HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-2015 Item 2 - 1921 Santa Barbara Ave. (Cafe Lofts)CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Environmental Review of proposed construction of four live/work units and a small
commercial suite
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1921 Santa Barbara St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0521-2014 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the
Architectural Review Commission approve the project with the incorporation of proposed
mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project
(Attachment 3), based on findings and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Garcia Family Trust, et. al.
Representative George Garcia, AIA
garcia architecture+design
Property Owner Mattocks / Dechambeau
General Plan Service and Manufacturing
Zoning Service-Commercial with
Historic Overlay(C-S-H)
Environmental
Status
A proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared
for the project
Filed October 31st, 2015
Complete January 4th, 2015
SUMMARY
The applicant submitted an application for architectural review of a new building with four
live/work units and a small commercial suite at 1921 Santa Barbara Street, within the Railroad
Historic District. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) provided direction to the applicant on
modifications to be made to the project for consistency with the Railroad District Plan, in
Meeting Date: April 27, 2015
Item Number: 2
wo
CHC2 - 1
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 2
response to a conceptual review of the proposal in December 2014 (meeting minutes,
Attachment 4).
On January 26, 2015 the CHC reviewed the submittal of the modified project design. The CHC
was concerned that the height of the proposed three-story live/work building was inappropriately
tall, given its location directly adjacent to the single-story residence at 875 Upham, which is a
Contributing historic resource. The CHC recommended that the Architectural Review
Commission approve the project and found the project to be conditionally consistent with the
Railroad District Plan, but included direction that the mass and scale of the project should be
considered by the ARC and that potentially-significant impacts to significant historic resources in the
vicinity should be evaluated (see meeting minutes and resolution, Attachment 5).
In response to this direction, staff prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the project’s potential
environmental effects on historic resources. Based on this study, staff concluded that
construction of the project as proposed would result in potentially significant effects on an
adjacent historic resource. The abrupt transition from the taller, larger live/work building to the
residence at 875 Upham, a contributing historic resource, sharply contrasts with, and visually
detracts from, the historical architectural character of the residence and the residential setting in
which it is located. Mitigation measures have been developed to avoid this potential impact by
requiring a more appropriate visual transition to the historic residence be provided with
additional building separation and upper-floor setbacks.
COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to review proposed mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study to
determine whether the measures adequately address potentially significant impacts to adjacent
historic resources, and to provide a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information and Project Description
The project site is on the west side of Santa Barbara Street, 120 feet south of Upham Street,
within the Railroad Historic District. The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story building
containing a small commercial suite and 4 live/work units. The area to the north and west of the
site is a medium-density residential neighborhood which includes several properties listed as
historic resources. Two parcels adjacent to the site contain a total of three listed historic
resources (see Table 1). The proposed live/work building will be built against the northerly
property line, behind the residence at 875 Upham. It is 30 feet in height and about 120 feet long
(see project plans, Attachment 6).
CHC2 - 2
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 3
Table 1: Adjacent Historic Resources
Zone Use Note
North C-S-H Restaurant 1901 Santa Barbara(Del Monte Café)
Contributing List Historic Resource
Single-Family Residence 875 Upham
Contributing List Historic Resource
West R-2 Single-family residence 843 Upham (Chapek House)
Master List Historic Resource
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
In considering the impact the proposed building will have on the adjacent residence, the CHC
should consider relevant guidelines in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(HPPG) and Community Design Guidelines (CDG) applicable to infill development.
… New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public
views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of
historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be
developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the
historic district. (HPPG 3.2.2 – Architectural compatibility)
… When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of
the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale
buildings. (CDG 5.3(A) Infill Development–General Principles)
… Where greater height is desired, an infill structure should set back upper floors
from the edge of the first story to reduce impacts on adjacent smaller homes, and
to protect solar access. (CDG 5.3(C)) Infill Development–Visual impacts from
building height)
As proposed, the walls of the live/work building rise up three stories within 2 ½ feet of the
adjacent historic single-story residence at 875 Upham. This sharp contrast in height produces a
“looming” effect over the residence that visually detracts from its historic character and
introduces an element that is out of scale with the residential character of the neighborhood along
Upham, visually detracting from the historical setting.
Staff has identified the following mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts to the
adjacent Contributing property at 875 Upham, to less than significant levels:
Mitigation Measure 1: The project shall be modified to provide building separation, views, and
exposure to sunlight that is appropriate for development adjacent to a medium-density residential area
CHC2 - 3
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 4
in order to avoid adverse impacts to the setting within which adjacent historic resources are situated.
Yards, as described in the City’s Zoning Regulations §17.16.020, will be provided to separate the
proposed building from adjacent residential development, in a manner similar to yard requirements
applicable to development adjacent to a Medium-Density (R-2) Zone. The Architectural Review
Commission shall review the project for appropriate setbacks to ensure appropriate separation.
Mitigation Measure 2: Accurate visual simulations will be included in project plans to demonstrate an
appropriate transition between the massing and scale of the project and adjacent historical resources,
and will demonstrate that adjacent historical resources are provided with adequate solar exposure.
As discussed in the evaluation below, the sharp contrast in building height can be avoided by
providing a more appropriate transition between the taller live/work building and the shorter
historic residence adjacent to the project, at 875 Upham. Such a transition can be achieved by
stepping back upper floors and establishing a setback line for the live/work building that is
further from the property line, to provide additional building separation.
Building separation
The City has adopted setback standards that provide separation between buildings in residential
zones (§17.16.020(A)). These standards also apply to development in non-residential zones
adjacent to residential zones. However, the historic residence at 875 Upham is located within the
same Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone as the project site, so there is no required setback within
this zone for separation of buildings and property lines.1
The live/work building is proposed to be built directly along the northerly property line, resulting
in only 2 ½ feet of separation between the proposed project and the contributing historic resource
located at 875 Upham. While this complies with the development standards for non-residential
development set forth in the City’s Zoning Regulations, it would not be consistent with the
historic development pattern in the area nor would it preserve enough space to address the visual
transition between the proposed project and the historic structure.
Neighborhood pattern: Most of the development in the area pre-dates the first setback
requirements instituted with the adoption of the City’s first Zoning Ordinance in 1947. It is
common within the established development pattern of the area for structures to be located close
to a property line, and in some cases closer than 5 feet. The residence at 875 Upham is itself
closer than 5 feet to the property line that divides it from the adjacent project site. In nearly all
cases, though, at least 5 feet of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels is provided. For
example, most of the houses across the street are separated from each other by about 10 feet,
with the exception of two houses which are separated by only 5 feet (856 and 868 Upham).
1 §17.46.020(B.4) Property Development Standards–Yards: Other yards shall be as provided in the zone of any
adjacent lot and; §17.16.020(C.1) Service-Commercial (C-D) Zone–Property development standards–Yards: If the
zone of adjacent lot does not have its own standard, no yard is required.
CHC2 - 4
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 5
Minimum suggested separation: Setbacks applied to this project should ensure at least five feet
of separation between the proposed development and the adjoining historic structure to achieve
consistency with the minimum separation seen in the neighborhood pattern. This also provides
area for landscaping, air circulation, and exposure to sunlight between the buildings. Condition
#2 of the draft resolution requires that an “other yard” setback be incorporated into the project
along the northerly property line. The yard is to be at least 2 ½ feet deep, which is half of the
setback normally required in an R-2 Zone. This approach would provide at least five feet of
building separation between the live/work building and the residence at 875 Upham, a separation
between these two buildings that is consistent with the close-knit development pattern in the
area.
Upper-floor setbacks
Suggested setbacks: The City’s adopted setback requirements include setbacks for upper floors,
with the required setback increasing with building height. These setbacks provide additional
separation at the upper levels of buildings, for a gradual transition between them that preserves
views and exposure to sunlight. Application of the setbacks required in R-2 would require that
the second floor of the live/work building be set back an additional 3 ½ feet and the third floor an
additional 4 ½ feet. This is an appropriate standard to apply to this project, to avoid a looming
effect and provide a transition to the adjacent residential development.
Table 2: Suggested Setbacks
Height Setback
1st floor (10 ft.)
2nd floor (20 ft.)
3rd floor (30 ft.)
2.5 ft.
6.0 ft.
10.5 ft.
Table 2 above describes the resulting setbacks proposed as a mitigation measure for this project,
to avoid impacting the setting of 875 Upham. As with building separation, this setback
acknowledges that the existing development pattern includes structures that are closer to each
other than current setback standards allow.
Del Monte Grocery Building: The Del Monte Café is on the same parcel as 875 Upham,
occupying the Del Monte Grocery Building at 1901 Santa Barbara. The building is a commercial
structure within the same commercial zone as the proposed live/work project, and the buildings
are separated from each other by at about 50 feet of parking area. With the application of
suggested setback requirements discussed above impacts to reduce impacts to 875 Upham, the
historic context and setting would not be detrimentally affected.
