRIM FLATCOLUMNS DECORATED
ATTACHEOTO TRIM
WALLSURFACE
66 WINDOWS-DETAIL AT BOTTOM OF STRUCTURAL OPENING(SILLS)
U
I NONE 2. UNKNOWN 7.SLIPSILL 4. LUGSILL I. DECORATED DECORATED 7.CONTINUOUS S. OTHER
(EVEN WITH (EMENDS BE- SUPSILL LU8. GSILL SILL
SIDESOF YONOSIDES
OPENING OF OPENINGI
1 r
Attachm' mt 1
67 WINDOWS:—DIVISION This semen is concerned With the divilidn of the window into[ashes. Oc not oe concerne0 with window movement or othnmq—
the ushearflay or may.not be moveable.
ID [D
1NONE 3.]UNKRCVM ONE SASH {. 2SASH S. 1 SASH E. ZSASH a 7. 3 SASH DIVIDED vERT7CAlLr B. 2SASN Orv10E0 VERTICALLY
TRANSOM TRANSOM SEPARATED I AN UPRIGHT
BAR,
9. lOR MORE SASHES DIVIDED to. ON OR MORE.SASHES WITH I1.
VERTICALLY IWITMOR WITHOUT GLASSSIOEPANELS OTHER
UPRIGHT DIVIDING BARS)
68 WINDOWS—OPENING MOVEMENT
1. NON! 3. UNKNOYIIN 3. DOUBLE a. CASEMENT S. HINGED AT B. PIVOTED 7.HORIZONTAL S. FIXED(DOES 9. OTHER
HUNG MUOES (OPENS OUT. TOP OR SUOING NOT OPEN)
N ANO DOWNI WARO PROM BOTTOM
69" WINDOWS—WINDOW PAN Gen"ally.most windows are divided into u
QpeTind Ower canes,Or right and IetL MNK I MIS n the CJfa(Ofine wtnQpYyypU
here the. wing Otroughout tbn section,idahOfy ma number of panes Iglau Panelfl in me tuh or sashes. It the window her only
one 7M1,mark the a00rdOr""a numb"of panes in$action A and"none"for Section S.
Ai UPPER SASH OR LEFT SASH
1, NONE 3. UNKNOWN 3. ON F a. TWO S. THREE
e. FOUR 7. FIVEI t 8.Six 19.SEVEN 10. EIGHT
i
II NINE' 117, TEN 11 MORE THAN 14. OTHER
7!N
8 LOWER SASH OR RIGHT SASH
1 NON! I. UNKNOWN 3. 71Y0
S. THRs! e. POUp 7 FIVE B. six 9. SEVEN 10. EIGHT
I NINE t7."TEN 13. MORE THAN N. OTHER
TEN
70 SPECIAL WINDOW SHAPES_ Multio/a Choice .The Illustt"Ions outline the shap s of any 10eeW or ornamental winoowi, They may be Iocand
a vYw On the buddi
NONE :. UNKN7CD
OWN 3. ROUND {, HALF. S. GUAM TE R• - "
ROUND I ROUND a POLYGONAL 7. ELLIPTICAL S. HALF. 9, EYEBROW 10. GOTHIC
ELLIPTICAL
I
' O
I
n TRIANGULA 17, SEMI 13. OVAL 1{, PALLAOIANI 1B. OTHER
TOP CIRCULAA TOPI .
PH 6 7-
I L
71. SPECIAL WINDOW TYPES-• MAWIp!a 6»orn May be located mywhwe on the building.
I,
1
I. NONE ] UNKNOWN ]. OUATREF0IL0 VARIATIONS a,OUATREPOIL E. SULLSEVE B.STAINEDOLASE,GEOMETRIC I. OPALESCENt
(STAR( (COLORED SOUAREB s RECTAN- PARENTI STAINED GLA,SSRANS
GLEE) (PASTEL IESIUNS,OFTEN
8. STAINED GLASS SCENE B. LEADED GLASS.LATTICE 10..ROSE 11. OTHER
WERSONS,BIROS,SHIPS. (DIAMOND SHAPED PANES WINDOW(ROUND
LANDSCAPE,ETC,) SEPARATED BY LEAD STRIPS) CHURCH_WIN• .
DOW(
Itamr 72 through 81 deal with the main antnry or doorway o}tM building. Generally matt buildings will have one main entrance;however,some buildings.
etpeaal larva public OliiWinpA may haw more than one mein'allVmo. You should wlaa the one WOWM which appear to be most typical and re
ooff ttMM aa1l��rtyle of
the buildilC then we that one doorway throughout this section. praantetiva
KEYSTONE Derail arrounding
Datell surroulwding Rrueturol opening
rtruaturn,openuhg STRUCTURAL OPENING
TRANSOM ` '.
(Curved or recangulNl
z,�a
STRUCTURAL OPENING
SIDE PANELS i DOORWAY t \
STRUCTURAL OPENING
� yf
I/ xk
\, DOOR PANEL
72 MAIN DOOR LOCATION Locate the main doorway. Note that item j.8 deal Only With buildings that
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 0, MAIN ODOR a, rAIN OOOp B. MORE THAN 6 CENTER 7.DOOR OFF S. MORE THAN B. MORE THAN ONE MAIN'
IN CENTER OFF CENTER ONE DDDR, DOOR CENTER ONE DOOR BUILDING FACE WITH DOOR
GABLE END GABLE END GABLE END WAYIS)IMAY FACE ON DIFFER
ENTSTREETS)
10. CORNER 11. OTHER
DOORWAY(S)
\ r
_ Attachment 1,
M MAIN DOOR—STRUCTURAL OPENING SHAPE Deals with the OWN Of me OPWOng in Ole Wall in WNIeh the door is Placed. May contain more than one door.
-7- --n
4WINDOOR
KNOWNl FLAT A.FLATWIT/ S.SEGMENTAL S.SEMI• 7.SEMI• B.LCENTER 9. 2GENTER 10. PARABOLIC
ROUND ELLIPTICAL CIRCULAR OGEE POINTED
CORNERS
THER
ROUNDING DETAIL OF TOP OF STRUCTURAL OPENING Thee are litany variations-Mi Ina one wh Oh is most similar
ry the mein door of me building
I
An,
„. 1 a
n nri �- JM7jr
� �
I NONE Z. UNKNOWN M (LAIN 4 VICTORIAN S. MOLDED S. CONTINUOUS T. (LAIN
MOLDING DECORATED TRIM 8. DECORATED 9.SHAPEO 110. LABEL
TRIM(MANY TRIM ABOVE LINTEL LINTEL LINTEL
VARIATIONS)
f 1.FLAT WITH 12. FLAT OR 11 FLAT OR ARCHED WITH 1A, FLAT QR ARCHED WITH IS. FLAT OR ARCHED WITH I8. PLAIN OR 17.PLAIN OR
BRICKSOR ARCHED WITH RADIATING BRICKS OR STONES ALTERNATNG RADIATING STEPFEO.RAOIAT)NO BRICKS I MOLDED ARCH I MOLDED ARCH
STONESSET RADIATING AND CENTER KEYSTONE BRICKS OR STONES OR ETONE$ TRIM TRIM ED A CEN.
VERTICALLY BRICKS OR
STONO TER KEYSTONE
i
O.
1E. SHELF 19. TRIANGU. 20.SEGMENTAL Z1.000BLE 22. BROKEN Il HOOD.WITH OR W/TNQUT 2A. CURVED HOOD.WITH OR
LAN FEDI- MOIIaCNT CURVED PEDIMENT BRACKETS 25.OTHER
HENT PEDIMENT WITHOUT BRACKETS
75 MAIN DOOR -SURROUNDING DETAIL OF SIDES OF STRUCTURAL OPENING
111111
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN l PLAIN a, MOLDED 5. TILEDI a. QUOINS 7. ROUND OR FLATCOLUMNS 8. OTHER 9. OTHER
TRIM TRIM ATTACHED TO WALL SURFACE I DECORATED
TRIM
78 MAIN DOOR -DOORWAY TYPE Ocllrway is tMaha inside the structural opmmg In the wall•between the door itself and me edge of tr
the structural o0ening. The doorway may be flush with the OXTIPI r wary,or may be fes back from me s matmmaterielemateriel surrounding
of the wall
Fro 11772re [A
1, NONE I 1 UNKNOWN l PLAIN(FLUSH OR RECESSED A. DECORATED IFLUSN WITH S. FIAT COL IL FLIT COL• 7. ROUND 8. ROUND
Ilf WITH WALL) WALL OR RECESSED) UMNB ATTACH.
LIMNS AT COLUMNS COLUMNS
ED FLUSH WrTH ED.RECESSED ATTACHED ATTACHED.
WALL BACK FROM FLUSH WITH RECESSED SACK
OUTSIDE WALL WALL FROM OUTSIDE
WALL
9. OTHER
A
29
Att2ahmpanf
L
77 MAIN DOORWAY—SIDE PANELS Thai item dncitin the wood(blind)or glass panels which are adNant to the door within S't"6n
Choose the illustration which mon clmely resembles the side oeriala of the building main doorway.
1. NON! 2. UNKNOWN 2.BLIND(NO a.SOME OR ALL S. PANEL ON ONE SIDE ONLY, 6 OTHER
GLASSI SIOE PANELS EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT GLASS
HAVE GLASS
78. MAIN DOORWAY—TRANSOM PANELS A transom is an opening over the door,usuallV for wrlolation. It may be a blind Ino glass)panel or may
have gins.
RnHE® moo
I. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 2. BLIND(NO a.SINGLE PEC— S. GLASS,WITH PANELS S. FANLIGHT WITH GLASS OR 7. OTHER
GLASS TANGUTAR DIVIDED BY SMALL UPRIGHT BLIND IND GLASS)IMAY BE
PIECE OF GLASS BARS SINGLE OR DIVIDED BY SPOKES)
78 MAIN DOOR TYPE indicate the number of coon within me main doorway opening.
1 NONE 2. UNKNOWN l SINGLE n. DOUBLE 1.B.MULTIPLE B,OTHER
19 MAIN DOOR TYPE A*jftA Cbo/ae Indiryte the type of door or dobe within the mein doorway opening. The patrols in the illustration may be Wind Ino glass)es may
be glass panels. Do not be limited by the drawings;Panels Can be m.ny shapes and can be used in a
variety of arrangements. Select the Siumple which Is most similar to Mamain does of the building.
oflo .
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN. 7. PLAIN a. PLAIN, S.PLAIN 6.SINGLE 7. TWO PANEL 8. THREE
DIVIDED DIVIDED DIAD. PANEL PANEL
VERTICALLY OVALLY
. FOUR PANEL /0: FIVE PANEL I1. SIX OR 12. LOWER WOOD PANELS AND 10. DOOR WITH GLASS OVAL OR 1n, DOOR WITH 15.DECORATED
MORE PANELS RECTANGULAR GLASS ABOVE CIRCLE - FAN PANEL DOOR
I
18. DUTCH 17. FRENCH 16 REVOLVING DOOR 19. IRON DOOfl 10. OTHER
DOOR DOOR WITH OR W/OUT
PANELS
80 MAIN DOOR MATERIAL A t le Chorea You may appose mon than om if ssveral materials an present.
1. 'NONE 2. UNKNOWN 7. WOOD a. METAL. S. GLASS 8. OTHER
81 MAIN DOOR-GLAZING Which of the following ben describes the plea in the door? -- ---
1. NONE T UNKNOWN 1. GLASS a,ALL GLASS, B. ETCHED OR. L STAINED 7, OTHER
PRESENT IN WITH OR WITH. FROSTED GLASS GLASS PRESENT
PART OF DOOR OUT FRAME PANELIST WITH IN DOOR
DESIGN
� a
Attachment 1;
82 STAIRS-LOCATION AND DESIGN Showa the type ane eatnit of Du amwev of the main entrance.
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1 GROUND OR J. GROUND OR S. GROUND OR FIRST FLOOR 4 UPPER 7. UPPER E. UPPER FLOOR WITH NANO.
FIRST FLOOR.. FIRST FLOOR WITH SOLID RAIUNG FLOORS WITH FLOORS WITH RAIL SUPPORTED Ey ROW OF
PLAIN WITH OPEN- OPEN RAI UNG SOLID RAILING COLUMNS
1 ING
9. OTHER
83 STAIRS—SHAPE This 7howa.tM s hgpe at the stairway a it approadlea the)dein eltienlo�
h�tlad
1. NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1 STRAIGHT 4.-STRAIQH7, S.STRAIQNT,REVERBEp B.:STRAIGHT. 7, CURVED S. DOUSLECURVE
APPROACH DOUBLE
PROM 1110E
9, COMBINATION OF DOUBLE 10.SPIRAL 11. LARGE PLATFORM.CURVED OR STRAIGHT 12. OTHER
CURVE ANO STRAIGHT
I(l I
A MAIN PORCH May cover one or more aerie in height.
.:V
(.,NONE 2. UNKNOWN 1.STOOP - 4. RECESSED INTO WALL OR S. OPEN PORCH WITH SQUARE Ia. PORCH WITH 7 CLOSED PORCH IMAM Be
INTOCORNER POSTS OR ROUND COLUMNS STICKWORK ENCLOSED WITH WOOD.GLASS.
OR SCREEN.J
� I !
S. OVEN VERANOA(EXTENDS . 9. CLOSEO 10.GUYED. 11. MARQUEE OR OTHHR►ARCH 12. OTHER
ACROSS FRONT,SOMETIMES VERANDA (SUPPORTED WITHOUT SUPPORTS
AROUND SIDES RY CABLES
FROM ABOVE)
85 PORCH SUPPORTS Inoicue me type 01 appmtirq arvaurn that We u0 the toot of the pordh.
I Imo'
7m Cris
I MORE 2. UNKNOWN ].PITETS, •OIEAt DECO- a, I,ARQE IL COLUMNS 7. ARCADE 0. WALL 9. SUPPORTS ON 10.CABLES.
