The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-26-2015 CHC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Cultural Heritage Committee A G E N D A San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Council Chamber 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo May 26, 2015 Tuesday 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL:Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, James Papp, Victoria Wood, and 1 Position Vacant, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill STAFF:Brian Leveille, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENT:At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. The action of the CHC is a recommendation tothe Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of the April 27, 2015, regular meeting. Approve or amend. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1.1921 Santa Barbara Avenue.ARCH-0521-2014; Continued review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for four live/work units and a small commercial suite in the Railroad Historic District; C-S-H zone; Garcia Family Trust, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) 2.1053 Islay Street.ARCH-1170-2015; Review of remodel and additionbehind a residence that is a Contributing List Resource in the Old Town Historic District; R-3-H zone; Lesa Jones, applicant.(Continued to a Date Certain –June 22, 2015)(Walter Oetzell) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3.Staff a.Agenda Forecast 4.Committee ADJOURNMENT Meeting Date:May 26, 2015 Item Number:1 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Environmental review of aproposed four unit live/work building 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 find that the mitigation measures proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 3) prepared for this project are adequate to avoid potential impacts that the project may have on historic resources adjacent to the project. SITE DATA Applicant Garcia Family Trust, et. al. Representative George Garcia, AIA garcia architecture+design Property Owner Mattocks / Dechambeau Submittal Date October 31st, 2014 Complete Date January 4th, 2015 Zoning Service-Commercial with Historic Overlay(C-S-H) General Plan Service and Manufacturing Historic Status In Railroad Historic District Environmental Status A proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project SUMMARY Process to date: 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. Because the project site is within the Railroad Historic District, the application was referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for review of the project’s consistency with the Historic Railroad District Plan guidelines and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The Committee provided direction to the applicant regarding roof lines, doors and windows, CHC1 - 1 XP ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara) Page 2 surface treatment, architectural details, and massing in response to conceptual review of the proposal on December 2014 (meeting minutes, Attachment 5). The applicant submitted a modified design which the CHC reviewed on January 26, 2015. At the January meeting, the CHC found the project to be consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and with the Railroad District Plan, recommended that the Architectural Review Commission approve the project, but considermassing and scale of the project, and included a request to evaluate “potentially-significant impacts on adjacent neighboring historic properties in terms of massing, scale, and materials.” (meeting minutes and resolution, Attachment 6). In response to the Committee’s action, staff conducted an Initial Study, according to § 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), to determine if the project could result in potential impacts to nearby historic resources. The initial study identified a potentially significant effect on the residence at 875 Upham Street, which is a Contributing List Resource. Staff prepared a mitigated negative declaration with mitigation measures to require upper floor setbacks and building separation changes to the project to avoid potentially significant effects. The CHC considered the proposed Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on April 27, 2015. The Committee was asked to provide their input as to the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The CHC discussed that the proposed mitigation measures were not adequate to address the massing and scale of the proposed project and voted to continue the item to allow the applicant to return to the CHC incorporating reduction in building scale, more cohesiveness with the historic neighborhood and Railroad District Plan, smoother transition between residential and commercial uses, and preservation of the tree onsite. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been revised to more clearly describe the impacts the project may have on 875 Upham, a Contributing List Resource, and to evaluate potential impacts to other historic resources in the neighborhood. Staff has concluded that the proposed project will not create significant impacts to historic resources near the project site other than the potential to impact the adjacent resource located at 875 Upham. COMMITTEE’SPURVIEW The CHC made a determination in January finding the project consistent with the Railroad District Plan and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The Committee’s role now is to review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and make a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission regarding the proposed mitigation measures. While community (and committee member) concerns about project design were voiced at the previous hearing, these concerns are within the Architectural Review Commission’s purview and will be addressed by that body at a future hearing. The applicant’s project submittal has not changed, and it is an important distinction that while the CHC may have ongoing concerns over the massing of the project and its transition to the residential neighborhood, the CHC’s action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be limited to the CEQA standards for review of potentially significant impacts to historic resources. CHC1 - 2 ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara) Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On April 27, 2015, the CHC requested further evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the project on historic resources in the area. CEQA standards define what is considered a historic resource, as well as describe the threshold for what constitutes a potential significant impact on that resource. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.(§15064.5(b)) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.(§15064.5(b)(1)) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources… (§15064.5(b)(2)(B)) The properties included on the City’s list of historic resources clearly meet the criteria outlined in CEQA as historic resources for which potential impacts must be evaluated. Key to the environmental review is consideration of the threshold of whether the proposed project at 1921 Santa Barbara Street materially impairs the historic resources to a degree that the resources would no longer qualify to be included on the City’s list of historic resources. While design compatibility considerations of the project are of great importance, they will be addressed by the ARC. The potential environmental impact to historic impacts is narrowly defined under CEQA and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects this focus. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project site is on the west side of Santa Barbara Street, 120 feet south of Upham Street, within the Railroad Historic District. In response to the Committee’s direction on April 27th, staff expanded the evaluation of potential environmental impacts to include consideration of potentially significant effects on other historical resources in the neighborhood that are not directly adjacent to the project site. Table 2 below lists these resources and indicates their proximity to the project (also see Attachment 4 –Map of nearby historical resources). The property at 875 Upham is part of a neighborhood which is an example of early 20th Century residential development in the City (Historic Context Statement, pp. 80-84). The City has recognized resources in the Railroad District Plan (RRDP) area and in the adjacent neighborhood by their inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (either Master or Contributing properties). CHC1 - 3 ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara) Page 4 Table 1: Adjacent Historic Resources (within the Railroad Historic District) Address Resource Type Zone Dist.* Name 1901 Santa Barbara Contributing List C-S-H 50’ Del Monte Grocery Building 875 Upham Contributing List 2.5’ 843 Upham Master List R-2 35’ Chapek House * Distance (in feet) between the project site and the primary structure on the listed historic property Table 2: Nearby Historic Resources (outside the Railroad Historic District) Address Resource Type Zone Dist.* Name 1829 Morro Contributing List C-S-H 230’ 1845 Morro Contributing List R-3-H 150’ 868 Upham Master List R-2 85’ Lyman House 1902 Chorro Master List R-2 100’ Bittick Residence 1907 Chorro Master List R-2 255 Hourihan House * Distance (in feet) between the project site and the primary structure on the listed historic property As described in the initial study, staff concluded that the proposed project has the potential to significantly materially impact the adjacent historic resource at 875 Upham, a Contributing List residence. The proposed project would alter the “setting and feeling” of the immediate surroundings of the residence by placing a three story structure immediately adjacent to the property line directly behind the small scale historic structure. This configuration has the potential to negatively alter the historic significance of the property by interfering with the setting and context of the small scale historic residence which contributes to the residential character of the neighborhood. The ability of 875 Upham to contribute to the historic and architectural character of the neighborhood could be diminished if building separation, light, and privacy are eliminated. This material impairment in 875 Upham’s ability to contribute to the neighborhood’s character could result in it no longer being eligible for inclusion on the City’s list of historic resources and therefore the project has the potential to significantly impact the resource unless mitigated. Staff’s evaluation, however, found that the project would not have impacts on other historic resources in the vicinity that would meet the test of significance described in the CEQA Guidelines. The Chapek House (843 Upham) is separated from the project site by 35 feet, and the project is set back from the common property line in a manner that does not deprive the house of the building separation, light, and privacy that is characteristic of its historic residential setting. The Chapek House would retain the distinctive historical characteristics of its architecture and the integrity of its setting, as would the remainder of the historical resources in the area, which are between 50 and 200 feet away from the project site. Staff’s evaluation has not CHC1 - 4 ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara) Page 5 found that the significance of other historic resources in the vicinity would be potentially materially impaired by the project. Summary of potential impacts. As indicated in Table 3 below, the potential for significant impacts to historic resources resulting from the proposed project is limited to its effects on the adjacent residence at 875 Upham: Table 3: Summary of potential impacts Property CEQA Impact Resolution 875 Upham Potentially Significant Mitigation measures (setbacks) proposed in MND Chapek House (843 Upham) Less than significant 35’ distance from project; intervening accessory structure; setbacks required by Zoning Regulations Other resources (Railroad District) Less than significant CHC finding of consistency with Historic Preservation Ordinance and Railroad District Plan (January 26th, 2015) Other resources (Adjacent neighborhood) Less than significant Distance from project, intervening structures, setbacks required by Zoning Regulations Evaluation of project by ARC for consistency with General Plan policies, development standards, and Community Design Guidelines Mitigation measures. After additional evaluation, staff has concluded that the proposed mitigation measures discussed at the April 27th meeting of the CHC, and described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, are adequate to avoid potentially significant