Chapek House: An appropriate transition is provided to the Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
Zone in which the Chapek House (843 Upham) is located. Building separation by yards at least 5
feet deep is required, and upper floors must be set back according to current R-2 standards. As
CHC2 - 5
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 6
proposed, the live/work project provides this separation and setback. In addition, the proposed
development is buffered from the Chapek house itself by the associated accessory garage on the
property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study, as described in the California Environmental Quality Act, was completed for
this project to identify the potential for the project to create environmental impacts. From this
study, staff concluded that the project could adversely impact an adjacent historic resource by
degrading the character of its setting.
As discussed above, mitigation measures were developed that, if incorporated into the project,
impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. An Initial Study was prepared for the
project. Public notice of its preparation and availability for review and comment was provided on
March 27, 2015. No public comment on the document was received during the 20-day comment
period. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are included with this report as
Attachment 3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Two public meetings of the Cultural Heritage Committee were conducted, on December 15th,
2014 and on January 26th, 2015. Comments were provided from members of the public,
including project neighbors, at both hearings (meeting minutes, Attachments 4 & 5).
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Continue consideration of the project with direction to the applicant and staff on
pertinent issues; or
2. Recommend that the Architectural Review Commission deny the project based on
findings of inconsistency with historical preservation policies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Minutes from the CHC Meeting of December 15, 2014
5. Minutes and Resolution from CHC Meeting of January 26, 2015
6. Project Plans (reduced size)
7 CHC Staff Reports from previous hearings
CHC2 - 6
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
FOUR LIVE/WORK UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL SUITE
IN THE RAILROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT,
SERVICE-COMMERCIAL (C-S) AND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION (H) ZONE,
AT 1921 SANTA BARBARA STREET (ARCH-0521-2014)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Garcia Family Trust, filed an application on October
31, 2014, for review of a proposed new three-story structure containing four live/work
units and a 444 square-foot commercial suite at 1921 Santa Barbara Street; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on December 15, 2014, for the purpose of reviewing the
new live/work units and commercial suite at 1921 Santa Barbara Street and provided
direction to the applicant to revise the project; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on January 26, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing the
revised new live/work units and commercial suite project at 1921 Santa Barbara Street;
and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, on April 27, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing the
environmental mitigation measures to be incorporated into the new live/work units and
commercial suite project at 1921 Santa Barbara Street to avoid potential impacts to
adjacent cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence,
including the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage
Committee makes the following findings:
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC2 - 7
1. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines. The project is architecturally compatible with the historic character of
the Railroad District area, does not sharply contrast with, block public views of, or
visually detract from the historic architectural character of historically designated
structures, and retains and preserves character-defining features of historically
listed buildings.
2. The project is consistent with the Railroad District Plan. The project exhibits
simple, rectilinear form and horizontal massing that is consistent with the
predominant pattern in the District. The building has an industrial character,
expressed primarily by the metal and carbonized wood surface treatment
supported by appropriate door and window arrangement, roof line, and
incorporation of industrial metal deck railings, railroad-inspired signage, and as
architectural details, resulting in a contemporary design that complements the
district’s historic character.
3. The project is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan’s
Conservation and Open Space. It has been reviewed for consistency with the
City’s Historical Preservation Guidelines and with the Railroad District Plan. The
new structure is designed in a manner that protects the historical character of the
Railroad Historic District and adjacent historical properties.
Section 2. Environmental Review. An Initial Study was completed for this
project, which identified the potential for the project to create environmental impacts to
an adjacent cultural resource. Mitigation measures were developed that, if incorporated
into the project, reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted on March 27, 2015, and public notice of its
availability for review and comment was provided.
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend
approval of the proposed live/work units and commercial suite to the Architectural
Review Commission, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
1. Plans submitted for Architectural Review shall include modifications to plans
which relocate the fire riser to a less prominent location and/or include
architecturally compatible screening consistent with Railroad Historic District
Guidelines.
2. The project shall be modified to provide building separation, views, and exposure
to sunlight that is appropriate for development adjacent to a medium-density
residential area in order to avoid adverse impacts to the setting within which
adjacent historic resources are situated. Yards, as described in the City’s Zoning
Regulations §17.16.020, will be provided to separate the proposed building from
the adjacent residence at 875 Upham Street. The minimum required depth of the
CHC2 - 8
“Other yard” within this area will be the same as that required in a Medium-
Density (R-2) Zone, except that the building may be 2 ½ feet closer to the
property line than the minimum required yard depth. The Architectural Review
Commission shall review the project for appropriate setbacks to ensure
appropriate viewshed protection.
3. Accurate visual simulations will be included in project plans to demonstrate an
appropriate transition between the massing and scale of the project and adjacent
historical resources, and will demonstrate that adjacent historical resources are
provided with adequate solar exposure.
On motion by Committee Member,
seconded by Committee Member,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of April, 2015.
_____________________
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
CHC2 - 9
R-2
PF-H
R-2 C-S-H
R-2
R-2
R-2
C-S-S-H
R-3-HR-3
C-R-S-HR-3-HR-3
C-S-H
UPHAM
CH
O
R
R
O
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
CHUR
C
H
VICINITY MAP File No. 0521-20141921 Santa Barbara Ave.¯
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2 - 10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application #ARCH-0521-2014
1. Project Title: Café Lofts
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director (805) 781-7177
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner (805) 781-7593
4. Project Location: 1921 Santa Barbara Street
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Garcia Family Trust, et al
1308 Monterey St
Suite 230
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S); Historical Preservation (H)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project is the construction of a new 35-foot tall building with 6,060 square feet of
floor area. The building is comprised of 4 live/work units, each with 2 bedrooms, arranged on
three floors, and a 444 square foot ground-floor commercial suite. It will be constructed on a
7,270 square-foot parcel located in the City’s Railroad Historic District. The site is adjacent to
two properties that are listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Commercial and Medium-Density Residential
South: Commercial and Residential
East: Public Facilities: Railroad Depot Parking and Railroad History Museum
West: Medium-Density Residential
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Architectural Review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2 - 11
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources X Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
X
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
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 o r more
State agencies (e.g. CalTrans, 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)).
CHC2 - 12
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development For: Derek Johnson,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CHC2 - 13
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CHC2 - 14
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2e X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2e X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? 2a, 9 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 9b X
Evaluation
Setting: The project site is located in the southeastern portion of central San Luis Obispo, on the west
side of Santa Barbara Street, about 150 feet south of its intersection with Upham Street. It is not
located near a scenic vista or within a local or state scenic highway. Views to the east look over the
Railroad Depot parking lot, past the railroad right-of-way, towards a residential neighborhood and
beyond to the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range. The west side of Santa Barbara Street has a mixed,
transitional character, with modest houses interspersed with larger industrial structures.
The historic Del Monte Grocery building situated at the corner of Santa Barbara and Upham marks a
transition to a medium-density residential neighborhood along Upham Street that is comprised of
residential dwellings, typically 1 ½ stories high, with considerable historic character. When
approaching this same corner travelling in a southerly direction along Santa Barbara Street, the Del
Monte Grocery building dominates the view, as it is oriented diagonally toward the corner, with the
historic residential neighborhood extending along Upham Street to the right (west).
The project may alter the viewshed, in that it replaces several smaller structures with a larger, taller 3-
story building rising to 35 feet in height, the maximum permitted height in the Service Commercial
(C-S) Zone. It is subject to review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review
Commission and will be evaluated for consistency with the architectural guidelines of the Railroad
Historic District and the City’s Community Development Guidelines. The policies in these
documents aim to achieve compatibility with historic resources in the Railroad Historic District and
with nearby development in terms of scale, quality of materials, and architectural style and character.
No site lighting is proposed for the project. Exterior lighting is limited to lighting fixtures on the
building exterior. The City’s Night Sky Preservation regulations require that outdoor lighting be
designed, installed, and operated in a manner that prevents nighttime sky light pollution. Lighting that
is consistent with these operational standards will not create glare or light trespass.
Conclusion: The project is not expected to generate significant aesthetic impacts.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2e,
11 X
CHC2 - 15
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? 2e X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
2e X
Evaluation
The project site is located within the Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone, which is a non-agricultural
zone, and contains no farmland. It is within an area categorized as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on the
California Important Farmland Finder and does not include any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Conclusion: The project does not have the potential to introduce significant adverse impacts to agricultural
resources.
3. AIR QUALITY
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
2e,
14 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation? 14a X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
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)?
14a X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 3 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? X
Evaluation
The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is a responsible agency for
reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality.
They adopted the Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, a comprehensive planning document
designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources and motor vehicle
use. The City helps the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan in order to achieve and maintain air
quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live or work in the City and for visitors.
The District developed the CEQA Handbook to assist with CEQA reviews, providing information on
significance thresholds for determining potential air quality impacts from proposed residential and
commercial development and recommendations on the level of mitigation necessary to reduce those
impacts. The CEQA Handbook includes general screening criteria used by the APCD to determine
the type and scope of projects requiring an air quality assessment or mitigation. These criteria are
based on project size in an urban setting and are designed to identify those projects with the potential
to exceed the APCD’s significance thresholds.