SQUARED OR nATIYE LACI SOUARE FOE
(ROW OP FIERS OR I ROOS On wine
TURNED METAL OR PILLAR ARCH lSJ BLOCKS
SUPPORTS
I. OTHER �/
88 PORCH SUPPORTS-MATERIAL Mulripar Choke
1.NONE 2. UNKNOWN 3. WOOD A. ADOBE S. STONE. B. BRICK 7.TILE OR B. CONCRETE 9. PLASTER OR 10. METAL
TERRACOTTA ORSIMULATED STUCCO
STONE BLOCKS
11 OTHER
[1187 MAIN PORCH-HEIGHT Indican the height covered by the main porch.
I. NONE 2. UNKNOWN ]. FIRST STORY a. FIRST AND 6.THREE OR 8. OTHER
SECOND MORE STORIES
ADDITIONAL BUILDING FEATURES Multip/s Choice Selectany additional features found on the building.
1. NONE
2. UNKNOWN ]. EXTERIOR a. TOWER OR TURRET S.SPIRE OR B. EXTERIOR MASSIVEWALL 7. ADDITIONAL ROW OF ARCHES B. BALCONY
CHIMNEY - STEEPLE - SUPPORTS OR BUTTRESS, OR COLUMNS NOT DESCRIBED
AGAINST WALL (MOSTLY WITH USUALLY BRICK,STONE.OR EARLIER
CHURCHES) CONCRETE
y °G 1 b
° ,111 ➢ II % "
L..rVL
9. ADDITIONAL 10, GARAGE AS PART OF THE 11. BAY WITH WINDOWS 12. ROUNDED BUILDING CORNER a SHUTTERS(WOOD OR IRON
PORCH BUILDING COVERS THAT CLOSE ACROSS
WINDOWS OR ODORS)
la..STATUES ON THE BUILDING 15, DECORATED 18. OTHER
PEDIMENT
(ABOVE WINDOWS
OR ON g00F1
e9 ORNAMENTATION Muhiple Choice Describes ornamental detailing of the exterior-may be sawn,carved,turned or cast
a
I NONE 2. UNKNOWN ]. DECORATIVEPATTERNS I.SPECIAL PATTERNS OF S.SPINDLE AND SPOOL B. DECORATIVE PANELS.SQUARE.
ATTACHED TO SURFACE F LOWE RS AND LEAVES TRIANGULAR OR ROUND ON
WALLS A PORCHES
7.STONE OR B. DECORATIVE.BRICK,TILE OR S. URNS OR 10. OTHER
PANELWITH TERRACOTTA OTHER
DATE OR SCULPTURED
INSCRIPTION ORNAMENTS'
90 PROPERTY FEATURES MultipM Choice This refers to any additional items of interest on Me property which aIa not attached to the building. Choose as many
»necessary. . .. - .
1.NONE 2. UNKNOWN ]. DETACHED e. CARRIAGE 6. STABLE OR 8. FENCE 7. FEATURES FOUND IN 8. FEATURES ASSOCIATED
GARAGE HOUSE BARN GARDENS-GAZEBOES,ARBORS. WITH WATER-PONDS.WELLS,
STATUES.SUNOIALS.ETC. WATERFALLS
9.WINDMILL 10. PRIVY 11.TANK- 12.SMOKE 17.OTHER OUTBUILDING NOT 14.FREE 15 OTHER
(OUTHOUSE) MOUSE HOUSE DESCRIBED EARLIER(SILO, STANDING
MILK HOUSE,SPRING HOUSE. BELLTOWER
ETC.)
-- ° Attachment t,
�y
This building on Monterey Street is Good example of classic downtown
historic architecture. Note window forms, repetition, roof and cornice
treatment, including details and bracing. Note transom windows above glass
storefront. The fagade is generally flat, with a parapet roof, plaster or brick
exterior, and lots of street presence.
c
_D
. 7
r '
i � LJ 1I
The JP Andrews Building at the corner of Monterey and Osos street is another good
example of pedestrian scale, street presence, and architectural detailing. The corner
entry provides good human scale and makes the entrance visually dominant from
the street. Detailed brickwork, cornice treatment and good use of windows
accentuate the design.
Pfl-73
Attachment 13
_
'UGOCOCOGOO�GO L1l.11
l_.'I �
The area around the existing Art Center is dominated by single story structures
including turn of the century residences shown in the top photo and turn of the
century storefronts shown in the photo below. The vicinity is also highlighted by
expansive views of the Morros. An unusually tall and dominant building will
contrast with this neighborhood, and potentially limit views to the hills from other
properties. These photos typify the vicinity.
s
-
��'�
vl;n. p
em
111
r
I.�
Attachment 10/2
d
1Mission is considered the11 1 1 I historic building 1 the1
buildings re1cate the arched openings, 1 1exposed rafter tails, and white
plaster1 TheseIaracteristics are the key features thatallowmany buildings t1
be complementary1 the Mission.
Af•if
Attachment I�
This building at the corner of Morro and Monterey Street was built in the
1930's and was designed to complement the Mission. Note the tilework,
arched openings, Spanish the roof, exposed rafter tails, and windows with a
human scale. The entry has been oriented towards the corner at the public
sidewalk, creating an inviting presence.
�,-.1."... Lei....
L r
I
I
�M
7
Xi
1"
I
� r
Attachment 13
1
The Carnegie Library, across the street from the Art Center is one of the
City's most significant historic buildings. It's slate tile roof, rough
quarried granite and brick exterior typify many of the design elements
found in the Historic districts around the City. Also note the window
form, dominant entry with an arched opening and architectural detailing
at the rnnflinp.
���' 7-7
Attachment I�
Also visible from the Art Center property, these modern commercial
buildings were designed to complement the historic district while maintaining
consistency with City policies. Wood siding, a flat fagade, careful placement
and design of windows and appropriate roof treatment was incorporated to
enhance the compatibility of these buildings.
+�- Is
Attachment V
Modern buildings, such as these examples on Monterey Street contain
examples of architectural treatment that complements historic styles found
throughout the downtown. Notable features include clay tile roofing,
ornamental downspouts, window forms that replicate historic windows, and
detailing at the roof including cornice treatments and parapets. Some of these
buildings also replicate historic exterior finishes by utilizing brick and stone
veneer.
i
I
r \ \
V
7f
ATTACHMENT Iq
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ART
CENTER BUILDING DESIGN AT 1010 BROAD STREET;
APPLICATION NO. U 111-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on October 22, 2008, for the purpose of considering a Use Permit to allow the Art
Center to construct a new building in the Downtown Commercial Historic, Special
Considerations Zone (C-D-H-S) Zone at 1010 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the hearing was to make a recommendation to the City
Council on the merits of the Use Permit in consideration of the S-overlay zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation on February 17`h, 2009; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, City Advisory bodies and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Approval. The request to allow the Use Permit to construct a new building for
the Art Center located in the S-Overlay zone is hereby approved, based on the following findings
and subject to conditions:
Findinss•
1. The proposed new building is compatible or complementary to structures on adjacent
properties as required by Ordinance 1514 since, as conditioned, the building massing,
articulation, exterior materials and roof treatment is compatible with adjacent and nearby
historic structures.
2. As conditioned, the proposed new building is consistent with General Plan Conservation
and Open Space Element Policies that are designed to protect and enhance the City's historic
districts.
R 1po/—92
ATTACHMENT 1�
Resolution No. (2009 Series)
Page 2
3. As conditioned, the proposed new building is consistent with the Historic Preservation
Guidelines which require that new primary structures within Historical Preservation Districts
should further promote the historic character of those areas. In this case, the building design
contrasts with the existing historic buildings,however it creates its own place in history.
4. As conditioned, the proposed building design is consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines since the height and scale of the proposed new structure complements existing
adjacent buildings and will provide human scale and proportion.
5. The development project does not require additional environmental review because the
rezoning of the property (Resolution 9975) examined the Art Center proposal in an
environmental initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was approved
by City Council.
Conditions:
1. The project shall return to the Architectural Review Commission to address the ARC'S
comments and the following items:
a. Additional variety shall be added to the color of the wall materials, especially on the
Broad and Monterey Street building elevations.
b. Additional texture shall be included in the exterior stone material so that the texture of
the material can be visible from the street.
c. Attention shall be given to the pedestrian scale of the building at Broad and Monterey
Street.
Upon motion of seconded by ,
and on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTACHMENT 1q
Resolution No. (2009 Series)
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2009.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon . owell
City Attorney
_ r
Page 1 of 1
®You forwarded this message on 2/19/2009 10:04 AM.
Council, SloCity clre�
From: kkile@sfoartcenter.org [kklle@sloartcenter.org] Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 11:15 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Art Center Sends Thank You
Attachments:
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members-
All of us at the Art Center,and our friends throughout the community, greatly appreciate.all your hard work last night to approve
the Art Center's Use Permit and move this important project forward.
Our design team heard your concerns. We will work with staff,the Architectural Review Commission,and the community on those
improvements.
Thank you for your thoughtful study of the project.
It was a great night for San Luis Obispo!
All the best,
Karen
Karen Kile
Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Art Center
t.805.543.8562 ext 13
f.805.543.4518
e.kkile@sloartcenter.ora
www.sloartcenter.org
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sloc itycouncil/InboxJA.rt%2OCenter%2OS ends%20Thank... 2/19/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Naomi Hoffman[omih@charter.net] Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 2:29 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Art Center
Attachments:
The discussion last night on the proposed new building indicated to
me that you felt there was little public opposition to the design of
this building. I am sure you know that only the people that are
pushing for a project show up for meetings unless there is public
outrage about something.
The fact that there is so much emphasis on what visitors to this town
will want to see is evidence that the building is not so much an
architectural achievement, or a building dedicated to art, but that
it is a form of sensationalism. The fact is that this building, in
that location, "sticks out like a sore thumb".A building can be both
pleasing to the eye and contemporary as well.
It.should not be necessary to plant trees to make a building fit into
it's setting. Especially when you have to cut down trees to build it.
No one is suggesting that this should be a replica of other historic
buildings as was shown by the absurd sketch shown.
The architect did not discuss some of the design flaws inside the
building.Among other problems,the fact that the galleries are on
the 2nd and 3rd floors(there is a small one on the ground floor)
means that people are not easily guided to the main purpose of the
building.
Putting public art and trees to disguise the blank wall on Broad St.
is only camouflage.
He spent a lot of time showing "the great views"from inside the
building and very little time trying to explain how the building
works. For example, I don't feel it necessary for the public to be
able to see into the classrooms on the ground floor. Also, windows
in galleries compete with the art in the room. Someone could build a
tall tower and get great views but that is not the purpose of this
building.
I saw that there was a degree of discomfort among the council about
the design. I particularily agree with your idea of getting rid of
the metal on the exterior. If this council had been there ten years
ago I believe that this building would have been modified to make it
both beautiful,functional and inspirational. I believe that A.R.C.
should be listened to by the council who are not elected because they
have degrees in architecture.
To conclude,the reason I am taking the time to express my thoughts
to you is that you have a series of ongoing projects to be guided
through to completion. It would seem reasonable to me that you should
listen to the advice of the staff and less to the demands of the
developers, so that when a project is finished you haven't just made
exceptions to your policies in a haphazard way to justify the
completion of a project. If you don't agree with a policy either
change the policy or enforce it.
Thank You for your time and attention............... Naomi Hoffman
805 547 0246
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/Art%o2OCenter-2.EML?Cmd=open 2/19/2009
----- Original Message -----
From: Max Riedlsperger <mriedlsp@calpoly.edu>
To: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tue Feb 17 09:29:27 2009
Subject: Art Center proposal
Dear Mr. Hampian,
I would like to request that you convey our strong feelings that the
City Council should approve the proposal for a new Art Center.
The Tribune reports that the City Planning Staff is opposed because it
doesn't fit the city's historic guidelines. We would like to suggest
that a city is a vibrant growing entity and benefits from well-planned
diversity. I am reminded of the stunning juxtaposition of the Old,
Modern and Contemporary art museums in Munich. The collection of Old
Masters is housed in a brick structure begun in the 16th century; on
the same street, actually closer to the historic center of the city is
the museum for Modern Art a beautiful building of the late 1970's.
Diagonally, across the street and even closer to the historic center is
the Museum for Contemporary Art --- a stunningly beautiful 21st
century structure. Similarly, in Vienna, the medieval, gothic St.
Stefan's cathedral is across the square from a modern commercial
center. These are just a few of the examples that immediately come to
mind.
Homogeneity is boring. Some people were critical of the beautiful PAC
building when it went up ---- not consistent withe historic 1960's
brick dormitories across the street?
The proposed new Art Center would be a stunning attraction to downtown
SLO. These putative architecture critics remind me of those who
condemned the music of Beethoven, Stravinsky and the painting of Klimt,
Schiele, Chagal, Kandinsky, Grosz, Beckmann, to name a few. Please do
not let the plans for the Art Center die at the hands of reactionaries.
Sincerely,
Max and Deanna Riedlsperger
6640 Camino Poletti
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-543-0717
G—COUNCIL !CDD DIR
F-<_-Fr49 L°R't 6(4642 a'FIN DIR
aAGAO4557-c7y/t4,�R_2'FIRE CHIEF
RED FILE E-ATTORNEY p'Pw DIR
ErCLERK/ORIG RTOLICE CHF
MEETING AGENDA P'DEPT HEADS Ur-REC DIR
DATEa7 D9 ITE�J 0 p#I ET-UTIL DIR
erHR DIR _
� aJCZv;��� � C®uurvaL
C�.� MEMb�N1�UM
10ty of San Luis Obispo
DATE: February 17, 2009
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
Prepared By: Elaina Cano, Deputy City Clerk
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE JOINT USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
COMMITTEE (JUC)
On January 29, 2009, Council Liaison Subcommittee Members Allen Settle and John Ashbaugh
conducted interviews with three applicants for two unscheduled vacancies on the Joint Use Committee.