impacts to the Contributing List Resource at 875 Upham, as described in CEQA Guidelines. With inclusion of these measures, the proposed project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts to historical resources in the area. The proposed mitigation measures require that the project design be modified to provide building setbacks in a manner that would provide sufficient separation (setbacks) to reduce potential impacts resulting from the three story live/work project. By keeping the setting and feeling of the immediate surroundings intact and preserving the ability of 875 Upham to convey its historical significance, impacts are reduced to a “less than significant” level. Table 4: Suggested Setbacks from 875 Upham Height Setback 1st floor (10 ft.) 2.5 ft. 2nd floor (20 ft.) 6.0 ft. 3rd floor (30 ft.) 10.5 ft. CHC1 - 5 ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara) Page 6 Table 4 above describes the 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. Mitigation measures were developed that, if incorporated into the project, would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. 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. The ARC will consider final adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with final review of the proposed project. Other Concerns Though the CHC did find the project to be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and with the Railroad District Plan on January 26, 2015, the Committee expressed concern about the impacts of the project’s height, scale, and massing. Residents of the neighborhood around the project site and others also have expressed their concerns about the project by providing public comments for the record at several Committee meetings. The project will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) for consistency with General Plan policies, including policies to ensure preservation of residential neighborhoods, and the Community Design Guidelines, which aim for compatible infill development. Concerns about compatibility of the project with adjacent neighborhoods, scale, massing, views, and potential effect of the project on the adjacent tree will be addressed in detail by the ARC. CHC meeting minutes and comments (Attachments 5 and 6)will be included in the report presented to the ARC, for their review. The Committee’s recommendation regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to the ARC. This recommendation will address whether the proposed mitigation measures discussed in conditions of the draft resolution will avoid potentially significant impacts to the adjacent historic resource. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1.Modify the proposed mitigation measures for the project and recommend the ARC approve the project based on the modified mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts to historic resources. 2.Provide direction that the proposed mitigation measures, or modified mitigation measures, will not be adequate to avoid potentially significant environmental impacts to historic resources, and recommend that the Architectural Review Commission deny the project. CHC1 - 6 ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara) Page 7 ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Resolution 2.Vicinity Map 3.Initial Study –Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.Map of nearby historical resources 5.Minutes from the CHC Meeting of December 15, 2014 6.Minutes and Resolution from CHC Meeting of January 26, 2015 7.Project Plans (reduced size) 8.CHC Staff Reports from previous hearings CHC1 - 7 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 SERVICE-COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-S-H) WITH HISTORIC OVERLAY AT 1921 SANTA BARBARA AVENUE (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 providing a conceptual review of proposed 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 recommended ARC approval of the project but noted the ARC should consider massing and scale of the project and that potentially significant impacts to historic resources in the vicinity should be evaluated; 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 determination and proposed 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 an adjacent cultural resource located at 875 Upham; and, WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 26, 2015, for the purpose of considering additional staff evaluation of potential cultural resource impacts and responses to Committee direction provided on April 27, 2015; 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. ATTACHMENT 1 CHC1 - 8 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: 1.As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the proposed architectural character and detailing of industrial- oriented commercial buildings in the Railroad Historic District. 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 an architectural design that complements the district’s industrial oriented commercial buildings. 3.As conditioned, 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 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was completed for this project, which identified the potential for the project to result in impacts to the adjacent cultural resource at 875 Upham Street. Mitigation measures were developed that, if incorporated into the project, reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. Public notice of the availability of the IS/MND for review and comment was provided on March 27, 2015. 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. CHC1 - 9 2.The project shall be modified to provide building separation that is appropriate for commercial development adjacent to a medium-density residential area in order to avoid adverse impacts to the setting within which the adjacent historic resource is 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 “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. 3.The ARC should consider the project’s compatibility with the residential character of the adjacent Upham and Chorro Street neighborhood; and closely evaluate the project for conformance with Community Design Guidelines addressing massing, scale, compatibility of development, and protection of the Valley Oak tree adjacent to the project site. 4.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 adequate separation. 