The project size is less than 1,000 square feet of proposed commercial land use and 4 dwelling units;
well below the criteria indicating the requirement for an air quality assessment or mitigation. It does
CHC2 - 16
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
not involve activities that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or
that create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
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 dust control measures set forth in the City’s
Construction & Fire Codes to avoid such impacts, and special mitigation measures are not necessary.
Conclusion: The project may generate impacts to air quality. However, it is not of a size that is large enough
to generate significant increases in criteria pollutants, and increased emissions during construction will be
limited to a temporary period. Conformance to construction codes during construction will avoid potential
impacts from dust during construction activities.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly
or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2e X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2e X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
2e X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
2e X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
2e, 8b X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
2e X
Evaluation
The project site contains no habitat for threatened species, no riparian habitat, no wetlands, no
significant trees or Heritage Trees, and no habitat for migratory fish or wildlife. It is not within or
near any habitat conservation plan area, wildlife corridor, or wildlife nursery site.
CHC2 - 17
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
However, the adjacent property to the north (1901 Santa Barbara, 875 Upham) contains a large Valley
Oak tree. The project plans and the site were reviewed by the City Arborist. He observed a large
structural branch near the proposed building envelope, and determined that stub cutting of the branch
would be unacceptable, as it would lead to the formation of upright sprouts and decay which could
reduce the tree’s longevity. (Ron Combs, City Arborist, project comments provided January 22,
2015).
The City’s Tree Regulations establish as a policy the protection and preservation of all desirable trees
and prohibit the willful injury of any tree, except by permits issued in conformance with the
regulations. The Valley Oak on the adjacent property is a desirable tree, so any project approval will
be subject to the condition that it be preserved and protected from injury.
Conclusion: The project could impact biological resources, namely a large Valley Oak tree on adjacent
property. The impact will be less than significant because any project approval will be subject to conditions
ensuring development and implementation of tree protection measures, under the direction of a qualified
professional Arborist, to protect the tree. The project is not expected to introduce any other impacts related to
biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
2e, 6,
9, 16 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 2e X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2e X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? 2e X
Evaluation
Setting: The project site is located within the Railroad Historic District and directly adjacent to
Historic Resources: the Del Monte Grocery Building and the residence behind it (1201 Santa Barbara
and 875 Upham), which are Contributing List Resources; and the Chapek House (843 Upham), which
is a Master List Resource. The residence at 875 Upham is located within the same Service-
Commercial (C-S) Zone as the project site (constituting a legally non-conforming land use,
established prior to the enactment of limitations prohibiting residential land uses in this zone).
The remainder of the neighborhood to the north and west of the project site is within a Medium-
Density Residential (R-2) Zone. This area lies outside of the Railroad Historic District but contains
several historic resources and has considerable historic character, due to the predominance of
residences dating from the early 20th Century period. Houses on the 800 block of Upham Street and
on Chorro Street near its intersection with Upham exhibit a consistent historic character that is
residential in nature and “medium-dense” in scale. The City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines state that listed historic resources lying outside an historic district are subject to the same
protection and regulations as those within such a district.
The proposed building may alter the viewshed, and this alteration will be most abrupt at the property
line adjacent to the residence at 875 Upham. Development standards in the City’s Zoning Regulations
require buildings in the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone be separated from adjacent property in a
CHC2 - 18
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Medium-Density (R-2) Zone by a yard at least 5 feet deep, to provide views and exposure to sunlight,
and that upper portions of the building be set back further from property lines. But because the
residence at 875 Upham is within the same Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone as the project, the City’s
Zoning Regulations do not require that a yard or setback be provided between the proposed
commercial building and the property line adjacent to the residence. In fact, no yard is proposed at the
northerly property line, and the only upper-floor setback provided is a 5-foot recess in a portion of the
building at the second and third floors.
Potential Impact on Historic Resources: While in technical compliance with the development
standards set forth in the Zoning Regulations, the height and scale of the proposed building and its
lack of yard or setback along the northerly property line introduces an element that is out of scale and
visually incompatible with the historic character of the surroundings within which 875 Upham is
situated. In contrast to other nonconforming uses and structures in the Service Commercial (C-S)
Zone, historical preservation policies applicable to this listed historic resource aim for the
preservation of the residence at 875 Upham, along with its historic residential setting.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties recommend that
new construction adjacent to historic resources be designed to preserve the historic relationship
between buildings and the landscape. An abrupt change in building scale and height from the project
site to the less-intensive residential neighborhood adjacent to the project may detract from the
residential setting within which the historic houses are situated. In particular, the alteration of the
setting has the potential to adversely change the significance of 875 Upham, a listed historic resource.
A less abrupt transition from the proposed live/work building to the adjacent historic residential
neighborhood should be provided in order to preserve this relationship, by separating the building
from its neighbors using yards and upper-floor setbacks.
Paleontology, Archaeology, Human Remains: The project site does not contain a known unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. It is not within a Burial Sensitivity Area or near a
Burial Point, nor is it expected to result in the disturbance of human remains.
Conclusion: The scale and height of the proposed live/work building, without separation by yards
and upper-floor setbacks from the adjacent residence at 875 Upham, a listed historic resource, may
cause an adverse change in the significance of the residence. Mitigation measures will need to be
incorporated into the project to would avoid altering the features of the setting which is important in
defining the historical character of 875 Upham and the adjacent neighborhood. The project is not
expected to generate any other impacts related to cultural resources. The following mitigation
measures are proposed to address the impacts that the project may have on adjacent historic
resources:
Mitigation Measure 1: The project shall be modified to provide building separation, views, and
exposure to sunlight that is appropriate for development adjacent to a medium-density residential area
in order to avoid adverse impacts to the setting within which adjacent historic resources are situated.
Yards, as described in the City’s Zoning Regulations §17.16.020, will be provided to separate the
proposed building from adjacent residential development, in a manner similar to yard requirements
applicable to development adjacent to a Medium-Density (R-2) Zone. The Architectural Review
Commission shall review the project for appropriate setbacks to ensure protection of the viewshed.
Mitigation Measure 2: Accurate visual simulations will be included in project plans to demonstrate
an appropriate transition between the massing and scale of the project and adjacent historical
resources, and will demonstrate that adjacent historical resources are provided with adequate solar
exposure.
CHC2 - 19
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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?
2d X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 2d X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2d X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 2d X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
2d X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
2d X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
Evaluation
No known faults exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, and the project site is not within
an area susceptible to landslides or mudflows. The City of San Luis Obispo is in a seismically active
region subject to strong ground motion during a large seismic event. The project is subject to
engineering standards and building codes that set minimum design and construction methods for
structures to resist seismic shaking, and will be reviewed for conformance with these standards and
codes before construction permits will be issued.
The project site is subject to expansive soils. Site-specific investigations and design proposals by
qualified professionals are required by building codes to address this issue before any construction
permits may be issued.
Drainage from the project site will be directed to stormwater collection facilities in conformance with
City Engineering Standards. Loss or erosion of topsoil is not anticipated. Waste water will be
disposed into the City’s sanitary sewer system. The project does not involve the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems.
Conclusion: The project can create risks and have impacts related to strong ground shaking in a seismic
event, and to expansive soils. These are expected to be less than significant because site-specific
investigations and design proposals by qualified professionals will be required as a condition of any project
approval. The project is not expected to introduce any other impacts related to geology and soils.
CHC2 - 20
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 14a X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 14 X
Evaluation
The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted the Clean Air Plan for
San Luis Obispo County, a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from
traditional industrial and commercial sources and motor vehicle use and developed the CEQA
Handbook to assist with CEQA reviews, providing information on significance thresholds for
determining potential air quality impacts from proposed residential and commercial development and
recommendations on the level of mitigation necessary to reduce those impacts.
The CEQA Handbook includes general screening criteria used by the APCD to determine the type
and scope of projects requiring an air quality assessment or mitigation. These criteria are based on
project size in an urban setting and are designed to identify those projects with the potential to exceed
the APCD’s significance thresholds. The project size is less than 1,000 square feet of proposed
commercial land use and 4 dwelling units; well below the criteria indicating the requirement for an air
quality assessment or mitigation. Thus, a project of this size would not be expected to exceed
thresholds of significance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and Ozone Precursor Emissions
Conclusion: The project may generate impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that are less than
significant, as the project does not exceed the APCD’s significance thresholds. No further impacts related to
greenhouse gas emissions are expected.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
2d,
12, 13 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
2d,
12, 13 X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
12, 13 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
2d X
CHC2 - 21
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
2d X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
2d X
Evaluation
The project, four live/work units and a small commercial suite, does not involve the transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials in its construction or operation. Hawthorne Elementary School is
located ¼ mile to the southwest of the project site. The project site is not included in the State Water
Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database of cleanup sites or Department of Toxic Substances
Control’s EnviroStor database of hazardous waste and substances sites.
The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land Use
Commission of San Luis Obispo County, not within two miles of the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport, nor is it within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
The project site is located within an urban, developed portion of the City, well outside of wildland
areas, and the project is consistent with the type of development permitted by the Land Use Element
of the City’s General Plan. As such, the City’s roadway policies and standards have been determined
to provide adequate opportunities for evacuation and emergency access.