Following the interviews, the Council Liaison Subcommittee recommended the appointments of Stew
Jenkins and Suzan Ehdaie. During the annual recruitment period, Ms. Ehdaie had also applied to the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
ARC Council Liaison Subcommittee Members Allen Settle and Jan Marx, interviewed Ms. Ehdaie on
February 10 and agreed to recommend her for appointment to the ARC. Staff subsequently contacted
Ms. Ehdai and she confirmed her preference to serve on the ARC.
Staff also contacted the JUC Council Liaison Subcommittee Members and they concurred that Ms.
Ehdaie should be recommended to the ARC. They, therefore, withdrew their previous
recommendation that she be appointed to serve on the JUC.
JUC Council Liaison Subcommittee Members Settle and Ashbaugh, are therefore recommending that
Council appoint Stew Jenkins as recommended in the agenda report and Stephen Cairns (instead of
Suzan Ehdai) to fill the unscheduled vacancy with a term ending March 31, 2010.
If Council concurs with this revised recommendation, the motion on this matter should so indicate.
E- COUNCIL DTCDD DIR
L!i SA9 CcrIlM6C E�`FIN DIR
PIED FILE aAGAOA5sraryMceI TIRE CHIEF
2-ATTORNEY aPW DIR
MEETING AGENDA LTCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
DATE41-,76ff ITEM EM ;;"_/� � ❑ DEPT HEADS D-REC DIR
Z-UTIL DIR
G� O HR DIR
�n�5 � �LtNUL
CADocuments and Settings\ahoopeALocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK9C\Red File 2-17-09 JUC Appts.DOC
�- Hampian, Ken
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:51 PM
To: Romero, Dave; Carter, Andrew; Ashbaugh, John; Settle, Allen; Hampian, Ken
Subject: Art Center
Hello Council,
Here is how the Art Center is described on Darlene Jang, the architect's website:
'The San Luis Obispo Art Center is located in the heart of the city❑s downtown historic district. It is
situated creek side in a park setting. The 25,000 square foot Art Center is vitally important to
providing a venue for the visual art experience in San Luis Obispo County. The building❑s atrium
form poetically gestures the nearby volcanic form of San Luis Mountain. The frosted and clear
curvilinear glass wall reflects the lines of the creek and pathways in the park while capturing the
Views of the park and the historic Mission. The upper level terrace courtyard allows for sculpture
exhibitions and outdoor receptions. The new Art Center features state-of-the-art galleries for
innovative local and touring exhibits and an art research library. The multiple galleries on three levels
are designed with flexible lighting systems and environmental controls including one with humidity
control. The classrooms are located on the ground floor adjacent to the park to extend the year-
round art programs outdoors.°
It is interesting that she refers to natural features, but not the historical features and materials
required by our General Plan. See page PH1-9.
The building does not look custom designed for San Luis Obispo's Mission Plaza. It is a stand alone,
which could be located in any city anywhere. It shares similar features with one Darlene Jang
designed in Daly Cityihttp://www.barcelonjang.com/htm/prof_detail/current/warmemorial_wter.htm
Darlene Jang is experienced and qualified to do work which promotes the historic character of the
vicinity and meets the other requirements of the General Plan, since she did the architecture for the
Chinese Historical Society's adaptive reuse of the Julia Morgan YMCA in San Francisco.
httP://www.barcelOniang.com/htm/proj_detail/art fac/chsa_museum.htm
I look forward to hearing from the applicant and discussing the issues with you tomorrow night,
]an
OAIZO CC
COUNCIL
3 CAO C'!'CDD DIR
ED FILE ITACAO C�1'FIN DIf1
F C3 ATTORNEY ZFIRE CHIEF
—_ MEETIZ G AGEK'DA L�CLERK/ORIG l3 PW DIR
Cl DEPT HEADS 0 POLICE'OHF
PATE 7 O I T EE4 r` P- H� CJ• Q�p, aREO Din
``-- G"rUTIL DIFI
�-
Ns'W r1 N.p;D ill-
� NGL
�LE2K
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Craig Jacobson lb.musculus@gmail.com] Sent: Mon 2/16/2009 8:22 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject Art Center
Attachments:
Dear SLO City Council Members,
Written below is a letter from Sara McEre that I am sending via e-mail on her behalf. Thank you. See you
tomorrow night.
Sincerely,
Craig Jacobson
I live on the corner of Islay and Broad where the run of Victorians going toward town begins. On one corner
is the big old pale green and white Queen Anne, with Its round wood shingled turret and its tall steep roof lines.
Across from this is another Victorian with the same tall roof lines; and on the third corner is a small one-story
house built in the 50's. On the fourth corner, in the 1970's there was a huge vacant lot that stretched from Islay to
Leff St. facing Broad. A developer had designed and submitted his proposal for this site which called for it to bee all
white stucco, Spanish with a mild slope to its red tiled roofs.
Ken Schwartz, our mayor of the time, along with the members of the city council, denied this design, saying
that it would put on's focus on the white Spanish architecture, and take it away from the mood that was already
there. Instead, the mayor and the council asked for the roof lines to be similar to the Victorians and the siding to
be wood rather than stucco. not a Victorian copy, but something congruent with the existing mood. And so the
developer went back to the drawing board and designed a rustic Victorian court of condos, the successful fit we
have today. A similar situation holds true for this Art Center site.
Here In this prized area, is the mission, the crown of our town, with all its grace and architectural integrity.
To one side of it, on Chorro, is the Sauer-Adams adobe built in 1850, and on the other side, stands the Carnegie
Library, now our museum, built in 1905. Across from the museum, one can view our present Art Center, with its
low mellow lines and its adobe colored slumpstone block walls. However, its front, which ant be seen from this
unique area, since it faces Broad Street, sports an animated facade with bright colors and glass doors and
windows. This artfully enlivens the business area around it, while leaving the other sides quiet.
I'm not familiar with the reasons why a huge second story couldn't be added to this building in a fitting way,
and a wild new even more exciting facade couldn't replace the existing one on Broad Street, but if everybody wants
it torn down, then what will take its place must be as site specific as our present one in order to not detract from
the mood that's already there.
The proposed new Art Center building on the other hand would be a perfect fit for Marsh Street. The rumble in
this town is that Marsh Street could sure use some kind of jingle to liven it up and this kind of building could
definitely be all that.
Imagine driving up Marsh and spotting this unique structure. In this setting it would create the same kind of
stand alone sparkle that the Gugenheim Museum creates on Fifth Avenue in New York. But on the site its now
proposed for, it would be the bane, the actual ruin, of this most important historic area of our town, allowing our
chance to have a perfect fit here, to be lost forever.
Oh, and one last thing: To understand how site-specific buildings can have an influence on whats going on
around them, the folks in the 50's house, over on Islay and Broad, are planning to add on a second story with
steeper roof lines, plus a long porch with railings at the entrance, and best of all, a protruding window on the
second floor to relate in its way, to the Victorian turret across the street. This house will not try to look like the
Victorians across the street, it will have a tall farm house look to it. A perfect fit.
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInbox/Art%2OCenter.EML?Cmd=open 2/17/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Ronald Johnson [ronjohnson805@att.net) Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 7:20 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Art Center Project
Attachments:
A larger art center is needed, most agree. However, the present design is more suitable for
Dallas or Chicago than our small Spanish Colonial town. If our city council approves the
present metallic contemporary design for the Art Center (which ties in nicely with the 70's
Industrial Airport look of the Government Center) , then may I suggest that we politely
dismiss the Architectural Review Committee and our Cultural Heritage Committee?
Mary Lou Johnson
1610 Huckleberry Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-544-5278
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Art%2OCenter%2OProj ect.EML?C... 2/17/2009
Page 1 of 1
Coundl, SloCity
From: Alexa Slem [aslem@pacbell.net] Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 8:52 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Proposed Art Center
Attachments:
Dear City Council Members,
We are appalled that our city would even consider the proposed art center design. We adore our downtown
and have enjoyed it for the 33 years that we have been lucky enough to live here but, we believe, this building
does nothing to enhance it. My husband and I understand that an art center would want to be innovative but
can't that be done in a way that compliments its surroundings like our historic Old Mission area. We beg you
to revisit this and come up with a compromise that doesn't destroy the esthetic harmony of the core of our
downtown.
Thank you for your service,
Alexa and Chuck Slem
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Proposed%20Art%20Center.EML?... 2/17/2009
Page I of 1
4 Council,SloCity
From: Bob Pavlik[bob_pavlik@dot.ca.gov] Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 12:39 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc: Hook,Jeff
Subject: Proposed Art Center
Attachments:
Dear City Council members,
I am writing in advance of tonight's meeting regarding the proposed Art
Center.
I do not think that the current location of the art center is the
appropriate location for this new facility.The current art center occupies
a building that was constructed in the 1950s, when San Luis Obispo Creek
was an open air sewage channel, and Monterey Street was a through street. FED FILE
The creek has been restored and revitalized, and has become a great asset MEET ING AGE7?DA
to the city. Placing a large building at this location only perpetuates the DATEr 7 ITEM ',` L
mistakes made in the 1950s.
The proposed art center is completely out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood.There are other locations where this building can serve the
city and will be a credit to the city and the General Plan. Parking, which
is always an issue, can also be planned and accomodated at another D CD A
C'h L
locaiton. C
OUNCIL TCDD DIR
2-FIN DIR
I support the creation of a new and modern art center for the City of San wssfefryAwZIFIRE CHIEF
Luis Obispo. I encourage you to find another location for the center, and RNEY LYPW DIR
to maintain the integrity of both the General Plan and the historic K/CRIG ZIPOLICE CHF
downtown by not approving the proposed center at this location. By removing HEADS C §EC DIR
the existing building and opening up that area to the creek you will be �2 TIL DIR
providing for much needed open space in the downtown corridor, you will be L6kA)_& - HF9 DI r-1,
embracing the creek corridor as an important cultural and natural treasure, NW r7M45 i &I'U0C°1L
and you will still be meeting the needs of the entire community for a C r ty /ilCe
modern arts center.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bob Pavlik (former Cultural Heritage Committee member)
493 Woodbridge
SLO 93401
7819728
the opinions expressed here are my own and do not.reflect those of my
employer.
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUInbox/Proposed%20Art%2OCenter-2.EML... 2/17/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Dawnna McDougall [dawnnamac@charter.net] Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 2:13 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: SLO Art Center
Attachments:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council,
In my e-mail to you earlier today in support of the SLO Art Center, I
mistakenly identified Zeljka Howard as a member of the CHC, when in
fact, she is on the Architectural Review Commission.
Sincerely,
Dawnna McDougall
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/SLO%2OA t%2OCenter.ENIL?Cmd... 2/17/2009
Page 1 of 1
-v Council,SloCity
From: sharon@sharonwhitney.com [sharon@sharonwhitney.com] Sent: Tue 2/17/20093:48 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Art Center Plans
Attachments:
The new Art Center plans do not fit in well with the historical district? Why cannot a modern Spanish design be
developed, to fit well with the mission?
Sharon Whitney
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounc il/Inbox/Art%2OCenter%20PIans.EML?Cmd... 2/17/2009
_ Page I of 1
Council, SloCity
From: dottyconner@gmaii.com[dottyconner@gmail.com] Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 3:49 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject Art Center Plans
Attachments:
The new Art Center plans do not fit in well with the historical district?Why cannot a modem Spanish design be developed,to fit well
with the mission?
Dotty Conner
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sloc itycounciVInbox/Art%2OCeriter%20PIans-2.ENIL?C... 2/17/2009
17 February 2009
TO: MAYOR DAVE ROMERO AND CITY COUNCIL
- MEMBERS
San Luis Obispo FROM:WDEBORAH CASH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Downtown SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION
Association RE: SAN LUIS OBISPO ART CENTER
PO Box 1402
San Luis Obispo Regarding the San Luis Obispo Art Center item on tonight's agenda, the San Luis
California 93406 Obispo Downtown Association Design Committee at today's meeting
Phone 805-541-0286 unanimously voted (Kile and Fraser abstaining)to urge the City Council to adopt
Fax 805-781-2647 the "original" CAO recommendation:
www.downtownsio.com
Adopt a resolution to approve the use permit based on findings and subject
to conditions, including a condition to return to the Architectural Review
Commission to review minor design changes.
The Design Committee members have strongly supported the current Art Center
concept and have submitted reasoning and rationale in prior communications as to
why the Center is compatible and complimentary to its surroundings and stands to
offer great benefit to the Downtown, the City and the community overall. The
committee believes it is time to move forward with this project and allow the
process to advance by voting in favor of the recommendation originally
submitted.
The Council's support and"yes" votes for the Art Center tonight will be greatly
appreciated and acknowledged as an advancement of art and architecture in
Downtown SLO.
Cc: Stephen Patrick, chair, Design Committee
Karen Kile, Executive Director, SLO Art Center
SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors
i
17 February 2009
TO: MAYOR DAVE ROMERO AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DEBORAH CASH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION
RE: SAN LUIS OBISPO ART CENTER
Regarding the San Luis Obispo Art Center item on tonight's agenda,the San Luis Obispo
Downtown Association Design Committee at today's meeting unanimously voted (Kile
and Fraser abstaining)to urge the City Council to adopt the "original" CAO
recommendation:
Adopt a resolution to approve the use permit based on findings and subject to
conditions, including a condition to return to the Architectural Review
Commission to review minor design changes.
The Design Committee members have strongly supported the current Art Center concept
and have submitted reasoning and rationale in prior communications as to why the Center
is compatible and complimentary to its surroundings and stands to offer great benefit to
the Downtown, the City and the community overall. The committee believes it is time to
move forward with this project and allow the process to advance by voting in favor of the
recommendation originally submitted.
The Council's support and "yes" votes for the Art Center tonight will be greatly
appreciated and acknowledged as an advancement of art and architecture in Downtown
SLO.