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 26th day of May, 2015. _____________________ Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Community Development Department CHC1 - 10 R-2 PF-H R-2 C-S-H R-2 R-2 R-2 C-S-S-H R-3-H R-3 C-R-S-HR-3-HR-3 C-S-H UPH A M CH O R R O SA N T A B A R B A R A CHU R C H VICINITY MAP File No. 0521-2014 1921 Santa Barbara Ave.¯ ATTACHMENT 2 CHC1 - 11 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-footparcel 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 CHC1 - 12 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 Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES X There is no evidence before theDepartment 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 or 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)). CHC1 - 13 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 remainto be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have beenanalyzed 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 CHC1 - 14 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. CHC1 - 15 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 degradethe existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?2a,8 X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?10b 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. 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. 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 adjacent residential neighborhood extending along Upham Street to the right (west). a), b) The site is not located near a scenic vista or within a local or state scenic highway, and does not contain scenic resources. A large Valley Oak tree grown from the property adjacent to the site, and will be protected under the City’s Tree Regulations (Municipal Code Ch. 12.24). c)The project replaces several smaller structures with a larger, taller 3-story building, about 32 feet in height, slightly less than 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 intended to avoid degradation of the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. d)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. CHC1 - 16 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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, 12 X 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 a-c) 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, 15 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?15a 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)? 15a X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?3 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?X Evaluation a) and b) 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. The adopted Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County is 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 CHC1 - 17 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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. c)and d) 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. e)The project consists of live/work units for residential use and a range of commercial activities permitted by the City’s Zoning Regulations. The activities permitted in the zone are not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or that create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Conclusion: The project may generate impacts to air quality. However, it is not of a size 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, 9b X CHC1 - 18 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 a-d), f) 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. e)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, 7, 10, 17 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 a)The project may cause an adverse change in the historical significance of 875 Upham by diminishing its contribution to the unique historical character of the surrounding early 20th-Century residential neighborhood. Its contribution is diminished by placing tall walls, windows, and balconies in close proximity to the residence, without the building separation that is an important element of the design of residences in the area that give the neighborhood its historic character. The walls, windows, and balconies physically deprive 875 Upham of building separation, solar access, and privacy that are characteristic residential amenities of these historic houses. CHC1 - 19 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Historic Resources Listing: Historically designated resources and properties are identified in the City’s Master List and Contributing Properties List, which together comprise the City’s local register of historical resources. Properties on these lists are considered historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines § 15064.5(a)(2)). Contributing List Resources are those which have maintained their historic and architectural character and contribute to the unique historic character of a neighborhood or district, or to the City as a whole. The most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past, according to the criteria outlined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, are designated as Master List Resources. Setting: The project site is located within the Railroad Historic District, and directly adjacent to three historic resources: the Del Monte Grocery Building at 1201 Santa Barbara, a residence at 875 Upham, and the Chapek House at 843 Upham. These properties are part of a neighborhood which is an example of early 20th Century residential development in the City (Historic Context Statement, pp. 80-84). The City has recognized resources in the Railroad District Plan area and in the adjacent neighborhood by their inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (either Master or Contributing properties. The Chapek House (843 Upham) was designated as a Master List Resource following a historic resources survey completed by the City in 1983. Its significance is based on its architectural design, an interesting example of a Colonial Revival style with features of the Eastern Shingle style, and its association with John Chapek, a notable local contractor. Both 875 Upham and the Del Monte Grocery Building were designated as Contributing List Resources in 1987, based on their architectural character and their contribution to the historical character of the neighborhood. Potential Impact on Historic Resources: CEQA Guidelines describe the threshold for what constitutes a potential significant impact on a historic resource. Aproject