Conclusion: No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
10,
13 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
2e, 2g X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
10 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site?
10 X
CHC2 - 22
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
10 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
15 X
h) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
2d X
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2d X
Evaluation
The City regulates the design, construction, and operation of private facilities to ensure they will not
have adverse effect on water quality. The City’s Waterways Management Plan was prepared as a
comprehensive, watershed-based management plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, to identify and
develop programs to address flooding, erosion, water quality, and ecological issues in the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed. It was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper
drainage within the creek’s watershed.
This project is not expected to violate water quality standards or waste water discharge requirements.
It involves the construction of four live/work units and a small amount of commercial space, activities
that are permitted by the General Plan in a Services and Manufacturing area. Construction and
operation of the project is subject to review by the City’s Public Works Department for conformance
to water quality standards and by the Utilities Department for compliance with waste water discharge
requirements, before any construction permit is issued for the project. Physical improvement of the
project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the Waterways Management
Plan to avoid erosion, siltation, and excessive or polluted runoff. This plan requires that site
development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-
development run-off.
The project conforms to the use limitations of the Land Use Element, and the City is sole water
purveyor within the City limits. A very small portion (about 2%) of the City’s potable water supply is
derived from groundwater. No well is present on site or proposed with this project.
The project site is not located within any flood hazard zone, nor within a flood area. San Luis Obispo
is not subject to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is it subject to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Conclusion: The project may impact hydrology and water quality. These impacts are expected to be less than
significant because the site’s drainage facilities are required to be designed and operated in a manner
consistent with the City’s Waterways Management Plan, to avoid erosion, siltation, and excessive or polluted
runoff.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with 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?
2a,
2e, 6 X
CHC2 - 23
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plans? 2e X
Evaluation
The project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations,
Historic Preservation Ordinance, Community Development Guidelines, and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. These plans, policies, and regulations
are intended to guide development in a manner that avoids adverse effects on the environment.
The General Plan places the protection of a residential atmosphere as the first priority at boundaries
between residential and non-residential development (LUE §2.2.4), and calls for new buildings in
historical districts or on historically significant sites to reflect the form, spacing and materials of
nearby historic structures, and to respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood
historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety (COSE §3.3.4 & §2.2.10 ).
The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines also require that new development be
compatible with, and not sharply contrast with or visually detract from, the prevailing historic
character of historically designated structures adjacent to a property to be developed.
The scale and height of the proposed live/work building, and the lack of yards and upper-floor
setbacks to provide spacing between buildings and preserve solar access detract from the setting
within which adjacent and nearby historic resources are situated, which may adversely change the
significance of those resources, as more fully discussed in the Cultural Resources section above.
These changes and impacts conflict with the City’s policies related to neighborhood compatibility and
historic preservation, as set forth in its General Plan and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
The project site is situated within a commercial area adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and on a
parcel within a developed block. It does not divide any community. It is not included within any
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area.
Conclusion: The project may impact neighboring property that contains historical resources, in conflict with
historical preservation regulations and policies intended to avoid such impacts, and in conflict with
regulations and policies intended to achieve neighborhood compatibility and to protect solar access.
Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measures proposed in the Cultural Resources section of this document
will address this project’s conflicts with the City’s policies and regulations intended to avoid impacts to
historic resources.
11. NOISE
Would the project result in Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of people to or generation of “unacceptable” noise
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?
2c,
8a X
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
2c X
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
CHC2 - 24
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
1 X
Evaluation
The project site is located outside of the noise contours depicted in the General Plan. It is not subject
to noise levels in excess of the standards established in the Noise Ordinance. The project involves
conventional commercial and residential activities that are not expected to produce significant levels
of noise, groundborne vibration, or groundborne noise levels.
The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land Use
Commission of San Luis Obispo County, or within two miles of the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport or other public use airport.
Conclusion: No Impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
2a, 2b X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Evaluation
The project is located in a developed portion of the City that is served by existing roads and
infrastructure, and increases the number of residential units by only one. Four live/work units will be
created where three dwellings currently exist. The demolition of three existing dwellings and their
replacement by four live/work units will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
Conclusion: No Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? 2a X
b) Police protection? 2a X
c) Schools? 2a X
d) Parks? 2f X
CHC2 - 25
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 2b X
f) Other public facilities? 2 X
Evaluation
The project is of a scale and intensity that is consistent with General Plan policies for the Service-
Commercial (C-S) Zone, requiring no construction of new facilities in order to maintain acceptable
service levels.
Conclusion: No Impact.
14. RECREATION
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2a, 2f X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
2a, 2f X
Evaluation
The project replaces three dwellings with four live/work units and a small commercial suite, which
would not be expected to cause the deterioration of existing recreational facilities or require any
expansion of such facilities.
Conclusion: No Impact.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2a, 2b X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
2b X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2d X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding 2b X
CHC2 - 26
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Evaluation
The project is consistent with the use and density limitations applicable to a Services and
Manufacturing area and does not conflict with circulation system or congestion management plans. It
involves a limited number of vehicle trips generated by four live/work units and a small (444 square-
foot) commercial suite. The project is served by existing public transit, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. It is centrally located within a developed portion of the City, which encourages walking.
Bicycle parking is provided, in conformance with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, which
encourages bicycling.
The project is located outside of the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land Use
Commission of San Luis Obispo County, and has no potential to result in a change in air traffic
patterns. It has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and Public Works for consistency with standards
applicable to site access, including emergency access. No potential for increased hazard due to design
features or inadequate emergency access has been identified.
Conclusion: No Impact.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2g X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
water treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control,
or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
2a,
2g X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
2a,
2g X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
2a,
2g X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider 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 commitments?
2a,
2g X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 2a, 2e X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? X
Evaluation
The project is served by existing storm water, sewer, and wastewater treatment facilities, and will
generate only a small increase in demand for these services, which is not expected to require any new
or expanded facilities.
CHC2 - 27
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The City has an adequate water supply to serve the community’s existing and future water needs, as
defined by the General Plan. The project conforms to the use limitations of the Land Use Element,
and the City is sole water purveyor within the City limits
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that
Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to
landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is
projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce
the flow of materials to landfills by 50%` (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project, consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element,
recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for
recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application.
The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream
generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The
incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant
impacts to solid waste disposal. Waste collection services will be provided by the San Luis Garbage
Company, which maintains standards for placement of and access to waste collection areas to ensure
that collection is feasible. The project is evaluated for compliance with these standards during
architectural review.
Conclusion: No Impact.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
2e, 6 X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Evaluation
Without mitigation the project could adversely impact the setting within which historic resources are
situated (see discussion under Cultural Resources).
Conclusion: With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project is
not expected to not degrade the quality of the environment. The project is not expected to have
impacts that will be cumulatively considerable, or create environmental effects that could have an
adverse impact on human beings.
CHC2 - 28
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
18. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines
§15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analysis used:
Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed:
Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures:
For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation 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.
Discussion:
No earlier analyses were been used in the evaluation of this project’s potential environmental impacts,
and no effects from the above checklist were within the scope of such earlier analyses or documents.
No mitigation measures from earlier analyses or documents were incorporated into this project.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County. Airport Land Use Plan for the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (May 2005).
2. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. General Plan (April 2007).
a. Land Use Element
b. Circulation Element
c. Noise Element
d. Safety Element
e. Conservation and Open Space Element
f. Parks and Recreation Element
g. Water & Wastewater Element
3. City of San Luis Obispo. 2013 Construction & Fire Codes; Building a Safer Community
(January 2014).
4. City of San Luis Obispo. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October
2009).
5. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. Railroad District Plan (June
1998).
6. City of San Luis Obispo, Cultural Heritage Committee. Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (November 2010).
7. City of San Luis Obispo. Community Design Guidelines (June 2010)
CHC2 - 29
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
8. City of San Luis Obispo. Municipal Code.
a. Noise Control (Ch. 9.12)
b. Tree Regulations (Ch. 12.24)
c. Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ch. 14.01)
9. City of San Luis Obispo. Zoning Regulations (SLO Municipal Code Title 17)
a. Zoning Map (§17.06.020)
b. Night Sky Preservation Regulations (Ch. 17.23)
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department, and County of San Luis Obispo, Flood
Control District – Zone 9. Waterways Management Plan (March 2003).
11. State of California, Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder.
ONLINE: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html [13 Mar 2015].
12. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. ONLINE:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ [13 Mar 2015]
13. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. ONLINE:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [13 Mar 2015]
14. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, A Guide
for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review. (April, 2012).
a. Table 1-1: Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis
15. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood
Insurance Rate Map, San Luis Obispo County, California – Panel 1068 (November 2012).
ONLINE: http://msc.fema.gov/ [24 Nov 2014]
16. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995).