Cc: Stephen Patrick, chair, Design Committee
Karen Kile, Executive Director, SLO Art Center
SLO Downtown Association Board of Directors
�n D CoPi C—rt?R�L
C-'COUNCIL CDD DIR
2 Gtk6 C!7l/+16,e DIFIN DIR
1-ED FILE 2-AGAOftr..elvlAw¢aFIRE CHIEF
If'MEE i IiVG AGEe��DATTORNEY 2-PW DIR
B CLERK/ORIG 27-POLICE CHF
DAi E I I E'A % P'-tl p 0 DEPT HEADS ff REC DIR
C'J�- TIL DIR
172-il6.kA20k_ In HR DIR
N nN165 Cou4)&4-
�CcTy X62
From: Dunsmore, Phil
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:32 PM
To: Mandeville, John; Davidson, Doug
Subject: FW: THE NEW ART CENTER
John, Doug
I received a call from a concerned citizen today that was followed up
the e-mail below. She did not have a way to make it to the meeting but
wanted her voice heard. Can we redfile such an item?
Phil Dunsmore
Associate Planner, AICP
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805) 781-7522
P Please consider the environment before printing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean M. Lee, Broker [mailto:sean@therealestatecom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2 :28 PM
To: Dunsmore, Phil
Subject: THE NEW ART CENTER
Phil,Hi.
You spoke with Evelyn Lee my grandmother. She would like the New Art
Center to be of a different architectural style, preserving the SLO
Downtown ambiance. I appreciate you discussing this matter with her.
She is also known as "Grannypants" and we love her.
Respectfully,
Sean M. Lee, Broker
THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY
www.therealestatecom.com
sean@therealestatecom.com
979 Osos Street Suite C-4
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Mobile: 805.748.3078
Facsimile: 805.543 .2877
Mayor Romero requested I prepare this. I will be bringing handouts for the Council members tonight.
Thank you very much.
Karen
Karen Kile
Executive Director
San Luis Obispo Art Center
t.805.543.8562 ext 13
f. 805.543.4518
e. kkile@sloartcenter.org
www.sloartcenter.org
How the new Art Center design complements the General Plan
1. Recognizes the historic importance of its location, and uses building materials and
colors sympathetic to the Carnegie Library, the Mission, and the neighborhood.
2. Respects the established views and vistas of its neighbors and the creek walk.
3. Invigorates the development along Monterey Street from Mission Plaza to Nipomo.
4. Fits the lay of the land and relates to the site with window and doors on each public
level.
5. Maintains the historic traffic pattern through the Art Center from Monterey and Mission
Plaza to Broad Street and downtown.
6. Honors the scale of the neighborhood—acting as a strong focal point within Mission
Plaza and as a transition between the cultural uses along Monterey and the commercial
uses of Higuera Street and Broad.
7. Uses materials and construction methods of equal or greater quality than the existing
buildings in the area. This is a structure and design that will stand the test of time and be
maintainable for the future.
8. Creates new views of the Mission Plaza, Creek Walk, and Historic District.
9. Adds richness, texture and variety to the experience of the Historic District.
10. Expresses its time, function and place as a center for art and art education and
appreciation—in a 21st century form that will be an icon for the City of San Luis
Obispo.
Page I of 1
I
Council,SloCity
From: Dawnna McDougall[dawnnamac@charter.netl Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 10:54 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: San Luis Obispo Art Center
Attachments:
Honorable Mayor Romero and Members of the Council,
I'm writing in support of the proposed design for the new San Luis
Obispo Art Center.
For the past 50 years, the Art Center has served this community well,
providing art classes for all ages, exhibiting and promoting the work
of local and regional artists, hosting receptions and festivals, and
with such success and support, it has outgrown it's present patched
together facility. With the experience of all these years, comes a
well founded concept of how the form of the building needs to follow
its function, and that is what you have to consider when looking at
this project before you today.
Thoughtful consideration for this design has been applied at every step
of the way,from the early needs assessment, selection of architects, FiED FILE
and throughout the design process, leading to the proposed Art Center MEETING AGENDA
design you see presented here. The architects, Barcelon &Jang, were
carefully selected for their proven excellence, sensitivity to this DATE,24d ITEfvl DL
site and experience in the unique requirements in designing museums and
schools.
As the project has moved through the required reviews, I would like to
share these comments with you -
Former Mayor Ken Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Architecture, Cal Ef-CCUNCIL If,-CDD DIR
Poly, and who some consider the Father of the Mission Plaza itself, has 2 "_049 1-'1"1//ue :'FIN DIR
fully supported this design at every step, speaking up before this Q'AGAeAQvc„y,,, e[!r-FIRE CHIEF
council, the CHC and Planning Commission, urging all members to 2-AT 0RNEY 0-PW DIR
enthusiastically support this stellar addition to the Mission Plaza. I3"6LERK/ORIG [Q-POLICE CHF
CHC Committeewoman Zeljka Howard, Professor of Urban Design & Planning O DEFT HEADS C'"REC DIR
at Cal Poly, stated that the criteria for a library, a concert hall, a -''--1 n-UTIL DIR
church, or an art center is unique and must be viewed in that light, L[BL53 ET—HH rio
not held hostage to the usual guidelines.
Architecture Professor Emeritus David Brodie asked that the structures
along the Mission Plaza be viewed not as a strand of pearls(all of C 4-&�
matching color, material and scale), but rather as a string of gems,
each representing their time in the history of the place -the Mission
Church, the Carnegie and now the Art Center, a jewel of the 21st
century.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
Dawnna McDougall
Member, SLO Art Center Building Committee
3040 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/San%2OLuis%200bispo%20Art%2... 2/17/2009
Page 1 of 1
,Y R ; FILE
MEET ING AGE''LA �it�CePy C—nfg,�
t IT
DATE 0 I&A } P#1 L�COUNCIL 'CDD DIR
U' M�2 12Y�FIN D I R
5 ��2L'FIRE CHIEF
From: Ashbaugh,John TTORNEY ['J'PW DIR
Sent: Tuesday, February 17,2009 12:20 PM LERK/ORIQ 21'pOLICE CHF
r CI DEPT HEADS [IREC DIR
To: Ehrbar, Barbara; Hampian, Ken 2UTIL DIR
Cc: Mandeville, John `- tau�� Nn DIR
Attachments: Art Center conditions-Ashbaugh proposals.doc nmES CBi«eeL
Grry 446.V—,
� C� .t�
I'd like to thank our Community Development staff for generating the proposed revised conditions of approval for the Art
Center that were distributed as a"red file"last Thursday.After reflecting on these proposed revisions, I came to a similar
conclusion, but felt that some"word-smithing"could improve the clarity of the conditions.Additionally, I felt that the
proposal to"eliminate"curvilinear elements in the building was going too far—our Downtown Design Guidelines
discourage curvilinear elements in building walls, but the two"cones"that are proposed in this building are central to the
architects vision. Furthermore, I believe that the conditions we generate this evening must be based largely (but not
exclusively)on Ordinance 1514 where the previous Council had given direction to the Art Center architects to"key off"
Carnegie Library,The Mission,the Leitcher apartment building, and Master List historic residential structures on
Monterey Street.
Accordingly, I took a crack at editing the proposed wording of the operative part of the conditions that came out last
week, and after meeting with John Mandeville,these are some changes that I would recommend for consideration
tonight.The number of"bullet points"has been reduced from six to four:This is achieved by combining former items"c"
and"d"and largely eliminating item"P'. Proposed revisions to item"d"(formerly"e")are intended to provide more
guidance about the"pedestrian experience"based on my interpretation of the Planning Commission's original condition
from its meeting on this project on October 22.
All wording changes from the February 12 conditions—both insertions and deletions—can be tracked by opening the
attached file. If you wish to call me about any of these proposed changes, please feel free (550-7713). Thanks.
John B. Ashbaugh
San Luis Obispo City Council
Proposed Revisions to Art Center Conditions
1. The project design shall be modified to address the advisory body design comments (CHC ,ARC and Planning
Commission). A revised architectural package shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Council
prior to submittal of construction documents. The revised design shall:
a. Incorporate building forms, roof treatments,and materials that complement the Carnegie Library,The
Mission, the Leitcher apartment building,and Master List historic residential structures on Monterey Street.
b. Revise the entrance on Broad Street,and reduce extensive glazing and angled window features at Broad and
Monterey Streets. Utilize window forms and shapes that improve compatibility with the Carnegie Library,
The Mission,the Leitcher apartment building, and Master List historic residential structures on Monterey
Street. The Broad Street entrance and windows should provide for rhythm, size and details that contribute
to historic compatibility and human scale.
c. Provide additional contrast and texture to the exterior stone materials on the Broad and Monterey Street
building elevations so as to achieve a style that is complementary to the Carnegie Library,The Mission, the
Leitcher apartment building,and Master List historic residential structures on Monterey Street. Brick,
quarried stone, stone veneer,wood (or cementatious wood-like products) are acceptable exterior materials.
Stucco,reflective metal,concrete masonry block, and frosted/darkly tinted glass are not appropriate
exterior materials.
d. Provide features that attract eye-level interest at the pedestrian scale of the building at Broad and Monterey
Street. This shall include,but may not be limited to,art display windows, sculptural elements, or landscape
features that help interpret the primary function of the building as a center of the arts.
2/17/2009
2
provosed Revisions to Art Center Conditions _- Formatted:Font:Bold
1. The project design shall be modified to address the advisory body design
comments(CHC,ARC and Planning Commission).A revised architectural
package shall be submitted for review and approval by the,City Council prior to Deleted:community Development
submittal of construction documents.The revised design sha Director to process for final review by
- --------- --- the
a.Jncorporate building forms,roof treatments,and materials that complement
" Deleted: include the following
$he Carnegie Library,The Mission,the Leitcher apartment building, and
Master List historic residential structures on MontereyStrep Deleted:Eliminate curvilizzwer
L_.... fcamresand extensive ginning from the
b. Revise the entrance on Broad Street, and reducesxtensive glazing and angled building and replace with
window features at Broad and Monterey Streets. Utilize,window forms and Deleted:other buildings in the
shapes that improve comgatibility with the Carnegie Librarg,'The Mission, neighborhood such as
the Leitcher apartment building and Master List historic residential i Deleted:,or other historic buildings
structures on Monterey Street. The Broad Street entrance and windows within the downta"historic district
should provide for rhythm,size and details that contribute to historic Wbeadded
Eliminate
compatibility and human scale. and replace with
c. Provide additional contrastttnd texture to the exterior stone-materialDeleted:the complement the dos I
Broad and Monterey Street building elevations so as to achieve a style that is trict°°
complementary to the Carnegie Library,The Mission,the Leitcher apartment ompatibihty
building and Master List historic residential structures on Monterey Street. variety
Brick,quarried stone,stone veneer,wood(or cementations wood-like late
shall be added
products)are.acceptable exterior materials. Stucco,reflective metal,concrete Deleted:color of the wall
masonry block,and frosted/darkly tinted glass are not appropriate exterior
Deleted:,especially
materials.
d. rovide features that attract-eye-level interest at-the-pedestrian scale of the _ Deleted:Additional texture shall be
building at Broad and Monterey Street.This shall include,but may not be included in the exterior stone material
so that the texture of the material can
limited to,art displTv windows,scull2tural elements,or landscape features be visible from the street similar to the
that help interpret the primary function of the building as a center of the arts,, rough texture of quarried stone found
on historic buildings.¶
C.
�. Deleted:Attention shall begiven to
Deleted: and main entrance oriented
towards the sidewalk and comer of
Monterey and Broad Street,and
windows that provide forth and
repetition common to historic buildings
within the downtown.1
f.A specific historical style need not be
applied however,components of the
proposed building design such as
rhythm,massing,fenestration,colors,
and materials should better
complement the site's historic setting.
Building massing,articulation,exterior
materials,roof treatment,and quality
shall be compatible with adjacent and
nearby historic aructurp,
Page 1 of 1
Chippendale, Sue
From: Cano, Elaina
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:00 PM
To: Chippendale, Sue
Subject: ARC Appeal
Sue,
Can you please add the ARC appeal to the 6o day— Feb. 17th 30 minutes Mandeville/Ricci
Thanks,
Elaina
12/16/2008
�i►II Ifll�lllllllllllll���� �Ilhl IIIIII `City Of SAn IuIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
December 19, 2008
Steve and Stefanie Hilstein
19 S. Tassajara Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECISION
REGARDING 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. (30 MINUTES)
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hilstein:
In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal
to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but in no event later than
forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City
Clerk.
Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day
deadline (i.e. January 26, 2009), we require a signed acknowledgement.
Therefore,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than
December 30`s. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7104.
Mrs. Stefanie Hilstein Mr. Steve Hilstein
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
r�Q,cs IGt. �!L/trJj V C®
el
Audrey Hooper DEC 2 c 2008
City Clerk SLO CITY CLERK
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Page 1 of 1
Chippendale, Sue
From: Cano, Elaina
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 20083:59 PM
To: Hampian, Ken; Lowell, Jonathan P; Mandeville, John; Hooper, Audrey; Ricci, Pam; Davidson,
Doug; Corey, Tyler
Cc: 'allen@ferromobius.com'; Chippendale, Sue
Subject: ARC Appeal -399 Foothill
Attachments: Hilstein -2-17-09.pdf
Attached is an Architectural Review Commission appeal from Steve and Stefanie Hilstein. I
have scheduled this public hearing to be heard at the February 17th Council meeting with a
time of 30 minutes. If you feel this is not adequate time, please adjust on the 6o day.
Also, Mr. Hilstein has verbally agreed to hear this appeal after the 45 day deadline and will sign
and send back a written agreement by December 29th. I will email the written agreement as
soon as it is received.
Thanks,
Elaina
12/16/2008
2163 Augusta Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 5, 2009
Andrew Carter John Ashbaugh
City Council Member City Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE Cultural Heritage Committee Interview
Dear Councilmen Carter and Ashbaugh:
Thank you for your time spent during my interview.
I did not answer one of the questions. Donna and I moved to San Luis Obispo in 2003. We also lived in
the area while attending Cal Poly from 1992 through 1995. My research for CHC projects, reading Don
Krieger columns, visiting the SLO Historical Society Museum and looking at historical photos of San
Luis Obispo have helped my grasp of the city's history.