with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (§ 15064.5(b)) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. (§ 15064.5(b)(1)) Thesignificance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources… (§ 15064.5(b)(2)(B)) The City’s Historic Context Statement describes that there are numerous examples of properties in early 20th Century Residential neighborhoods and therefore resources should demonstrate a high level of integrity, which is described as “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling.” The proposed project has the potential to significantly materially impact the adjacent historic resource at 875 Upham, a Contributing List residence, as it alters the “setting and feeling” of the immediate surroundings of the residence by placing a three story structure immediately adjacent to the property line with no upper floor setback that would provide building separation between the live/work building and the residence. This configuration has the potential to negatively alter the setting of the CHC1 - 20 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST adjacent resource by reducing light to, and privacy of, the property that is characteristic of this early 20th Century residential neighborhood, which would affect the property’s ability to convey its historic significance. Mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project that will require building setbacks to provide separation between the proposed live/work building and the residence at 875 Upham, so that the ability of the residence to contribute to the neighborhood’s unique historical character is not impaired. Keeping the setting and feeling of the immediate surroundings intact and preserving the ability of 875 Upham to convey its historical significant will reduce potential impacts to a “less than significant” level. The project would not have impacts on other historic resources in the vicinity that would meet the test of significance described in the CEQA Guidelines. The Chapek House (843 Upham) is separated from the project site by 35 feet, and the project is set back from the common property line in a manner that does not deprive the house of the building separation, light, and privacy that is characteristic of its historic residential setting. The Chapek House would retain the distinctive historical characteristics of its architecture and the integrity of its setting, as would the remainder of the historical resources in the area, which are between 50 and 200 feet away from the project site. Thus, the significance of other historic resources in the vicinity would not be potentially materially impaired by the project. b-e) 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. Mitigation Measure 1: In order to avoid adverse change in the significance of adjacent historic resources that could result from the alteration of the characteristic physical features of the historical setting, the project shall be modified to provide setbacks to separate the proposed building from the adjacent residence at 875 Upham. Setbacks shall be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements applicable to development adjacent to a Medium-Density (R-2) Zone. Mitigation Measure 2: Accurate visual simulations will be included in project plans to demonstrate that the setbacks provided are sufficient to maintain appropriate building separation and to preserve solar access and privacy for adjacent historic resources. 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 CHC1 - 21 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 a)No known faults exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. 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. b)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. c)The project site is flat and not within an area susceptible to landslides or mudflows. d)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. e)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. 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 gasemissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?15a X b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 15 X Evaluation a)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 CHC1 - 22 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST project size in an urban setting and are designed to identify those projects with the potential to exceed the APCD’s significance thresholds. b)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 HAZARDOUSMATERIALS 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, 13, 14 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, 13,14 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? 13, 14 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 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 ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 2d X Evaluation a-c) The project, four live/work units and a small commercial suite, does not involve the transport, use, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials in its construction or operation. Hawthorne Elementary School is located ¼ mile to the southwest of the project site. d)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. CHC1 - 23 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e), f) 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. g), h) 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? 11, 14 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? 11 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? 11 X 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? 11 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? 16 X h)Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of thefailure 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 CHC1 - 24 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Obispo Creek Watershed. It was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the creek’s watershed. a), b), f) This project is not expected to violate water quality standards or waste water discharge requirements, or substantially degrade water quality. 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. 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. c-e)The site is a fairly level, developed site that will be redeveloped. 