CHC2 - 30
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
The following mitigation measures and associated monitoring program shall be incorporated into project
plans and specifications:
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 1: The project shall be modified to provide building separation, views, and exposure to
sunlight that is appropriate for development adjacent to a medium-density residential area in order to avoid
adverse impacts to the setting within which adjacent historic resources are situated. Yards, as described in the
City’s Zoning Regulations §17.16.020, will be provided to separate the proposed building from adjacent
residential development, in a manner similar to yard requirements applicable to development adjacent to a
Medium-Density (R-2) Zone. The Architectural Review Commission shall review the project for appropriate
setbacks to ensure appropriate viewshed protection.
Mitigation Measure 2: Accurate visual simulations will be included in project plans to demonstrate an
appropriate transition between the massing and scale of the project and adjacent historical resources, and will
demonstrate that adjacent historical resources are provided with adequate solar exposure.
Monitoring Program: The mitigation measures to be incorporated into this project consist of changes to the
design of the building proposed with the project and the preparation of materials and information to accurately
depict the appearance of the proposed building and its visual relationship to adjacent historic resources.
Before the project is considered by the Architectural Review Commission, the design of the proposed building
will be modified to provide appropriate yards and building setbacks, sufficient to avoid impacts to adjacent
historical resources, as described in Mitigation Measure 1, and accurate visual simulations of the proposed
building’s visual relationship to adjacent historic resources will be prepared, as described in Mitigation
Measure 2. Revised project plans clearly depicting these design modifications will be submitted, along with the
visual simulations, to the Community Development Department. These plans and simulations must adequately
depict yards, setbacks, and visual relationships to historic resources, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
The Architectural Review Commission will consider whether the yards and setbacks provided are sufficient to
avoid visual impacts to the setting within which adjacent historic resources are situated. Approval of the
project will be subject to any conditions necessary to avoid impacts to cultural resources, or subject to the
preparation of additional environmental documentation to address potential impacts to these resources.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will continue to be monitored during the evaluation of plans
submitted for construction permits. These plans will be reviewed by the Community Development Department
for consistency with any approval granted by the Architectural Review Commission, and for conformance wo
the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, prior to the issuance of any construction permit to
complete the project.
CHC2 - 31
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEEMINUTES
December 15, 2014
ROLL CALL:
Present: CommitteeMembersSandy Baer, ThomBrajkovich, Hugh Platt, Patti
Taylor, Victoria Wood, and Vice-ChairJaimeHill
Absent: ChairBob Pavlik
Staff: SeniorPlanner PhilDunsmore, SeniorPlannerPamRicci, Associate
PlannerBrian Leveille, and RecordingSecretary DianeClement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of November 24, 2014, wereapproved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no commentsmade from thepublic.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1327 OsosStreet. ARC 96-13; Review of revised plansfor a mixed-useproject
with nine condominium units and 8,000 square feetof officespace inthe OldTown
HistoricDistrict; R-3-H, O-H zones; MissionMedical, LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
SeniorPlannerRicci presented the staffreport, recommendingadoption of the Draft
Resolution which recommends that theArchitecturalReviewCommissionrecommend
to the CityCouncilthat they grant final designapproval to the project, based on findings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
CharlesBraff representing the applicant discussedthe merits of the project and the
changesthat havebeenincorporated to enhanceneighborhoodcompatibility.
Architect Thom Jess, ArrisStudio Architectspresented the design of the project,
expressing how the projecthas responded to communityinput.
StewJenkins, SLO, stated heis very impressed with theresponsiveness of the
applicantwho has done things to mitigateproblems for immediateneighbors, and with
this planthat captures elements of the Old Town. Henotedthathisone concern is that
the rooftop decks have no place inthe Old Town.
Pete Petersen, SLO, stated that he likes this design butstillisnot happyabout the
rooftop decks although he noted that the impacts of the decks have been mitigated by
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2 - 32
Draft CHCMinutes
December 15, 2014
Page 5
Onmotion by Comm. Member Hill, seconded by Comm. MemberTaylor, to recommend
that the Architectural Review Commission consider lowering the elevation onthe Morro
Street sideandeliminatethe roofdecks as inconsistentwith the historic district and
incompatible with the neighborhood.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that if the roofdecks wererecommended for elimination
and, if thatmeans the open space requirement is not met, the CityCouncil would make
a decision onthe open space requirementandthe ARCwouldalso make a
recommendation.
Comm. Member Baerstated she hasbeen in two old Spanish-style homes in the
historicdistrictthat have roofdecks ontop of a secondstory althoughthose decks do
not overlookanything.
Comm. Member Woodstatedshewould agreewith Comm. Member Hill's motion if the
roof decks were not recommended for removal becausetheyare appropriate for infill.
Comm. MembersTaylor andBaer agreed.
Comm. Member Hill rejected that amendment to her motionandwithdrew the motion.
On motion by Comm. MemberBrajkovich, seconded by Comm. MemberBaer, to
recommendthe ARC approve the projectwith a reduction to the massing of the
residenctialstructures facing Morro Street.
AYES: CommitteeMembers Baer, Brajkovich, Platt, andWood
NOES: CommitteeMembers Hill and Taylor
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Member Pavlik
The motion passed on a4:2 vote.
2. 1921 Santa BarbaraAvenue. ARCH-0521-2014; Review of four proposed
live/work units andcommercial space within the RailroadHistoricDistrict; C-S-H-
zone; Garcia Family Trust, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
AssistantPlanner Oetzell presented the staffreport, recommending that direction be
provided to the applicant to modify the project for consistency with the Railroad District
Plan ArchitecturalGuidelinesandcontinuethe item to a dateuncertain.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The projectapplicant, George Garcia, provided an overview of the project to the CHC.
John Grady, Morro St, SLO statedobjections to the projectdue to architectural
incompatibility. Hestatedhow the project is outof proportion with the districtand
expressedconcern about compatibilitywith singlefamilyresidences on Uphamalong
withpotentialprivacy, visual and aestheticsconcerns.
CHC2 - 33
Draft CHCMinutes
December 15, 2014
Page 6
Matt Sansons, SLO expressedsupport forthe projectand summarized the positive
attributes.
CHCmember Patti Taylor read a notethatwas received from Upham St resident
DebbieCollins (owner of Del Monte Café) objecting to the project design.
COMMITTEECOMMENTS:
Committeemember Taylor expressedconcern thatproject will altercontext of
neighborhood and would result inthe loss of historic significance of nearby structures.
CommitteememberBrajkovichcommentedon the positive aspect of architectural
juxtaposition.
Committeemember Baernotedhow the project is too large anddoes not fit. Shealso
mentioned the potential for noiseimpacts asa result of roofdecks.
Committeemember Wood commented onthe lack of balance with the neighborhood
and excessive height of the proposedstructure
CommitteememberHilloffered specificcomments to the projectdesign andasked
whetherzoning is appropriate forthe location. She noted that the front elevation would
beok ifit was lowered in scale.
Onmotion by CommitteeMemberHill, seconded by CommitteeMember Baer, the CHC
motioned to continuetheitem to a date uncertainwith specific direction to modify the
project for compatibility with the RailroadDistrictPlan; following discussion, the motion
maker retractedthemotion.
On a motion by Committee Member Taylor, seconded by CommitteeMember Wood,
the CHC voted to continue the item to a date uncertainwith direction to modify the
project as noted inthe staffreport, withadditionalcommentstoeliminate roof decks.
AYES: CommitteeMembers Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Platt, Taylor, andWood
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Comm. MemberPavlik
The motion passed/ on a6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Staff introduced Brian Leveille as the newCHC liaison.
4. Committee
CHC2 - 34
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 26, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Hugh Platt, Victoria
Wood, Vice-Chair Jaime Hill, and Chair Bob Pavlik
Absent: Committee Member Patti Taylor
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant
Planner Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and
Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of December 15, 2015, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 2881 Broad Street. HIST-0554-2014; Review historic status of a potentially
contributing historic property; R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. (Erik Berg-
Johansen)
Assistant Planner Erik Berg-Johansen presented the staff report, recommending review
of the historic significance of the property and recommending the City Council add the
property to the contributing list of historic resources.
Eric Newsom, representing the applicant, stated he disagrees with the staff
interpretation of the Historic Sites/Structures Report on the house. He added that the
report referred to the house as a poor example of brick Craftsman style that is only
potentially eligible for the Contributing List of Historic Resources. He stated that it is not
economically feasible to move it and noted that engineers and insurance companies
would not touch it because it is in such bad shape. He called it a hazard and stated the
area does not warrant a structure like this with modern development going on all around
it. He requested that it be designated as a non-contributing property.
Dustin Pires, applicant, discussed the poor condition of the property and noted the
difficulty of developing the property if the structure is designated as contributing due to
its location at the center of the lot.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC2 - 35
CHC Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 6
Senior Planner Dunsmore listed the heights and stated staff would have to look at the
towers to see if they meet the guidelines.
Comm. Member Hill stated she was glad not to see a four-story faux brick building. She
encouraged further refinement and noted that there is not have enough information
about the materials and asked for clarification that windows are not mirrored. She
stated the design would be better if it integrated the elevator shaft and stairwell.
Comm. Member Platt stated it is wonderfully proportioned but suggested making the
corners, elevator towers and stairwells less blocky. He stated it is a good addition and
good use of space that is not in contrast with the downtown or old town.