Several items worthy of addition, my wife was on the Yountville, CA planning commission (called the
Zoning Design Review Board) for a number of years and definitely taught me the value of carefully
reading the staff reports—and the value of timely report deliveries. In addition, I did some peripheral
preservation work while doing my two summer internships (1994-95) with the Nebraska Department of
Economic Development.
Following the interview I went to the Community Development Department to look at the proposed Art
Center drawings. Yes. Out-of-place: within the Mission-Monterey Street setting. Sometimes that works,
like the Opera House in Sydney and the Guggenheim Museum in New York. Both are a clear and definite
contrast within the settings. However, the contextual architectural and massing mixes are greater and the
spatial spacings are greater, versus the San Luis Obispo setting. The side facing the Mission has the
appearance of a cruise ship, and it is surprising to see the amount of exterior windows given to an art
center (But great for fund-raising events). One wants to question whether the architects gave
consideration to the city's Downtown Historical Preservation Zone and the Historical Preservation
Guidelines.
I do understand that the City has a number of qualified CHC applicants. As a citizen I want the Council
to select the best applicants, whether or not I am chosen to be on the CHC. Whether I am part of the
CHC, I am a willing survey volunteer.
Sincerely,
f�ltD 671 L
F�I.tZZ KG1I �OWS�2L D' CCUNCIL _,'CDD DIR
C�'GAeC/nj/)IG,e aFIN DIR
C-AGAeR55jerrAA1,6,eQ'FIRE CHIEF
Buzz Kalkowski n2D FILE 2-ATTORNEY 2-PW DIR
MEETING AGES"D,�
IaCLERK/ORIG p-POLICE CHF
t ❑ DEFT HEADS p'REC DIR
DATEa D 1'I EP:'I 6u G'UTIL DIR
2-HR DIR
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Naomi Hoffman [omih@charter.netl Sent: Tue 2/10/2009 4:18 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Art Center Building Approval
Attachments:
I wish to make a few comments about the proposed Art Center building.
Most architectural critics put"site specific" as their primary
determinant of the appropriateness of a structure. I would like to
point out several factors that this new addition to our cultural
center lacks.
First, it does not enhance or engage the sylvan setting it occupies. n=.D FILE
The building with its expensive round viewing tower (a nod to the MEETING AGENDA
S.F.De Young museum) both eliminates trees and gives a less intimate DATES 1� p ITE11 jr P14
experience of the setting than the original ground level view.
Second, As the Cultural Heritage Commission has stated this "design
theme is not consistent with adopted city policies". This is a
reference to the Policy 3.3.4 Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy. Quote: "New buildings in historic districts, or on
historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and waD )OY 641-4«
materials of nearby historic structures.The street appearance of CTCOUNCIL OTDD DIR
buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural 0'446 0r1l/h62. aFIN DIR
appearance should be maintained." After all, this is the Mission 13AC4G4-13 '4MAk�e-2-FIRE CHIEF
Plaza, the most central part of our city's historic past. 0"ATTORNEY 2-PW DIR
C5'CLERKIORIG Mi-POLICE CHF
Third, there are elements in the design that do not fully reflect t El DEPT HEADS aREC DIR
good museum use. Windows in the galleries, less accessible galleries J� per— IYUTIL DIR
on the second and third floors and the "wall on the Broad street side �-r 2r uN� d'HR DIF
that is not visitor friendly. Alec✓nmES deu a�;L
After looking at the new renderings of the building, I do not see
that these, or the above concepts, have been addressed.There are �L 2
modifications that could be done to make this building more suitable
to the district.
To summarize, this might be a beautiful addition to the city in a
different location but not in our historic Mission Plaza. Please
consider carefully your responsibility to the character of the Plaza
and the example your choices will make for future development there.
Thank You.
Naomi Hoffman
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sloc itycouncil/Inbox/Art%o 20Center%20Building%20Ap... 2/11/2009
✓ = councit
memoRanbum
;F
DATE: February 12, 2009
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Art Center— Council Meeting February 17th,2009
The resolution provided in the Art Center staff report caries forward the Planning Commission
recommendation. Attached is a draft alternate resolution, developed by staff at the suggestion of
Council members Settle and Marx. This alternative will allow the Council to approve the use
permit, but with specific findings and conditions that would have to be met, consistent with the
"Solutions" section of the staff report.
A question was asked as to whether or not it would be appropriate to assign to the Community
Development Director responsibility for determining the adequacy of the follow-up
modifications and solutions. Past direction has been that the City Council will take action on
final design approvals, and staff recommends that this responsibility remain with the Council.
This project has been of very high community interest, rendering a final staff approval difficult
to make and sustain (and most likely subject to a more time-consuming appeal).
Please call Phil Dunsmore at extension #576 (781-7522) or Doug Davidson at extension #177
(781-7177) if you have any questions.
-1*U Cof'y
COUNCIL 2-CDD DIR
'eA'C CN tMGR D-FIN DIR
�' D TILE SSA �'i/ ✓=f FIRE CHIEF
C,70RNEY 1!7-PW DIR
— IVIEEI Ii�G AGENDA L'rCLERK/ORI4 C3 POLICE CHF
DAT i7 v ITEM "PN L_ ` °�P�_�_ CLEC DIR
C�"UTIL DIR
'I-R DIR
N�JzrrhEs CCU&)C.,L
C " ✓!Zaz_
Cher
Alternative
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECCOMENDING THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ART
CENTER BUILDING DESIGN AT 1010 BROAD STREET;
APPLICATION NO. U 111-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
October 22, 2008, for the purpose of considering a Use Permit to allow the Art Center to
construct a new building in the Downtown Commercial Historic, Special Considerations Zone
(C-D-H-S)Zone at 1010 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the hearing was to make a recommendation to the City
Council on the merits of the Use Permit in consideration of the S-overlay zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation on February 17`h' 2009; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and ,
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, City Advisory bodies and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Approval. The request to allow the Use Permit to construct a new building
for the Art Center located in the S-Overlay zone is hereby approved, based on the following
findings and subject to conditions:
Findings:
1. The proposed new building is compatible or complementary to structures on adjacent
properties as required by Ordinance 1514 since, as conditioned, the building massing,
articulation, exterior materials and roof treatment is compatible with adjacent and nearby
historic structures.
2. As conditioned, the proposed new building is consistent with General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element Policies that are designed to protect and enhance the City's historic
districts.
3. As conditioned, the proposed new building is consistent with the Historic Preservation
Guidelines which require that new primary structures within Historical Preservation Districts
should further promote the historic character of those areas.
4. As conditioned, the building design is likely to complement and contribute to the character
l A
i
Resolution No. [ ]
Page 2
with the existing historic buildings, however it creates its own place in history by introducing
a contemporary building design that reflects the era of its construction.
4. As conditioned, the proposed building design is consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines since the height and scale of the proposed new structure complements existing
adjacent buildings and will provide human scale and proportion.
5. The development project does not require additional environmental review because the
rezoning of the property (Resolution 9975) examined the Art Center proposal in an
environmental initial study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was approved
by City Council.
Conditions:
1. The project design shall be modified to address the advisory body design comments (CHC,
ARC and Planning Commission). A revised architectural package shall be submitted for
review by the Community Development Director to process for final review by the City
Council prior to submittal of construction documents. The revised design shall include the
following:
a. Eliminate curvilinear tower features and extensive glazing from the building and replace
with building forms that complement other buildings in the neighborhood such as the
Carnegie Library, The Mission, residential structures on Monterey Street, or other historic
buildings within the downtown historic district.
b. Eliminate extensive glazing and angled window features at Broad and Monterey Streets and
replace with window forms and shapes that complement the downtown historic district.
Windows should provide for rhythm, size and details that contribute to historic compatibility
and human scale.
c. Additional variety shall be added to the color of the wall materials, especially on the Broad
and Monterey Street building elevations. Brick, quarried stone, stone veneer, wood (or
cementatious wood-like products) are acceptable exterior materials. Stucco,reflective metal,
concrete masonry block, and frosted/darkly tinted glass are not appropriate exterior
materials.
d. Additional texture shall be included in the exterior stone material so that the texture of the
material can be visible from the street similar to the rough texture of quarried stone found on
historic buildings.
e. Attention shall be given to the pedestrian scale of the building at Broad and Monterey Street.
This shall include, but may not be limited to, windows and main entrance oriented towards
the sidewalk and corner of Monterey and Broad Street, and windows that provide form and
repetition common to historic buildings within the downtown.
f. A specific historical style need not be applied; however, components of the proposed
building design such as rhythm, massing, fenestration, colors, and materials should better
complement the site's historic setting. Building massing, articulation, exterior materials,
roof treatment, and quality shall be compatible with adjacent and nearby historic structures.
I
Resolution No. [ ]
Page 3
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2009.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:03 AM
To: Council_ALL
Cc: Lowell, Jonathan P; Dunsmore, Phil; Stanwyck, Shelly; Mandeville,
John; Davidson, Doug; Hooper, Audrey; Stanwyck, Shelly
Subject: FW: Art Center documents
Importance: High
These are the documents requested by Council Member Marx. We will
prepare hard copies for the Council reading file, too (or for each
member individually, if you wish - please let us know) . The
environmental determination was made by Council in April 2008, per the _
attached resolution. Note Phil 's comment below regarding the lease
agreement.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dunsmore, Phil
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:45 AM
To: Hampian, Ken; Marx, Jan; Hooper, Audrey
Cc: Lowell, Jonathan P; Mandeville, John; Davidson, Doug; Stanwyck,
Shelly
Subject: RE: Art Center documents
Attached, please find a pdf copy of Reso 9975, the initial study, and
the lease. In regards to the lease area, it would have to be amended to
accommodate the new center. This was discussed at a Council study
session in 2006 and it was suggested that the Art Center pursue design
approval prior to amending the lease. The current application includes
a lot line adjustment and request to amend the lease area.
Phil Dunsmore
Associate Planner, AICP
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805) 781-7522
P Please consider the environment before printing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hampian, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:12 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Hooper, Audrey
Cc: Lowell, Jonathan P; Mandeville, John; Davidson, Doug; Dunsmore,
Phil; Stanwyck, Shelly
Subject: RE: Art Center documents
By copy of this reply, I am passing on your request to our planning
staff who I am sure can assist with getting you to documents (or where
you can find them online) . Other council members have also asked about
the property lines and lease agreement, and we shall be prepared to
answer these questions tonight.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:22 AM
To: Hooper, Audrey; Hampian, Ken
Cc: Lowell, Jonathan P
Subject: Art Center documents
Please give me a copy of the lease between the city and the Art Center,
a copy of Resolution 9975 and a copy of the environmental initial study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the Art Center.
I am concerned whether the larger envelope of the building is allowed
under our lease. Also, I wonder if the trees and park space that would
be lost has been mitigated.
Thanks,
Jan
VU1431 PAfif 2
Canir-acf ung la-
I ill dL1j)11CJCV at San Liu., OI)i:.,Iio, (;Z1111"IfIlia, On
2n. 1967 I)L:LNvccjl We CITY OF SAN LUIS DBISVO, a
3 -Millociiial Curpuraciun, and die SAN LUIS OBISPOART ASSOCIATION, .1 Non-Profit
4 Corporation, hereinafter called Llic Lessor. and Lessee respectively, widioul; regard
5 1 to nawbur or goiclec
i V IS A(,k LED 13L-*.'I'WL'I:N THE PARTIES As I;OLLOIVs:
1. 1&-SCkil'i 1UN UP 016�,MISES. The Lessor hereby [cases to Lessee, and
Wnwo Was (ruin Lessor, an die terms and conditions hereinafter set ford!, those
9 CL'Aalll P17CMUS with die appurtenances, situated in UK' City 01 San Luis Obispo,
COnnix 1)1'Sin Luis Obispo, State of C-alirornia, and described in Exhibit -A" attached
hurt w anal ina de a part huKeof.
12 The U-1:11% Of the widiin Lease shall be for munty-fivu (25) years,
13 on March h 1967, or an the LUM die deet! to Lossur Of dic Land (ICsCribUd
14 "H- Ficrinto is recorded, whichever trate is Lazar, with an updoii w renew
15 upas Clic same terms and cmulkhris as hercill 'Llwd' for all additional tvt-llq-rive (25)
lu %val" p-rind; Said option to he ('WrCiSOd by WtitLen 11OLICC Of :,Ileh intt•ntiun
17* Lu Lessor at lQaSL llilluty OU) Wiys before die c:nd of rjijs Lcasc.
ii
18!: J. The total consideration to be paid by the Lcsscc to the Lessor is Onc
19 llqv Q i Wj par year, payable in advanct-, plus an-,- taxvs no:: or herca fEcr
20'' and Lila .)j1L'Y;1Li011 and maintenance of tic j!njv,i%, 111clits as her cillancr
21! Oct nwiln In addition, ave I& cunt (5%) of We awaL grusn rucu4its un the sale of
22;, %"MkS 14 art 11 LU 1W J%lid to Lessor annually on January tsl uj each year, curninclicing
23,
24 4, 1 Sii. The premises are leased to the J,L'SSUC for the jW17I)OSVS 01 LH, ;)J:()]',:IjLiU;I,
CO tkndqhnow, and cWhidonufarts and craNsuria
26 Lhu St t: M CaUlArda and as sat forth in Lessee's durwr and by-laws. Thvi:vs11;J11
2% Ofa VL r1111PUCS On the premises, After SCPLUMIWX t 1907, CW Sit
ix (6)
L;'o.-c Z:lv. (,f Jiis Leases W"chawr Ina wvnrx, EA"stw Mail rw
lsc, Ox PM11c said Promises, or any part churcur, to be jjac!,j for any plirrIoSc. Or
30 jaqwwo Wwr than the joirposc or purposes for Mlidi the said premises are hereby
Uds restriction shal be construed NO as to audiorizu die
32 L- of dic bujtdilly to rc 11 lain,Until dial; date. l7urdiermorc, Lessee shall
.. .. V 431 PAL
r
b, MONTEREYSao-7 pv
5!