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. g-i)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 b)Physically divide an established community?X c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans?2e X Evaluation a)The project has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Historic Preservation Ordinance. These plans, policies, and regulations are intended to guide development in a manner that avoids adverse effects on the environment. The Railroad Area District Plan defines the character the area of the City within which the project is located and includes standards and guidelines intended to preserve the district’s historic character. The project has been found by the Cultural Heritage Committee to be consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and with the Railroad Area District Plan. The Cultural Heritage Committee requested further evaluation of the potential impacts that the project may have on adjacent historic resources. This Initial Study identifies a potential impact that the CHC1 - 25 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST project may have on an adjacent resource, as discussed above in Section 5 (Cultural Resources). Incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this section into the design of the project would avoid the potential impact identified. b)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. c)The project 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 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, 9a 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 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 a-c) 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. d)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 CHC1 - 26 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Evaluation a), b) 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 projectresult 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 e)Roads and other transportation infrastructure?2b X f)Other public facilities?2 X Evaluation a-f)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 CHC1 - 27 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Evaluation a), b) 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)Conflictwith 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 public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2b X Evaluation a-b) 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. c)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. d)No potential for increased hazard due to design features or inadequate emergency access has been identified. CHC1 - 28 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST e)The project been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and Public Works for consistency with standards applicable to site access, including emergency access. Conclusion: No Impact. 16.UTILITIES ANDSERVICE 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 a-e) 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. 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 f), g) 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 CHC1 - 29 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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 a-c) 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. 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. CHC1 - 30 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Discussion: a-c) 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. 2013Construction & 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. Citywide Historic Context Statement (September 30, 2013), prepared by Historic Resources Group. 8.City of San Luis Obispo. Community Design Guidelines (June 2010) 9.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) 10.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) 11.City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department, and County of San Luis Obispo, Flood Control District –Zone 9. Waterways Management Plan (March 2003). 12.State of California, Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. ONLINE: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html [13 Mar 2015]. CHC1 - 31 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 13.State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database.ONLINE: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/[13 Mar 2015] 14.State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. ONLINE: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/[13 Mar 2015] 15.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 16.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] 17.U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). CHC1 - 32 CEQA Initial Study Checklist ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 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: In order to avoid adverse change in the significance of adjacent historic resources that could result from the alteration of the characteristic physical features of the historical setting, the project shall be modified to provide setbacks to separate the proposed building from the adjacent residence at 875 Upham. Setbacks shall be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements applicable to development adjacent to a Medium-Density (R-2) Zone. Mitigation Measure 2: Accurate visual simulations will be included in project plans to demonstrate that the setbacks provided are sufficient to maintain appropriate building separation and to preserve solar access and privacy for adjacent historic resources. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measures to be incorporated into this project consist of changes to the design of the project and the preparation of materials and information to accurately depict the physical relationship of the proposed building 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 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 physical 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. The Architectural Review Commission will consider whether the setbacks provided are sufficient to avoid significant environmental impacts to adjacent historic resources. 