Comm. Member Pavlik stated the height issue is something that needs to be further
evaluated and worked out. He added that it is a lot of building on a small piece of la nd
which is very impressive. He agreed with Comm. Member Hill about the materials.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Baer, to
forward the recommended conceptual review directional items to the Architectural
Review Commission for incorporation into the formal project submittal with the following
changes: Directional Item 1 to read “Explore design alternatives to integrate the stair
and elevator towers into the structure”; Directional Item 2 to read “The revised project
shall include the use of architectural finish materials and architectural elements
consistent with the prevailing architectural character of the district. The building does
not need to imitate a historic structure, but should include materials and architectural
details consistent and complementary with nearby buildings and the prevailing
architecture of the downtown as called for in the Community Design Guidelines for the
Downtown;” and Directional Item 3 to remain as presented in the Resolution.
AYES: Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Pavlik, Platt, and Wood
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Member Taylor
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
3. 1921 Santa Barbara Avenue. ARCH-0521-2014; Review of four proposed
live/work units and commercial space within the Railroad Historic District; C-S-H
zone; Garcia Family Trust, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Oetzell presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the draft
resolution finding the project consistent with the Historical Preservation Ordinance and
with the Railroad District Plan, and forwarding a recommendation to the Architectural
Review Commission to approve the project.
Assistant Planner Oetzell noted that last minute communications were received; he
passed out copies to the Committee Members and also distributed revised plans.
CHC2 - 36
CHC Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 7
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Leslie Terry, SLO, stated that she read the historic guidelines and learned that the
project does not follow the guidelines for compatibility with historically designated
structures, such as the nearby Master-Listed Chapek home and her home which is the
Bittick house, and the adjacent Del Monte Cafe which is on the Contributing List. She
described the project as a gigantic thing next to residential historic homes that looks
down into backyards. She noted that the height of a pitched roof home cannot be
compared to a flat-roofed building. She stated that an industrial look is being
encouraged for this project next to the adjacent Del Monte Cafe which is not industrial in
style. She supported a smooth architectural transition to the Railroad District. She
stated that the Conservation and Open Space Element requires acknowledgment of
human scale but this project will be taller than her home and will look down into her
backyard. She added that she is shocked at the look and called it out of character but
noted her biggest concern is size.
Julie Watts, SLO, stated her family, including two children, recently moved to the
Chapek residence and they spend a great deal of time in their back yard but this project
will encroach upon their enjoyment because much of their view of the railroad tracks,
the trains, and the Jennifer Street bridge will be taken away. She expressed concern
about loss of natural light for her property and about noise from the live/work units. She
stated that the aesthetics of the building do not match the neighborhood.
John Grady, SLO, stated that he has lived on Morro Street across from Railroad Square
for 2.5 years and he considers the neighborhood a special, unique area. He expressed
concern about the contemporary, modern design; the massive size, scale, and height;
and the potential for noise from the balconies. He stated the colors and materials look
better now. He added that his understanding is that the structure will abut the property
line of 875 Upham and will rise 30 feet up, in addition to coming within ten feet of 843
Upham where it will rise to 20 feet and then 30 feet. He noted the loss of daylight and
views for these homes as well as for homes across the street. He expressed concern
about noise and loss of privacy and gave the example of the loud noise he hears from a
second-story balcony on a residence designed by Mr. Garcia near his house. He stated
that this structure needs to be two stories, not three, and further set back.
Carrie Collins, SLO, stated her family owns the Del Monte Café and she lives in a home
nearby. She expressed concern about losing the skyline view for her home and the
cafe, and losing light and privacy. She added that she is having a baby in July and is
concerned about noise from the project intruding upon the baby's nursery. She stated
that the project needs to be set back further as it is too close to residential properties.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Comm. Member Platt stated he thinks the building is ugly but it can be helped. He
stated there is a flaw in the Railroad District guidelines. He applauded elimination of the
CHC2 - 37
CHC Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 8
roof decks. He called the public testimony from nearby residents gut-wrenching and
difficult to ignore. He wondered if a mural could be painted on the project's cafe side.
Comm. Member Wood thanked the architect for materials that are gentler than last time.
She noted that this neighborhood is a difficult area with old houses that look tall due to
tall attics. She stated her biggest concern is the height next to small older homes. She
added that she does not know what the City can do about the setbacks because the lots
in the area are mostly small and oddly shaped. She noted the need for more continuity
in building sizes around the Del Monte Cafe where the buildings are smaller but get
bigger and more commercial going south on Santa Barbara Avenue.
Comm. Member Baer stated she is very conflicted because this area is truly a
transitional area with large buildings and cute little houses and nothing in between. She
added that Mr. Garcia did an incredible job but she agrees with the neighbors'
comments. She added she has a problem with the height, and feels bad about the view
and sunlight loss but she has no answers.
Comm. Member Brajkovich stated the project is an attractive building and it is hard to
design a unique infill project when there is a need to get as much as possible from a
property. He added that he likes the setback element from the Del Monte Café but he
did not see a view of how it would look coming up Santa Barbara Avenue. He stated he
thinks it will have a looming effect which he would not like if he lived there. He noted
the look of the area is changing and the property next door might get built upon because
it has the same zoning. He called this building precedent-setting and questioned
whether the City is ready for that.
Comm. Member Platt stated that if this is the kind of look that will be emulated toward
Broad Street, the end result will be something more industrial than railroad, and may
end up neither and, as far as ushering in a whole new type of architecture, he does not
think it is a good predecessor.
Comm. Member Hill stated she is torn between what the community wants to see and
the need for redevelopment. She added that the height and mass are more appropriate
issues than adherence to guidelines. She noted that roof decks are like an extra story
but are not relevant here since the decks and the circular staircases are gone. She
added that perhaps the massing is doing a disservice and the same height without the
flat roofs would be better, along with making the project look less industrial and more
railroad in design.
Comm. Member Pavlik noted the Committee's purview and reviewed the issue of this
being a transitional neighborhood with residential very close to commercial. He noted
that the elevation of this property is higher than the residences on Upham, Chorro, and
even Morro Streets because the land falls away in that direction.
Senior Planner Dunsmore noted that a lot of comments at this meeting are actually in
the purview of the ARC. He added that the Committee must consider both
neighborhood compatibility and the commercial zoning along Santa Barbara Avenue.
CHC2 - 38
CHC Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 9
Comm. Member Hill stated that the project could be found consistent with the Railroad
District plan but that it may have impacts on the Master-Listed homes. She added that
the context for the Master-Listed homes is the real issue.
Comm. Member Pavlik stated that the ARC would have to take up the impacts of
shadow, glare, etc. He agreed the project does appear to be consistent with the
Railroad District plan but there are other considerations.
Comm. Member Brajkovich suggested wording to recommend exploring a reduction of
scale to respect the neighbors.
Comm. Member Pavlik suggested stating the project is consistent but there is a concern
and then passing it on to the ARC.
Comm. Member Hill asked what it would mean in relation to CEQA, if the Committee
finds a project consistent but with potential impacts to adjacent and nearby historic
resources.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the CHC may find the project consistent with the
Architectural Guidelines while suggesting to staff that the building may impact historic
structures in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
On motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Baer,
recommending adoption of the draft resolution finding the project consistent with the
Historical Preservation Ordinance and with the Railroad District Plan but noting needed
evaluation of potentially-significant impacts on adjacent neighboring historic properties
in terms of massing, scale, and materials.
AYES: Committee Members Platt, Hill, Pavlik, Baer
NOES: Committee Members Brajkovich and Wood
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Committee Member Taylor
The motion passed on a 4:2 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast for February 23, 2015: 2881 Broad Street, and a major
mixed-use project in Miner’s parking area.
b. California Preservation Foundation annual conference April 29-May 2, 2015;
the City could support sending 1-2 Committee Members.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
CHC2 - 39
CHC Minutes
January 26, 2015
Page 10
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on February 23, 2015.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
CHC2 - 40
CHC2 - 41
CHC2 - 42
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC2 - 43
CHC2 - 44
CHC2 - 45
CHC2 - 46
CHC2 - 47
CHC2 - 48
CHC2 - 49
CHC2 - 50
CHC2 - 51
CHC2 - 52
CHC2 - 53
CHC2 - 54
CHC2 - 55
CHC2 - 56
CHC2 - 57
CHC2 - 58
CHC2 - 59
Meeting Date: December 15, 2014
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Construction of a new building with four live/work units and a small commercial
suite, in the Railroad Historic District
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1921 Santa Barbara St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0521-2014 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to the applicant to modify the project for consistency with the Railroad District
Plan Architectural Guidelines and continue the item to a date uncertain.
SUMMARY
George Garcia has submitted an application for architectural review of a new building with four
live/work units and a small commercial suite at 1921 Santa Barbara Street, within the Railroad
Historic District. Pursuant to the City’s Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,
development projects within an historic district require review by the Cultural Heritage
Committee.