I I i
is
f
• � tea.
t
sae3
�1 ,r .•07E':C-f
71
,.rc Cr. -x?. I EXHIBIT
L1x,AL DESC1z�rmN
r!ctt putliun of Block 1U in the City of Sall L
of Sin Luis Qbishu, State of California, more Particularly
uis Viii.'uularl�)uun
descri vd as follows:
BEGINNING 1\C at dtu wt'stc'rly corner Uf said BIOCk 10: thence
South 5: 5.3' [ast 55 feet to the True ['uiut of!;ep,itwit!c: Utcnce
Korth 5:S' (.) 1. tst 25 feet. Che71Ce South :ib" 5:i' 1::ast 'i4,5 feet:
thence SOMAI S3° t17' 1l'usC 25 feet; thence KUrth air' 53' West
39.5 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
�UOU-
,... �0L1431 pay(
v
MONTEREY
se'orty
ITS, I I
t e
i<r.i-eF—y o h
aq
r
1
S-I 07
N3`-0 76 �
r I
EXHIBIT A
PARIL 1.
That portion of Block 10 of the City of San Luis Obispo, County of
San Luis Obispo according to the official map in the office of the
County Recorder, County of San Luis Obispo, California, more particularly
described ac follow:
Sep
alonF .the at the most we::¢rly eoraer of said Bloc's 10; thence south ?G° 53'
aloe the southd'etPrly line of said Block, 55 feet to a
530 07' °> a distance of 25.00 feet ° Z
5.00 i' thence S 3G 53' F% a d4f thence
point; thence ?G`n5],tuenfe N 530 07' E, a distance of b0a83 feet ctooa
line of said Eloc< 10; distance of 100 feet to the northwesterly
the p"`n= of thence. S 53 07' y, a distance 0; e5,83 feet to
Containing 0.171: acres, more or leas.
1
PAIZCL'L 2:
That portion of Block 10 u7 the City'of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, QS
according to the official map in the office of the County Recorder, County or San
Luis Obispo, California, more particularly described as fulluws;
Peginning at the westerly corner of said Block 10;
fort to tile Truc Point of BL
ginnin.; orth du'ncc 5outf� 3G° 53' fast 5.i 20
SuuGl 3b° 53' Gast 39,5 feet; th nce South 53° 075We.Nt Y ,
360.53' \Vest 39,5 feet to talc True Point or Beginnin,, 5 1'cc[; tJience
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 64-07
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment and Rezone, GP/R 64-07
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner, AICP (805)781-7522
4. Project Location:
Properties on the south side of Monterey Street on the block between Nipomo and Broad Street
from 667 Monterey Street through 1010 Broad Street. The following addresses are included in
the project area:
667 Monterey Street
679 Monterey Street
699 Monterey Street
1010 Broad
1019 Broad
1021 Broad
1023 Broad
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Shearedge Development, Michael Hodge
1026 Palm Street, Suite 201
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Office and Public Facility
7. Zoning: Office-Historic (O-H) and Public Facility-Historic (PF-H).
1. Description of the Project:
The City has received an application to amend the General Plan land use designations from
Office and Public Facility to General Retail. The current Office-Historic (O-H) and Public
Facility-Historic (PF-H) zone would be changed to Downtown-Commercial-Historic (C-D-H).
This request was made to facilitate the redevelopment of the Leitcher Apartment site at 667
Monterey, and the Art Center at 1010 Broad. If these amendments are supported, the western
extent of the City-owned creek walk to the south of the Leitcher Apartments, addressed as 1045
Broad, would also be re-designated from Office (O-H) to Public Facility (PF), for consistency
with the designation of Mission Plaza and to modify the zoning on an isolated pocket of Office-
designated land.
Construction of New Art Center. The rezoning of the property will facilitate the redevelopment
of the Art Center located at the southeast corner of Broad and Monterey Street. The
redevelopment project of the Art Center would consist of the demolition of the existing 5,429
square-foot, 20-foot tall building and the construction of a new 23,000-square foot building with
building elements that will extend up to 45 feet in height. The new building would consist of
two stories over a basement (essentially a 3-story building). The scale of the new building has
been designed with the purpose of providing adequate space for exhibition, education and related
cultural events. The proposed project would include minor street improvements including
installation of bulb-outs and decorative paving in the crosswalks. These improvements would
be compatible with applicable ARC-approved modifications to the proposed Mission Plaza
Project. No formal plans have been submitted to the City at this time and such plans will require
review by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and architectural review. The CHC has
conceptually reviewed the project. The scope of this environmental review is strictly associated
with the change in zoning designation from Office(0) to Commercial-Downtown (C-D)
Redevelopment of Leitcher Apartment site. The Leitcher apartment site, a designated historic
property at 667 Monterey Street is currently abandoned and in a blighted state. The building is
proposed to be re-sited, renovated, and restored with an adaptive re-use which will include
ground level office space and two affordable residential units on the second level. Two new
mixed-use buildings are proposed adjacent to the historic residence and are proposed to include
retail and residential uses. A hotel is proposed adjacent to the mixed-use project with
approximately 14 guest rooms. Underground parking and site improvements including a new
pedestrian connection to the existing creek path are proposed. No formal plans have been
submitted to the City at this time and such plans will require review by the CHC and architectural
review. The scope of this environmental is strictly associated with the change in zoning
designation from Office (0) to Commercial-Downtown (C-D)
Other properties. No development plans are proposed for the existing City parking lot at the
southwest comer of Broad Street and Monterey or the adjacent property containing the
residential/office structure at 679 Monterey Street. These properties would be re-zoned to C-D
with this application.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings The properties are currently developed with a mixture of
residential and commercial uses. The Art Center is on a City owned property at the southeast
comer of Broad and Monterey, and a small public parking lot is on the City owned property at
the southwest corner of Broad and Monterey. The parcels on the north side of Monterey Street
are developed with residential units, offices, the historic Camegie Library, and the Mission.
Other surrounding uses include commercial and office uses, the new Children's Museum, and
Mission Plaza. San Luis Obispo Creek is south of, and immediately adjacent to the subject
�� CITY OF SAN Luis CBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
properties. South of the creek, properties are developed with multi-story commercial buildings on
Higuera Street.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone to facilitate redevelopment of the Art
Center and Leitcher Apartment property.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
c
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 Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
X Cultural Ressources X Noise Mandatory Findings of
Sigmicance
Po ulation and Housing
FISH AND GAME FEES .
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies 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.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
1�1111 CITY OF SAN LOIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that 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.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
lll� Cn-Y OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
J
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
��� CRY of SAN Luis OBISFo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECFWST 2007
C
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1, 10 X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic-buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1, 10 X
the site,and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,23 X
adversely,effect da or nighttime views in the:area?
Evaluation
a) Based on the City's Circulation Element, there are no scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site or the
downtown area; therefore, the proposed project would not impact any officially designated scenic vistas. In
addition, views of nearby hillsides which are deemed to be an important visual resource (LU 4.13, LU 4.16.4)
would not be impacted as result in an increase building height due to existing lack of views, surrounding mature
vegetation, and surrounding adjacent structures.
b) The project site is not along or near a designated local or state scenic highway. Therefore,there is no impact
to visual resources along these routes.
c) The existing SLO Art Center is not considered an architecturally or historically significant structure; however, it
is located within the City's Downtown Historic Preservation District, an "area where buildings with pre-1941
architectural styles create a recognizable character." (SLOMC § 17.54.010.b.1) The City's Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines (Section D.2) states that new primary structures within a Historical Preservation District
should further promote the historical character of that district area through careful attention to building form, bulk,
scale, site location and landscaping. All new buildings need not be designed in the same style of surrounding
structures; however, elements of the styles and building forms should be included in the new structure, and it
should complement the architectural character of the area (LU 4.12).
The existing structure is 5,429 square feet in size, 1 story, and 20 feet tall; the proposed redeveloped structure
would be 23,000 square feet in size, 3 stories with a basement, and 50 feet tall. In order to meet the City
guidelines, the proposed project design consists of a contemporary landmark building, which uses materials (e.g.,
mission style sidewalks, stone veneer, etc.)that echo components of nearby historic structures. The design of the
structure has been presented to City Commissions during preliminary review meetings; and approval of a final
design is subject to review by both the Cultural Heritage and Architectural Review Commissions.
The new building will be significantly larger than the existing Art Center. The multi-story rotunda will dominate the
creek walk at this location, changing the character of the area from its mostly natural feeling to one more
dominated by the built environment. The proposed terrace and deck will infringe on the existing landscaping
adjacent to the creek walk, and remove the walkway that currently provides access from the Art Center to the
creek and bridge. This bridge provides a well used access from Monterey Street to the back of many businesses
on Higuera Street. The scale of the building, the loss of landscaping, and the encroachment on the creek walk
have the potential to change the natural character and inviting scale of the existing configuration. However, based
on feedback from the Architectural Review Commission and the Cultural Heritage Commission, the proposed
project design could be found consistent with City design guidelines and policies; therefore, the proposed project
would be visually consistent with the overall character of the area.
At 667 Monterey Street, the General Plan Amendment/rezoning will allow for the development of a mixed-use
commercial-residential project with increased density, lot coverage, and taller buildings than the present zoning,
thereby potentially changing the aesthetic condition of the property. The current Office zoning allows for 12
dwelling units per net acre, 50% lot coverage, and buildings with 35-foot maximum height limit. The proposed C-D
zoning will allow for up to 36 dwelling units per net acre, with 100% lot.coverage (less the 15-foot street yard
_r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
setback that is required because the site is adjacent to Office zoned property and less the required 20-foot creek
setback) and building heights up to 50 feet. Therefore, the zone change could alter views and create light and
glare for the adjacent residential properties given the scale of development which could be allowed. However,
future site development will require review by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), which will shall
address/mitigate the project's impacts to views and other potentialaesthetic issues like light/glare to a less than
significant level.
d) The City's guidelines for lighting prohibits light in excess of one foot-candle from spilling over the property line.
Glare resulting from proposed lighting could be reduced by implementation of standard requirements to shield
lights and recess light sources within fixtures. These guidelines shall be incorporated as a mitigation measure to
ensure compliance and minimize potential light impacts to nearby residences and the creek corridor.
Conclusion
The project will have a less than significant impact on area aesthetics when the above mitigation is incorporated
into the project. The City's Community Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations are designed to protect existing
properties from aesthetic impacts. No further mitigation is necessary. Although the designation change will allow
for more intensive development, the vicinity is already substantially developed with multi-story buildings and
improvements. The rezoning of the property may also facilitate the renovation of existing abandoned and blighted
buildings that currently exist on the site, thereby improving the aesthetic condition of the property.
Mitigation
1. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan ensuring
that exterior lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in excess of one foot-
candle. Glare light shall be reduced by shielding lights and recessing light sources within fixtures.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland-, 12 X
of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the
maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to:non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 9 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 10 X
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The site is a series of small developed parcels surrounded by developed properties and public streets
within the urban core. No agricultural uses exist on site or on surrounding properties. The Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no
Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources
are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo S INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 13,14 X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct.implementation of the applicable 13,14 X
air quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 9, X
concentrations? 13,14
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 13,14 X
of people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 13,14 X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state,ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a), b), c) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM10 (fine particulate matter 10 microns
or less in diameter) air quality standard. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their
precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP)
for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)to meet that
requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states
that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and
emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. However, this project will be
subject to the Gig's Grading Ordinance which includes dust control measures to reduce any potential impacts. At
this time, the scope of the "project" has not been refined, and this review is primarily to consider the land use
designation change. The change in land use designation will have negligible or less than significant impacts to air
quality.
There are no traffic load or capacity problems currently associated with the existing development and none
anticipated as a result of the proposed project since the affected properties are small and even if built out would
not introduce significant additional development. However, additional trips will be generated with redevelopment of
each property and considering the change from office to retail uses. As the project site is in the City's downtown
district, the nature of many trips to the downtown are multi-purpose in that people, including those visiting the SLO
Art Center, are patronizing more than one business. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is considered non-attainment.
Rezoning of the property may facilitate demolition of some existing structures. Demolition of existing structures
can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper demolition and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). Appropriate demolition and/or relocation permits will need to be obtained
through the Building Division which will ensure proper removal, transport and disposal of any potentially hazardous
material. The demolition permit(s)require approval by the APCD.
The project itself, once established, would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
During project construction, however, there may be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction
and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. The
City has addressed these construction related impacts through standards in the Grading Ordinance and mitigation
measures in the General Plan EIR. Compliance with these standards is monitored during the building permit plan
check process and by field inspections conducted by Building Division inspectors.
leo/ Crry OF SAN LUIS Owspo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) No objectionable odors currently emanate from the use of these sites; therefore, it is anticipated that no
objectionable odors would result from the larger facility as there will be no change in operation, only building size.
Conclusion
Changes to the land use designation will result in less than significant impacts to air quality.As the project area re-
develops, project conditions will accommodate air quality control during any proposed construction. This shall be
done on a case by case, project specific basis. No mitigation is necessary at this time.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 5, 10 X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5, 10 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 5 x
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 5, 10 X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 5 x
Plan,.Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?.
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands 5 X
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but
not limited to,marshes,vernal "pools,etc.)through direct
removal,.filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
CITY of SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
a), b) San Luis Obispo Creek, adjacent to potential development sites, is within the area to be rezoned. Federally
protected species such as steelhead trout, frequent the creek. Additionally, the creek and surrounding environs
acts as habitat for a variety of protected amphibians, birds, and other wildlife. Although no construction is
proposed within the boundary of the creek, construction near creek banks has the potential to result in impacts to
riparian vegetation and creek stability. A concrete pedestrian walkway and landscape area lies between the
proposed project sites and the creek. City policies do not allow construction activities to encroach within 20-feet of
the top of the creek bank. Therefore, if future development is constructed consistent with City Policy, no impacts
will occur to the creek area and the associated riparian habitat. Changes to the zoning for this vicinity is not likely
to impact the creek area since creek protection and creek setbacks will remain unchanged.
c) The project is a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone which is necessary to accommodate a
future mixed-use residential/commercial project, the development of which will require separate review by the
City's Urban Forester and approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). At this time, there is no
indication that significant trees or other vegetation would be impacted by a project since the majority of the project
area is already developed.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed GPA/R will not interfere with
the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. The affected properties are already developed
with structures and hardscape. No changes to the creek area or associated corridors are proposed. A pedestrian
walkway and a formal landscape area lies between potential development sites and the creek.
e) The proposed project is a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone which does not conflict with
any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
f) As discussed above, the project site does not propose interference with the existing creek or associated habitat
areas. New construction will be required to follow the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, consistent with Chapter 17
of the Municipal Code, therefore no mitigation is necessary.
Conclusion
Modifying the land use designation does not have the potential to impact biological resources. Individual
development projects will require separate review to ensure compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance
and the City's General Plan policies regarding natural resources. No mitigation is necessary.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 9,18, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 20
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 19,21 X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 10,19 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 21 X
formal cemeteries?
111111l� CITY of SAN LUIS Osispo 1 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Evaluation
a), b) Based on a Cultural Resource Investigation (2006) performed by Dr. John Parker of Parker and
Associates, the proposed project site for the Art Center, located at the southeast corner of Broad and Monterey
Streets, is located within a known historic site. Historical maps and drawings indicate that the project site was
part of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa until the City street system was created. After development of the
street system and subdivision of mission property, the project area contained two dwellings that faced Monterey
Street and two dwellings that faced Broad Street. The two Monterey Street dwellings remained until sometime
before 1950 when one was demolished. One of the Broad Street structures was used by a dressmaker and one
was used by a cobbler before 1903. By 1909, a bottle storage building existed next to the cobbler's structure.
By 1926, the bottle storage building had become an auto repair business and the cobbler's structure was used
as an office. Sometime after 1950, all of these structures were removed and the current concrete block
structures were built. Based on Dr. Parker's study, there is a high probability that the project site will contain
buried archaeological features and artifacts from the pre-Mission and Mission eras. It is expected that historic
resources and artifacts (1850-1930) will be encountered during demolition and grading. Along with individual
artifacts, it is likely that historic foundation footings, trash deposits, and privy pits will be encountered that may
contain cultural material important in reconstructing the history of both the Mission and early development of the
Town of San Luis Obispo. Mission San Luis Obispo and its related structures are considered historically
significant cultural resources as defined in the Calif. Pub. Res. Code (5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852). Both
the Mission and early San Luis Obispo City structures represent critical periods in California's economic and
cultural growth. Any intact cultural features representing these two time periods would be considered
"significant" archaeological resources. Destruction of significant cultural resources would result in a potentially
significant impact.
The project site at 667 Monterey Street is on the City's list of contributing historic resources. Moving the structure
and developing the site with new construction has the potential to create impacts to historic and/or archeological
resources unless mitigation measures are incorporated.
b); and, d) Based on a records search performed by Dr. John Parker at the Regional Archaeological Information
Center(Dept. of Anthropology, U.C. Santa Barbara), the project site for the Art Center had not been the subject
of an archaeological inspection in the past; however, the project site was listed as within the boundaries of a
known sensitive archeological site. Dr. Parker conducted an archaeological surface survey of the project site to
identify any archaeological resources. As a result of the survey effort, Dr. Parker identified numerous
archaeological artifacts that span prehistoric time (pre-1772) to historic San Luis Obispo era (1850-1930).. Due
to the fact that a high number of artifacts were observed during the field inspection, and the fact that adjacent
parcels contained buried trash deposits, structural remains, and significant artifacts, it is likely that intact
historical and archaeological features will exist buried within the project site. General Plan EIR Cultural
Resources Policy 6 (Archaeological Resources Discovered During Construction or Through Other Activities)
states that "Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction of a new
development...all activities shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in the Chumash culture can
determine the significance of the resource and submit alternative mitigation measures." Destruction of
significant cultural resources would result in a potentially significant impact. As part of Cultural Resource
Investigation, Dr. Parker has provided several recommendations to reduce potential impacts to archaeological
and historical which are likely to occur within the project site. These recommendations have been incorporated
into the mitigation measures provided in the following section.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features within the project site.
Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to cultural resources,
including the disturbance and/or destruction of archaeological and historic resources, unless mitigation is
incorporated.
��
CITY OF SAN Luis CBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
C
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Cess Thais No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Mitigation Measures
1. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified historic/prehistoric
archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities (e.g., excavation, grading, utility trenching). Weekly monitoring
reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of disturbance, the nature of any resources
encountered, and any other information outlined in the conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring
Plan. In the event that significant artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease
until the area is surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall be provided the
necessary time and funding to recover the"scientifically consequential information from or about the resource"as
required by CEOA § 15026.4. A final report of findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials
should be cataloged and curated at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and
federal standards.
2. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the City
prior to the issuance of construction permits. The plan should detail the protocols and methods that will be initiated
should any historic or archaeological resources be encountered during demolition or construction, and include
provisions and directives for specific content for weekly monitoring reports.
3. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the event that any
human remains are discovered.
4. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work shall be performed
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original exterior materials, trim, windows,
roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather than replicated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 22 X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? 22 X
M. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 11 X
W. Landslides or mudflows? 9 X
b) Result in substantial soil.erosion.or the loss of topsoil? I 1 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that I 1 X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) 'Be located on expansive.soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 11 X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or ro ?
Evaluation
a) c)The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province,which extends along
the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and
fracturing of variable intensity. in general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced
northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
M CITY OF SAN LUIS CiBISPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide
special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and
well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis
Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study
area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology
study(source 25), the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is
about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within
a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active". Other
active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento,
located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12
miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High
Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone 4, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most
likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To
minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist
such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
b) The project area and immediate vicinity is a disturbed site as it has been in use since the Mission was
established in 1788. Small commercial and residential establishments have occupied the area since the late
1880s, and the Art Center has been in this location since 1967. The amount of original topsoil left is unknown and
assumed to be minimal. Once the site is redeveloped, there will be no erosion as the site will be fully improved
with the construction of buildings, hardscape or landscape. Current plans for the art center show the construction
of a new basement, approximately 11 feet deep. Excavation and construction has the potential to substantially
increase erosion potential on site during construction. Prior to site disturbance, each project application will be
required to include a drainage and erosion control plan. Such a plan is required for any construction project within
the City. Furthermore, each project is required to comply with the City's Waterways Management Plan which
includes a comprehensive list of Best Management Practices. Therefore, no additional mitigation will be
necessary.
c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,
which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994). A soils engineering report will be required to be submitted as part of the building
permit process to ensure the integrity of the structures and infrastructure. The soils engineering report is a
standard City requirement for any new substantial construction permit. Therefore, no additional mitigation is
necessary.
Conclusion
Based on compliance within existing standard regulations, implementation of the proposed project would result in
less than significant impacts.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proled:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 25 X
through the routine use,transport or r disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 25 X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous,emissions or handle hazardous or acutely _. 9,25 X
�� CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 25 X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 9 X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
0 For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 24 X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4 X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b), c), d) The project site in and of itself would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the
environment. It is also unlikely that soil contamination may have occurred within this property as it has been
historically used for purposes that do not include hazardous materials. However, since demolition of the existing
building would occur as part of the project, a soil assessment/investigation should be conducted to the satisfaction
of the Citys Fire Department to verify the condition of the soil under and around the existing building prior to
approval of a new development project or construction permit.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
§65962.5.
f) The project site is more than two miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land
Use Plan Area.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland
fires.
Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. Project development and
construction will require more defined soil analysis which may result in additional soil work prior to construction.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 7,28 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 18,28 X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
��� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STuOy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
nearby wells would drop to a level which would notsupport
existing.land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 7,28 X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 7,28 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially.alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 28 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 9 X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area.structures which 9,25 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 25 X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 25,28 X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a)Amending the Land Use designation is not likely to result in impacts to hydrology and water quality. However, if
the project area is redeveloped, grading and construction activities have the potential to discharge incidental
sediment and construction related pollutants, into San Luis Creek. Precautions should be taken to prevent
accidental discharge of such contaminants into San Luis Creek, such as limiting fueling and maintenance to
specified staging areas, and ensuring that proper erosion and pollution control barriers are placed between the
work area and the creek. A hazardous materials plan should be prepared and approved prior to project (or
demolition)approval.
b) If properties are to be redeveloped, water to the project would be supplied by the City of San Luis Obispo
through existing City infrastructure. Increases in building sizes may result in increased water use and wastewater
production and could require a larger water meter. If a larger water meter is required, additional water allocation
will also be required as there would be additional demand on the City's water supply. The City currently has water
to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are
issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Water will need to be provided by the City's Utilities Department and it
must be shown that supplying the project will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with
groundwater recharge. An analysis of the Art Centers water and wastewater needs and a will serve letter from the
City's Utility Department are required prior to completion of the environmental determination or project approval.
c), d) The proposed redevelopment of these sites has a minimal potential to increase the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site and affect drainage patterns, and the amount and rate of surface runoff. This is because the
majority of the project area (with the exception of a portion of the Leitcher apartment site) is already developed
with impervious surfaces (parking lots, and structures). A detailed assessment of the drainage impacts will be
required prior to project approval consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design
Manual. To ensure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, redevelopment of the
site is required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes. Site drainage will be evaluated with the grading
plans as part of the Building Permit process. The historical drainage pattern is anticipated to be maintained based
on a comparison of the existing and proposed building footprints and site topography. The capacity of the storm
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 16 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
drains and wastewater treatment plant will need to be evaluated for their ability to handle the change in site
drainage and characteristics.
e) The project design does not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner
which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite as the site is already substantially developed with
impervious surfaces. Any increase in impervious surfaces, as mentioned above, should be explained in detail and
submitted in the drainage and grading plan, prior to project approval.
f), g), h)The project site is within the A Flood Zone which is subject to 100-year flooding. Any new building design
will need to comply with FEMA requirements and the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Any new
housing will be subject to a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Existing City regulations are designed to reduce flood
impacts to a less than significant level, therefore no additional mitigation is necessary.
Conclusion
Based on existing conditions, the characteristics of the proposed project, and established City policies that are
designed to mitigate site drainage,flooding and water quality, there will be a Less than significant impact.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 1,9 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5 X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a)The proposed GPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The GPA/R
would change the land use designation of the site from Office and Public Facility to Downtown Commercial. The
existing Historic overlay zone would remain. This portion of Monterey Street is also shown on the City's
Conceptual Physical Plan for the Downtown. The conceptual physical plan illustrates that this portion of Monterey
Street may be closed to vehicular traffic in the future. The rezone does not conflict with the conceptual physical
plan and instead may help to facilitate the plan through redevelopment of vacant or underutilized properties.
The rezone would allow additional residential density, as the proposed zoning of C-D would allow a greater density
of housing on the site (36 units/acre) than is allowed by the current Office and Public Facility zoning (12
units/acre). This furthers the goals of the City's General Plan Housing Element. The GP/R and future mixed-use
commercial and residential development proposal is consistent with Land Use Element policies regarding the
expansion of housing opportunities in the Downtown Planning Area. Additionally, the C-D designation will allow for
a wider range of commercial uses and additional development flexibility, thereby encouraging the adaptive re-use
and redevelopment of existing blighted buildings. The project will also be consistent with Housing Element goals
and polices on production and land use efficiency. The proposed GP/R will increase the City's inventory of C-D
zoned land and increase opportunities for residential units above ground-level retail and in close proximity to the
City's commercial center.
To ensure that the re-designation of this site from a office and public facilities to a designation which would allow a
combination of commercial and residential uses does not negatively impact the adjacent historic residential
development to the north, and significant historic properties such as the Carnegie Library and the Mission, a
mitigation measure has been proposed to ensure the site's compatibility with sensitive adjacent land uses.
Mitigation Measure: Land Use and Planning
11111111
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially IxssTlian No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be compatible and
complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Leitcher
apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior
standards,the City's Community Design Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic
resources shall be closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
properties.
Conclusion
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the property is an issue of neighborhood compatibility. The
proposed project to re-designate this site would provide a transition from the Office zone to the north and the
Downtown Commercial (C-D) retail uses to the south. Under the C-D designation, a mixture of commercial uses
and residential density of up to 36 units per acre would be allowed, as compared to the 12 units per acre allowed
with the current office designation. Any future development project at the site will be subject to Architectural
Review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee, which includes evaluation of neighborhood and
historic compatibility.
10.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 3,16 X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 8 X
ambient noise levels in the;project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) ,Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 3,16 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 24 X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element, the project site is located within an area susceptible to 60-65
decibels (dB) Ldn due to transportation noise. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and
60 dB for outdoor activity areas. The building code is already designed to reduce indoor noise exposure by approximately
15-20 dB. Contemporary construction practices include enhanced window, roof, and wall insulation to help energy
conservation and noise attenuation.
b) The construction of a future development project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. Construction noise is
regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be
generated. The project will have to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations o the
days and hours of construction.No further mitigation is necessary.
c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration.
d) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area.
Mitigation Measure: Noise
The construction of future residential uses shall be:accompanied by an acoustical analysis(noise study)to ensure that interior
spaces and exterior private use areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels determined acceptable by the City's
�a� CITY OF SAN Luis OniSPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
General Plan Noise Element. Specific construction details shall be identified as recommendations in the study.
Conclusion
Development of the site with a mixed-use commercial and residential project could expose people to unacceptable noise
levels, if not properly mitigated. A mitigation measures has been recommended to ensure that noise impacts are identified
and reduced to a less than significant level.No further mitigation is necessary.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,26 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,26 X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a)The proposed project will amend the City's General Plan, to allow higher density housing than is currently allowed on the
site. According to 2003 California Department of Finance(CDF)estimates,there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied
household in the City of San Luis Obispo. Under the existing land use and zoning designation of Office(0),the site could
accommodate 12 dwelling units per acre. If the property was designated Downtown Commercial,the site could accommodate
36 dwelling units per acre. Based on these assumptions, the GPA/R will allow for an increase in population and housing.