SITE DATA
Applicant Garcia Family Trust, etal
Owner Mattocks / Dechambeau
Historic Status Railroad Historic District
Zoning Service Commerical (C-S)
Historical Preservation (H)
General Plan Service and Manufacturing
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15303
New Construction of Small
Structures)
COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee is asked to provide recommendations to the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) on this project because it is within the Railroad Historic District, and to provide guidance
on the application of the Railroad District Plan’s Architectural Guidelines to the project. The
wo
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC2 - 60
Committee should recommend modifications to the design of the project that would make it
consistent with the Railroad District Plan prior to forwarding this item to the ARC.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The project site is a rectangular parcel of about 7,250 square feet in area, with 50 feet of street
frontage on the west side of Santa Barbara Street, 120 feet south of Upham Street, within the
Railroad Historic District. It is developed with a single-family residence and two small rental
units. The existing structures on the site are not Listed Resources.
Table 1: Surrounding Uses
Zone Use Note
North C-S-H Del Monte Café
(Del Monte Grocery)
Contributing List Resource
875 Upham
Single-family residence
Contributing List Resource
West R-2 843 Upham
Single-family residence
Master List Resource
South C-S-H 1925 Santa Barbara (The Brow Shoppe)
East PF-H Railroad Depot Parking Lot
Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse Master List Resource
The immediate area is characterized by a mix of uses and structures. The Southern Pacific
Freight Warehouse is across the street, within the parking lot for the Railroad Depot. Adjacent to
the project are the historic Del Monte Grocery Building to the north (occupied by the Del Monte
Café), and to the south a small accessory structure at the rear of the adjacent property, now used
for personal services (the Brow Shoppe). Also on this block is an older single-family residence,
two large metal industrial warehouses, near the Flanders Bicycle shop, and three recently
constructed mixed-use buildings, designed in an historical vernacular style.
Figure 1: Buildings in the vicinity
CHC2 - 61
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story building containing 4 live/work units with a small
commercial suite (444 sq. ft. in area) on the ground floor along the Santa Barbara Street frontage.
Parking, unit entries, and work spaces are arranged on the ground floor behind the commercial
suite. The live/work units occupy the second and third floors of the structure, with balcony and
deck space provided for the units. The roof offers more deck space for the units, accessed from
the second floor by spiral stairways.
Architectural Style
The proposed building is designed in a contemporary style based on modern and boxy rectilinear
forms with a flat roofline. The architect has provided a project statement (Attachment 2)
describing the design approach to the project. The design aims to incorporate elements of historic
railroad vernacular architecture utilizing shapes, colors, and materials indigenous to the historical
rail yards, using a “railroad boxcar analogy to honor and respect those who labored in the rail -
yards” while providing “a new and reinterpreted identity to the emerging railroad district area.”
EVALUATION
Evaluation of this project is focused on determining whether the design of the building
complements the historic character of the Railroad Historic District and responds to the specific
guidelines set forth in the Railroad District Plan.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Program Guidelines
The project site is within a Historical Preservation (H) Zone, a designation applied to an area for
the purpose of enhancing and preserving the setting of historic resources, so that surrounding
land uses and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of historic
resources and districts (§14.01.080). The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
provide that:
New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their
Figure 2: Northwest elevation of proposed building
CHC2 - 62
consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements,
exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic
structures… (§ 3.2.1)
New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public
views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract
from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. (§ 3.2.2)
As discussed in further detail in this report, the building exhibits the overall character of a
contemporary residential apartment building which, while attractive, does not adequately reflect
the historic character of the Railroad Historic District. Particular attention should also be given to
impact that the scale and massing of the structure might have on the character of, and views
from, the adjacent residential neighborhood behind the site, along Upham Street.
Railroad District Plan
The Railroad District Plan was prepared to guide development in this area, which is designated
as a Special Design Area (LUE 8.4) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Plan’s
policies and programs seek to preserve and promote the area’s historic character, improve
circulation within and through the area, and enhance the area’s appearance and role as a gateway
to the City.
The historic railroad structures that remain in the district give it its recognizable architectural
character and historic image. Historic structures include the Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse,
the Del Monte Grocery building, Railroad Square, the Railroad Depot, and several residential
buildings of a vernacular architectural style. It is the City’s policy to ensure that new
development reflects the unique architectural character of the district so that the area’s historic
character is not lost over time.1 Specific architectural guidelines were developed to guide future
development within the district, and they provide a “menu” of architectural elements which can
be incorporated into new development projects.
1 See: Land Use Policies, page 66; Historic Preservation Issues, page 27; Issues Summary, page 43; Opportunities
and Constraints, page 45
Figure 3: Historic structures within the Railroad District Plan area
CHC2 - 63
In order to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan, new development must be
complementary to, and promote, the district’s historic character, and incorporate architectural
elements inspired by the district’s function and its older buildings. However, the Plan does
acknowledge that architectural guidelines should allow for design flexibility and should not
dictate detailed building design.2 New development need not incorporate all of the architectural
elements suggested in the guidelines, nor be designed as a replica of an historical building.
Contemporary architectural styles which are consistent with the guidelines and which
complement the District’s historic character are acceptable.
Building Form and Massing: The proposed building is based predominantly on simple,
rectilinear forms with appropriate massing that suggest forms and proportions associated with
railroad structures and equipment. Sawtooth forms have been incorporated into the front and side
building elevations, and the building has a deep overhang at the street frontage. This form and
massing attempts to respond to the guidelines of the Railroad District Plan.
Roof Lines: A flat roof design is used, rather than the sloped, gable, hip, or shed roof forms
suggested by the Plan. A flat roof is a common vernacular element on buildings with false-fronts
and parapets, and on functionally simple industrial structures. However, the varied heights of the
roofline on this building suggest a conventional residential apartment structure. Vernacular
decoration, like roof brackets and diagonal support braces, are also suggested by the Plan. While
the contemporary building style does not lend itself to such decoration, the lack of these features
contributes to the building’s conventional residential character.
2 Community Workshop #2 comments, page 11
Figure 4: Railroad District Plan architectural guideline illustrations
Figure 5: Guideline illustrations - roof lines
CHC2 - 64
Doors and Windows: Windows are arranged on the building in varied symmetry across the south
elevation; the side of the building that is most exposed to public view. Their arrangement
emphasizes symmetry and many window forms incorporate divided lites, consistent with Plan
guidelines. However, the mix of vertical and rectangular window forms does not reflect the
vertical orientation and regular groupings common to the historical vernacular styles depicted in
the guidelines. The different window types and their dynamic arrangement suggest neither a
traditional historical style nor a more functionally-driven industrial aesthetic. As with the roof
form, the types of doors and windows on this building, and their arrangement, provide for an
attractive residential environment, but do not follow the Plan’s specific guidelines.
Surface Treatment: This predominant surface element of this building is smooth plaster, with
wood-like fiber cement-board and galvanized steel used as accents. These materials are
suggested in Plan guidelines as appropriate to the District’s character, but, as noted by the
architect, the use of smooth plaster in district is associated with Early California or Mission
Revival styles, like that of the Railroad Depot itself.
The wood and steel accents and dark aluminum door and window framing complement the steel,
brick and wood used on buildings in the vicinity. They also give the building a touch of
industrial character. Unfortunately, in concert with the roofline and door and window treatments,
the plaster contributes to the residential character that the building ultimately conveys. Other
structures in the District make extensive, or even exclusive, use of industrial materials like metal
and wood to achieve a character that is appropriate to their location in a railroad district.
Figure 6: Doors and windows
Figure 7: Surface treatments - Industrial siding materials
CHC2 - 65
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 1 Meeting Date: January 26, 2015
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Construction of a new building with four live/work units and a small commercial
suite, in the Railroad Historic District
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1921 Santa Barbara St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0521-2014 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached draft resolution finding the project consistent with the Historical Preservation
Ordinance and with the Railroad District Plan, and forward a recommendation to the
Architectural Review Commission to approve the project.
SUMMARY
The Committee reviewed this project on December 15, 2014, and continued consideration of the
project to a future date, providing direction to the applicant about modifications of the project
design that would make it consistent with the Railroad District Plan Architectural Design
Guidelines. The project design has been modified in response to that direction.
The project includes a new building with four live/work units and a small commercial suite at
1921 Santa Barbara Street, within the Railroad Historic District. Pursuant to the City’s Historical
Preservation Program Guidelines, development projects within an historic district require review
by the Cultural Heritage Committee.
SITE DATA
Applicant Garcia Family Trust, etal
Owner Mattocks / Dechambeau
Historic Status Railroad Historic District
Zoning Service Commercial (C-S)
Historical Preservation (H)
General Plan Service and Manufacturing
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15332
In-Fill Development)
wo
CHC2 - 66
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 2
COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee is asked to provide recommendations to the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) on this project because it is within the Railroad Historic District, and to provide guidance
on the application of the Railroad District Plan’s Architectural Guidelines to the project.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story building, designed in a contemporary style, with 4
live/work units and a small commercial suite. The site is located on the west side of Santa
Barbara Street, 120 feet south of Upham Street, within the Railroad Historic District. The
immediate area is characterized by a mix of uses and structures, including a number of listed
Historic Structures such as the Del Monte Grocery Building and residences along Upham Street.