While a slight increase in population can be expected,the anticipated increase is within the General Plan's projection and will
not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections since the
size of each property is not significant (all sites are less than one acre). This type of development (infill) is encouraged
because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.
b) The site of the future mixed-use project, is currently vacant and contains an abandoned apartment building. The proposed
GPA/R would increase the density allowed on the site, and increase housing opportunities for residents while utilizing
existing infill opportunities. Development of the property with apartments or condominiums could be a beneficial impact on
housing. The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement requires that any future project with five or more lots or dwellings to
either construct affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee. Compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirements will be
implemented and evaluated at the time of development permit application.
Conclusion
The population growth created by the project is considered less than significant. This change is consistent with Land Use and
Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing es,efficient infill development,and compact urban form.
12. 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? 8 X
b) Police protection? 8 X
c) Schools? 8 X
d) Parks? 8 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 2, 8 X
Other public facilities? 8 X
Evaluation
a), b), e), f) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and other
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Hnpact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
public facilities) are available to service the property. Whether the site is developed with commercial or residential uses will
not significantly alter the levels of public service available to the site. Future development must comply with applicable City
codes and State regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements.
c) The school districts in the State are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have of school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for any development. Although the allowed residential density for the site
would increase with the proposed land use designation and zoning, it should be noted that the number of school-aged children
might be slightly lower than allowed under the current designation, because mixed use developments tend to attract fewer
young families that traditional multi-family housing units,catering instead to young professionals and retirees.
d) Park in-lieu fees are required to be paid as part of the future condominium subdivision to insure that City residents have
adequate access to park facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.
Conclusion
No resource deficiencies have been identified with respect to public services.
13.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8 X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 25 X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) Future site development will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given
the size of the parcel and associated residential density, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur.
Additionally,Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space,maintenance
or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy, if a tentative map were pursued resulting in the creation of additional
parcels or condominium units. The City also collects a Dwelling Unit Construction tax that goes to a Park Improvement Fund
with building permits for multi-family projects where further subdivision of parcels is not necessarily proposed. Collection of
these fees help offset the impacts of new projects on the City's recreational facilities. The project site is located near existing
recreational facilities such as Emerson Park and Sinsheimer Park.
b)No site specific development plan is proposed at this time. However,given the size of the parcel, future site development
is not likely to include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion
Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally with the development of the project. Park-in-lieu fees are set
at a level considered to be sufficient to offset the effects of the additional demand for park facilities.No further mitigation is
required.
14. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 16 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 16 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
�� CrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 25 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g..
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 25 X
e) Result.in inadequate parking Capacity onsite or offsite? 25 X
fj Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 25 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns? .
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) Monterey and Broad Streets provide access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element
designates Monterey Street as an Arterial Street, which provides circulation between major activity centers and residential
areas. This portion of Monterey Street is noted in the Downtown Concept plan as a future pedestrian mall,potentially closed
to through vehicular traffic.As designed,the project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access.
The Fire Department has not yet been consulted on the project. Input should be obtained from the Department prior to project
approval.
a), b) The existing Art Center is accessed from its main entrance on Broad Street. Traffic generation associated with the
proposed Art Center expansion is not expected to be substantially more than current traffic generation;however,consultation
with the City Transportation Department is still required prior to project approval. There are no existing traffic load or
capacity problems associated with the existing development, and the existing use does not exceed the level of service
standards established by the County congestion management agency for nearby streets and highways.
c) The proposed Art Center is outside of the Airport Safety Zone.The project will not require the use of large cranes or other
structures that could affect air navigation.The project will not create any impairment to local air traffic or navigation.
e) The designation of this site as Downtown Commercial would confer all of the property development standards of this zone
upon the parcel, including those regarding parking. In the C-D zone parking is reduced by one-half for dwellings, food
services and entertainment facilities, and to one space per 500 square feet for all other uses.The additional density and other
commercial development allowed on the site could increase the parking demand generated by the site. Currently, there are no
on-site parking spaces for the properties that wish to redevelop. Should each property redevelop as anticipated,each property
will need to supply parking or pay in-lieu fees to the City for each parking space.
d) There are no traffic hazards that the proposed project would be subject to or create. An unloading zone(white zone)will
be maintained in front of the Art Center and bulb-outs and crosswalks would be installed at the Broad Street/Monterey Street
intersection to improve pedestrian safety.
f) Future site development will require review by the ARC for compliance with City's policies and standards
supporting/requiring alternative transportation, such as, bus turnouts and bicycle parking. There is currently limited on-site
parking associated with the Art Center. No new parking is proposed with the new project. The City Council introduced an
ordinance on September 3, 2002 that would provide property owners the ability to pay fees in-lieu of providing parking for
this area of the downtown;therefore, the SLO Art Center is eligible for payment of parking-in-lieu fees rather than providing
physical parking spaces on or near the site. On street parking is available on Broad immediately adjacent to the project site;in
two small lots, one immediately across Broad Street and the other across Monterey. Finally, there is a large lot located on
Nipomo and Palm Streets, less than a block from the Art Center. This parking should be adequate for the increased capacity
of the proposed Art Center. Consultation with the City Transportation Department and Public Works is still required prior to
project approval to determine if the required parking for the expanded building will exceed the existing capacity.
g) Implementation of the proposed project would not impede existing alternative transportation methods, such as
tea/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
bike/pedestrian paths, transit stops, etc. Bus stops are located nearby, at Nipomo and Higuera Streets, Nipomo and Marsh
Streets,as well as Broad at Marsh Street and Chorro at Monterey,directly though the Mission Plaza.Bicycle parking facilities
would be incorporated into the project,consistent with City Policy 4.0.4 of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan.
h) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area. Implementation of the project would not conflict with the Plan
or result in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns.
Conclusion
Transportation and Traffic Impacts,including parking,will be less than significant. Although traffic and parking demand will
increase incrementally with the development of a future project at this site, its location on the periphery of the downtown
makes it appropriate for a more urban use. Traffic and parking fees are set at a level considered to be sufficient to offset the
effects of the additional demand.No further mitigation is required.
15. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,28 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 28 X
treatment,waste water treatment,.water quality control,or storm
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 7,28 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 7,28 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has.adequate .
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 8 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 8,25 X.
related to solid waste? _
Evaluation
a),b)The GPA/R will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental
change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were
adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and
distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states
that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not
previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a
construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies
are less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project.
e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels)by 2000. The GPA/R will allow
for the development of a project with slightly higher solid waste generation. However, this incremental change is not
expected to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Future site development will be required to comply with the
City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element..
Conclusion
Less than significant impacts have been identified relative to utilities and services stems.
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential-to-degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
communuty,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important example_s of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With
regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource.
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project
b) Doesthe project have impacts that areindividually limited;but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cuinulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable'
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirect) ?
With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
humans.
17.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may-be used-where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR;or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declantion. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the followin :items:
a Earlier.anal sis used. Identify,earlier analyses,and state.where_they are-available for•review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effectsfromthe above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed-by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address-site-specific
conditions of the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
t
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than xo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation s and Open Space Element 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
9. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
10. Site visit
11. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
12. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
13. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
14. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
15. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition,on file in the Community Development
Department
16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
17. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report
18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
19. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
21. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Iota
22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
23. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
24. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
25. 2001 Uniform Building Code
26. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,May 2004
Required Mitisationand Monitoring Program
1. Mitigation Measure:Aesthetics
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan ensuring that exterior
lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in excess of one foot-candle. Glare light shall be
reduced by shielding lights and recessing light sources within fixtures.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review
and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
2. Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources
i!� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially PotentiallyLess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
A. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified historic/prehistoric
archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities (e.g., excavation, grading, utility trenching). Weekly monitoring
reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of disturbance, the nature of any resources
encountered, and any other information outlined in the conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring
Plan. In the event that significant artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease
until the area is surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall be provided the
necessary time and funding to recover the "scientifically consequential information from or about the resource" as
required by CEQA § 15026.4. A final report of findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials
should be cataloged and curated at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and
federal standards.
B. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the City
prior to the issuance of construction permits.The plan should detail the protocols and methods that.will be initiated
should any historic or archaeological resources be encountered during demolition or construction, and include
provisions and directives for specific content for weekly monitoring reports.
C. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the event that any
human remains are discovered.
D. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work shall be performed
consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original exterior materials, trim, windows,
roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather than replicated.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with these requirements shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural
review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee. An archeologist (subject to approval by the Community
Development Department)shall be retained by the project sponsor prior to the issuance of grading,demolition or construction
permits: The archeologist shall submit a cultural resources monitoring plan to the City prior to the commencement of any site
work.All construction personnel shall be instructed to comply with the monitoring plan.
3. Mitigation Measure: Land Use and Planning
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be compatible and
complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the Carnegie Library, the Leitcher
apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior
standards, the City's Community Design Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic
resources shall be closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
properties.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review
and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
4. Mitigation Measure: Noise
The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis(noise study)to ensure that interior
spaces and exterior private use areas are designed to mitigate noise impacts to levels determined acceptable by the City's
��O CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially PotentiallyLess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#64-07 issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
General Plan Noise Element. Specific construction details shall be identified as recommendations in the study.
➢ Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans and the acoustical analysis
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
q"A
�- CRY OF SAN LUIS DaISPo 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
RESOLUTION NO. 9975 (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP DESIGNATION FROM
OFFICE TO GENERAL RETAIL FOR PROPERTY AT 667 THROUGH 669
MONTEREY STREET AND 1019 THROUGH 1023 BROAD STREET AND FROM
PUBLIC FACILITY TO GENERAL RETAIL FOR PROPERTY AT 1010 BROAD
STREET AND FROM OFFICE TO PUBLIC FACILITY AT 1045 BROAD STREET
GP/R/ER 64-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in the Council
Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 27, 2008, and
recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 15,
2008, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 6407; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the
independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed below into the project:
Mitigation Measures:
1. Aesthetics
Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the applicants shall submit an exterior lighting plan
ensuring that exterior lighting associated with the project shall not spill over the property line in
excess of one foot-candle. Glare light shall be reduced by shielding lights and recessing light
sources within fixtures.
R 9975
Resolution No 9975 (2008 Series)
Page 2
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
2. Cultural Resources
A. During demolition and construction activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
historic/prehistoric archaeologist to monitor all earth-moving activities(e,g., excavation, grading,
utility trenching). Weekly monitoring reports shall be prepared that discuss the area and depth of
disturbance, the nature of any resources encountered, and any other information outlined in the
conditions of approval and Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan. In the event that significant
artifacts are encountered, construction within the immediate area shall cease until the area is
surveyed by a qualified archaeologist approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Director. If the artifacts cannot be preserved in place, then the archaeologist shall
be provided the necessary time and funding to recover the "scientifically consequential
information from or about the resource" as required by CEQA § 15026.4. A final report of
findings should be prepared and all significant cultural materials should be cataloged and curated
at a local archaeological collection facility that meets appropriate state and federal standards.
B. A Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of construction permits. The plan should detail the
protocols and methods that will be initiated should any historic or archaeological resources be
encountered during demolition or construction, and include provisions and directives for specific
content for weekly monitoring reports.
C. During demolition and construction activities, the County Coroner shall be contacted in the
event that any human remains are discovered.
D. If City designated historic properties are re-located, moved, or otherwise modified, all work
shall be performed consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. Original
exterior materials, trim, windows, roofing, and detailing shall be preserved and restored rather
than replicated.
Monitoring Program:.
Compliance with these requirements shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee. An
archeologist (subject to approval by the Community Development Department) shall be retained
by the project-sponsor prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or construction permits. The
archeologist shall submit a cultural resources monitoring plan to the City prior to the
commencement of any site work. All construction personnel shall be instructed to comply with
the monitoring plan.
3. Land Use and Planning
Mass, scale, form and design theme of any new buildings within the block to be rezoned shall be
Resolution No 9975 (2008 Series)
Page 3
compatible and complementary to existing significant historic structures such as the Mission, the
Carnegie Library, the Leitcher apartment building, and Master list historic residential properties
on Monterey Street. The Secretary of Interior standards, the City's Community Design
Guidelines, and General Plan policies that are designed to protect historic resources shall be
closely followed when modifying existing structures or building new structures within the subject
properties.
Monitoring Proms
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
4. Noise
The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise
study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas are designed to mitigate noise
impacts to levels determined acceptable by the City's General Plan Noise Element. Specific
construction details shall be identified as recommendations in the study.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans and
the acoustical analysis submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the
Community Development Department staff.
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval & Findings. The General Plan
Amendment included as part of City Application No. GPA 64-07, which amends the Land Use
Element Map as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following
findings:
1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element policies regarding Downtown-Commercial zoning, which indicate such districts
are appropriate for cultural facilities,mixed-use projects and specialty retail uses.
3. The proposed General Plan amendment will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual
Physical Plan for the City's Center and will help to stimulate redevelopment of
underutilized properties within the downtown core.
4. A Special Consideration overlay zone shall be applied in order to ensure adequate review
of building massing and setbacks and create a specifically refined list of allowed land
uses. The proximity to the creek, the size and configuration of the property and adjacent
lower density office and residential uses warrant the refined land use list and requirement
for a Planning Commission Use Permit.
Resolution No 9975 (2008 Series)
Page 4
SECTION 3. Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing
and use.
On motion of Vice Mayor Brown, seconded by Mayor Romero, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Council members Carter, Mulholland, and Settle,Vice Mayor Brown and
Mayor Romero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15`h day of April 2008.
92WWW-4-;�- - I - -
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
IL4-1-1
Audrey Ho�fei
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7onat .Lowell
City Attorney
- Exhibit A
General Plan Amendment/ Rezone 64-07 .
e
PF-H
o H -D-H-S
c
o�aP C-D- -S
mp
c-D P-F-H P-F-H 9e
�A
0 c- AQP
p GJ