A more detailed description of the site and project were provided in the staff report prepared for
the December 15th meeting of the Committee (a copy is attached to this report for reference).
EVALUATION
Evaluation of this project is focused on determining whether the design of the building
complements the historic character of the Railroad Historic District and responds to the specific
guidelines set forth in the Railroad District Plan and direction provided by the CHC on
December 15, 2014.
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Program Guidelines
The project site is within a Historical Preservation (H) Zone, a designation applied to an area for
the purpose of enhancing and preserving the setting of historic resources. The City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines provide that:
New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the
CHC2 - 67
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 3
scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and
street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures… (§ 3.2.1)
New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or
visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated
structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the
prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district. (§ 3.2.2)
These guidelines are further defined in the Railroad District Plan discussed below.
Railroad District Plan
The Railroad District Plan guides development in this area with architectural guidelines, historic
preservation policies and programs, land use policies and programs, and recommended traffic
improvements. It is the City’s policy to ensure that new development reflects the unique
architectural character of the district so that the area’s historical character is not lost over time.1
Specific architectural guidelines were developed to guide future development within the district,
and they provide a “menu” of architectural elements which can be incorporated into new
development projects. In order to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan, new development
must be complementary to, and promote, the district’s historical character, and incorporate
architectural elements inspired by the district’s function and its older buildings. The Plan also
acknowledges that architectural guidelines should allow for design flexibility and should not
dictate detailed building design:2
New buildings need not include all of these elements, nor be designed to be a replica of a
historic building. The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review
Commission interpret the guidelines and will consider contemporary architectural styles
which are consistent with these guidelines and which complement the District’s historic
character.
1 See RRDP: Land Use Policies, page 66; Historic Preservation Issues, page 27; Issues Summary, page 43;
Opportunities and Constraints, page 45
2 RRDP Architectural Guidelines, page 75; and see Community Workshop #2 comments, page 11
CHC2 - 68
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 4
Response to the Committee’s Direction
The architect provided a project statement (Attachment 2) describing the overall design approach
to the project. The design aims to incorporate elements of historical railroad vernacular
architecture utilizing shapes, colors, and materials indigenous to the historical rail yards, using a
“railroad boxcar analogy to honor and respect those who labored in the rail-yards” while
providing “a new and reinterpreted identity to the emerging railroad district area.”
As originally designed, the building exhibited the overall character of a contemporary residential
apartment building which, while attractive, the CHC found did not adequately reflect the
historical character of the Railroad Historic District. The original design raised compatibility
concerns due to the project’s scale and massing along the north and west property lines which
would be visible from the adjacent Upham Street neighborhood. The Committee provided five
directional items to guide design changes that would make the project more consistent with the
Railroad District Plan (see previous staff report, Attachment 3). The building’s basic form and
layout has been preserved, but in response to the Committee’s direction the design of the
building has been modified to better reflect the district’s historical character and to address
massing and visual relief along the north and west sides of the building.
Directional Item 3 – Surface Treatment: The most significant changes to the project are the
changes in materials and colors. For this reason, the response to this direction is addressed first.
The predominance of smooth plaster as a surface element
contributed most to the original building’s residential
character. Smooth plaster is a material commonly associated
with structures of an Early California or Mission Revival style,
like that of the Railroad Depot itself, but does not meet the
intent of the Railroad District Architectural Guidelines when
used with contemporary styles.
The palette of materials and colors has been revised, and is
now based on a mix of steel, corrugated sheet metal, and
carbonized wood.3 Incorporation of these surface treatments
3 Carbonized wood has been treated by heat or fire to make it fire- and corrosion-resistant, leaving it with a dark
functional appearance.
Figure 1: Original design (left) and revised design (right)
CHC2 - 69
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 5
lend the building an industrial character that is in keeping with its contemporary style while also
complementing industrial structures in the surroundings that make extensive, or even exclusive,
use of metal and wood (see Figure 1 above, and Plan sheets A2.1 & A2.2, Attachment 2). The
building is placed within the functional context of the Railroad District by the use of these
industrial materials, rather than by replicating characteristic details of historical styles.
Directional Item 1 – Roof Lines: The CHC directed the
applicant to consider an alternative to the proposed flat
roof type by referring to roof types described in the
Railroad District Plan (shed, gabled, parapet, etc.) in
order to provide either a more industrial or a more
vernacular character.
The roof line has been largely retained, as it is integral
to the box forms basic to the design, but a saw-tooth
roof element has been added to the rear of the building,
at the second-floor level. This element echoes a
common industrial roof form found in the area while also relieving some mass and providing
visual interest at that end of the building.
Directional Item 2 – Doors and Windows: In the original design, the window types and their
arrangement suggested neither a traditional historical style nor a more functionally-driven
industrial aesthetic. The applicant was directed to incorporate a more regular grouping and
arrangement of doors and windows along the bottom floor and south elevation, or to incorporate
traditional vernacular groupings common to the district’s historical structures.
Garage doors on the bottom level were changed to roll-up doors with a
more industrial appearance. Otherwise, windows and doors remain
largely the same. They are arranged on the building in a manner that
emphasizes symmetry and that provides a sense of vertical orientation.
The windows used include fixed windows and horizontal windows
with divided lites, as specified in the District Plan’s architectural
guidelines. As with the roof form, the arrangement and types of doors
and windows support the new color and material palette to express an
industrial building character that is compatible with, and better reflects,
the historical character of the Railroad District.
Directional Item 4 – Architectural Details: The Railroad District Plan provides guidelines
encouraging the incorporation of architectural details that are common to historical buildings in
the district, such as carved shapes, brackets, bracing, finials, decorative wood work at roof
ridges, and connection details like timber connections bolts, and brackets. The original design
lacked these details, and the applicant was directed to incorporate architectural details that reflect
the historical character of the district.
Several architectural details were incorporated as gestures to the “Steam-Era” importance of
machinery, to embellish the industrial theme of the building. These details include raised decks
CHC2 - 70
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 6
and platforms with metal cable railing, metal spiral staircases, and railroad-themed details like
signage and the type of font used for address numbers. The exposure of fire sprinkler riser
equipment on the front elevation conflicts with guidelines that call
for the equipment to be architecturally screened. The applicant has
stated its exposure is deliberate and intended to strengthen the
building’s industrial appearance and enhance its compatibility with
the District’s character. Staff has included a condition of approval
requiring the riser’s relocation and/or architectural screening
measures to be included in plans submitted for ARC review.
Directional Item 5 – Massing: The size, massing, and lack of relief
on the large plaster block forms on the north and west building elevations caused concerns that
the building could overwhelm the adjacent structures on Upham Street. The applicant was
directed to reduce the mass of these portions of the building and provide visual relief to create a
more pleasing transition to the smaller scale structures along Upham Street, particularly the Del
Monte Grocery Building and the residences at 843, 845, and 875 Upham.
In response, the form of the building been stepped back on its westerly side (see Figure 2) so that
its tallest portions are set back farther from the adjacent property to the rear (843 and 845
Upham). The new saw-tooth roof form on this side of the building also reduces apparent massing
and provides visual interest. Further visual interest is provided by the varied use of different
forms of metal siding; corrugated sheet metal, steel, and metal with standing seams. This surface
treatment also provides visual interest to the north side of the building, replacing a monotonous
expanse of smooth plaster with more complementary corrugated sheet metal and steel surfaces.
Figure 2: West end of building; Original design (left) and revised, stepped -back design (middle);
West elevation (right) showing sawtooth roof element
CHC2 - 71
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 7
CONCLUSION
The modifications made to the building design, and in particular the changes in its surface
treatment, have transformed the character of the building, giving it an industrial quality by
incorporating industrial rooflines, surface treatments, and architectural details that reference the
historical role and function of the Railroad District while complementing the Railroad
Vernacular character of the vicinity. While the building departs from the historical vernacular
architecture of structures found in the District, it exhibits forms and incorporates surface
treatments and architectural details inspired by the district’s function and its older buildings.
Based on this evaluation, staff believes that the project is consistent with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, and exterior materials called for in the Railroad District
Plan and does not sharply contrast with or visually detract from the historic character of adjacent
property or the District as a whole. The building reflects the unique architectural character of the
District, is consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Railroad District Plan and is
complementary to, and promotes, the District’s historical character.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as an In-Fill
Development Project, described in CEQA Guidelines §15332. The project will not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and will have no potential
to adversely affect cultural resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Continue consideration of the application to a future meeting and provide the applicant
with direction on specific project changes that would enhance the consistency of the
project with the Railroad District Plan.
2.Determine that the project is inconsistent with the Railroad District Plan and recommend
that the Architectural Review Commission deny the project, according to findings of
inconsistency with the Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Vicinity Map
2.Project Plans (Reduced Size)
3.Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda Report, December 15, 2014
4.Drawings of Original Design (reviewed December 15, 2014)
Included in Committee Member Portfolio
Project Plans (Half-Size)
Available at the Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting:
Color and Material Board
CHC2 - 72