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. CHC1 - 33 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Railr o a d H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t 843 845 875 878 880 868 874 876 856 844 1826 1815 1837 1845 1907 1929 1921 1901 1906 1902 1829 1841 1845 19101908 UPHA M C H O R R O S A N T A B A R B A R A CHU R C H M O R R O Historic Resources Chapek House Lyman House Bittick Residence Hourihan House Contributing Contributing Contributing Project Site ATTACHMENT 4 CHC1 - 34 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 35 CHC1 - 36 CHC1 - 37 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 6 CHC1 - 38 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 land 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. CHC1 - 39 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 CHC1 - 40 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. CHC1 - 41 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. CHC1 - 42 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 CHC1 - 43 CHC1 - 44 CHC1 - 45 ATTACHMENT 7 CHC1 - 46 CHC1 - 47 CHC1 - 48 CHC1 - 49 CHC1 - 50 CHC1 - 51 CHC1 - 52 CHC1 - 53 CHC1 - 54 CHC1 - 55 CHC1 - 56 CHC1 - 57 CHC1 - 58 CHC1 - 59 CHC1 - 60 CHC1 - 61 CHC1 - 62 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 ZR ATTACHMENT 8 CHC1 - 63 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 CHC1 - 64 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 CHC1 - 65 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) Asdiscussed 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 CHC1 - 66 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 CHC1 - 67 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 CHC1 - 68 Architectural Details:The Railroad District Plan acknowledges that railroad-related structures will typically have little ornamentation and detail, but still provides guidelines for architectural details that are common to historic buildings in the district. Among these details are carved shapes, brackets, bracing, finials, decorative wood work at roof ridges, and connection details like timber connections bolts, and brackets. None of these elements is present in this building. As discussed in the architect’s statement, the building’s contemporary style precludes artificial decoration and ornamentation. Architectural details are limited to the linear terraces and decks, and the exposure of fire sprinkler riser equipment as a gesture to the “Steam-Era” importance of machinery. But the terraces and decks, by their placement and with the materials used to enclose them, also have the character of residential amenities. Decking and railing constructed of more industrial materials like concrete and metal would be more suggestive of loading docks and facilities that would be common in a railroad location. Adjacent Residential Area The size, massing, and lack of relief on the large plaster block forms on the north and west building elevations may overwhelm the adjacent structures on Upham Street. The diagonal orientation of Upham street gives the parcels on its south side a triangular shape, and the project site extends between these parcels to within nearly 6 feet of Upham Street at the site’s northwest corner. Refinement of these building elevations will be further addressed during architectural review, to assure conformance with Community Design Guidelines related to scale, massing, and neighborhood character, but the Committee may wish to recommend modifications specifically aimed at the protection of the character of the adjacent Del Monte Grocery Building and the residences at 843, 845, and 875 Upham, which are all Contributing List properties. CONCLUSION The proposed building design is a high quality example of contemporary architecture that is appropriate in most locations in the City. But it does not adequately reflect the architectural style envisioned by the Railroad District Plan. The overall character of the building is residential in nature, but the building lacks the historical vernacular architectural elements of the residential structures that are common in the Railroad Historic District. Alternatively, a structure with an Figure 8: Section view, depicting scale of project CHC1 - 69 industrial character could more assertively reflect the historic elements of the railroad district without the need for explicit references to vernacular styles. Through incorporation of industrial rooflines, door and window patterns, surface treatments, and architectural details, the building could instead make reference to the historical role and function of the Railroad District. Staff has developed the following suggestions to guide the CHC towards specific changes to be incorporated into the project prior to returning to the CHC for a recommendation to the ARC: Directional Item 1 – Roof Lines:Shed roofs, gables roofs, bracing, deep roof overhangs, and parapets are features described in the Railroad District Plan that are common to the railroad vernacular design. None of these features are evident in the proposed project. The project should incorporate a roof line that is less suggestive of a conventional multi-residential building. Such a roof line might be simpler, less varied in height, or of a more strongly industrial form, such as a sawtooth or barrel-vault. Alternatively, a traditional roof line such as one found in traditional vernacular styles may be incorporated. Directional Item 2 – Doors and Windows: Incorporate a more regular and restrained program of grouping and arrangement of doors and windows along the bottom-floor entries and along the south building elevation to express an industrially spare and functional design. Alternatively, incorporate traditional vernacular door and window types and groupings common to the district’s historical structures. Directional Item 3 – Surface Treatment: Incorporate surface treatments that evoke an industrial or warehouse character. Given the contemporary style of the building, metal surfaces are especially appropriate, to provide an industrial character. Directional Item 4 – Architectural Details:Incorporate architectural details that reflect the historic character of the district. While many vernacular details may not be appropriate to the contemporary style of the building, details that evoke an industrial character may be appropriate. For example, thoughtful placement of decks and terraces, and extensive use of metal decks and railing can suggest industrial loading platforms common in railroad facilities. Figure 9: Industrial roof lines CHC1 - 70 Directional Item 5 – Massing:Revise the north and south building elevations to reduce the mass of, and provide visual relief to, the larger building forms, so that a pleasing transition is made to the smaller-scale historic structures along Upham Street. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as new construction of small structure, described in CEQA Guidelines §15303. With modifications that provide an appropriate transition to the smaller-scale residences along Upham Street, 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. Provide the above direction to the applicant and identify specific project changes that would allow the project to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan. Allow the project to move forward to the Architectural Review Commission, with a recommendation to approve the project, according to findings of consistency with the Plan, and subject to any conditions of approval necessary to make those findings. This action is not recommended because determination of the project’s consistency with historic preservation policies is the purview of this Committee, and it is impractical to determine whether design changes made in response to the Committee’s direction and conditions are consistent with those policies without reviewing the changes made at a public hearing. 2. Determine that the project is inherently inconsistent with the Railroad District Plan and could not be modified in a manner that would make it consistent with the 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 Statement 3. Project Plans (Reduced Size) Figure 10: Industrial siding, decks, and balconies CHC1 - 71 Included in Committee Member Portfolio Project Plans (Half-Size) Available at the Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting: Color and Material Board CHC1 - 72 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) ZR CHC1 - 73 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 CHC1 - 74 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 CHC1 - 75 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 notadequately 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) CHC1 - 76 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 CHC1 - 77 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 CHC1 - 78 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 CHC1 - 79 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 ZR CHC1 - 80 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). CHC1 - 81 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 CHC1 - 82 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. CHC1 - 83 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 CHC1 - 84 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 AnInitial 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. Asdiscussed 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 Twopublic 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 CHC1 - 85 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Remodel and addition to a dwelling behind a Contributing historic property in the Old Town Historic District ADDRESS: 1053 Islay St BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone: 781-7593 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org FILE #: ARCH-1170-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Continue consideration of this application to the June 22 meeting of the Committee, to allow additional time for the applicant to provide additional information relevant to the review of the project. SITE DATA Applicant Lesa Jones & Michael Olsten Representative Louisa Smith Submittal Date 4/1/2015 Complete Date (pending) Zoning R-3-H (Medium-High Density Residential with Historic Overlay) General Plan Medium High Density Residential Site Area 0.3 acres (12,750 square feet) Historic Status Contributing List Resource Environmental Status Categorically Exempt (CEQA Guidelines §15301: Existing Facilities Meeting Date:May 26, 2015 Item Number:2 r CHC2 - 1 wo DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES April 27, 2015 ROLL CALL: Present:Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, James Papp, Victoria Wood, 1 Position Vacant, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill Absent:None Staff:Senior Planner Brian Leveille,Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell,andRecording Secretary Erica Inderlied ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES:Minutes of April 13, 2015,were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were nocomments from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1.546 Higuera Street.ARCH-0982-2015; Conceptual review of the proposed rehabilitation and repositioning of a Master List Historic Resource (Norcross House), including addition of a two-story residence attached to the rear of the structure; C-R zone; Higuera Commons, LLC, applicant. Senior Planner Leveille noted the recusal of Vice-Chair Brajkovich from this item due to a professional conflict of interest. Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending continuation to a date uncertain with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for final design approval. Brandon Roscoe, Paragon Design, and John Belsher, applicant, gave a presentation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee MembersWoodand Kincaid noted support for the overall design of the project. Draft CHC Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 2 Committee Member Papp noted for the record that City legal counsel had determined no conflict of interest existed with relation to his personal familiarity with John Belsher, applicant.Papp stated that approving an addition to the original structure would be premature without further information from architectural historians, and examination of the Council’s rationale for adding the property to the Master List. Committee Member Papp noted for the record that past development of Marsh and Higuera Streets as gateways to and from the highway hashad a negative impact on in the historic character of thearea. Chair Hill and Committee Member Baer expressed disapproval for the project as presented; noted desire to see an addition in the form of a more appropriately scaled, detached unit instead.Committee Member Papp noted approval of the idea of multiple structuresinstead of a single larger scale addition. There were no further commentsfrom the Committee. On motion by Committee Member Baer, seconded by Committee Member Papp,to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction to incorporate directional items #2 and #4 included in the staff report, with additional direction that further historical and architectural evaluation be performed upon the portions of the home proposed for removal. AYES:Committee Members Baer, Hill, Kincaid, Papp, Wood NOES:None RECUSED:Vice-Chair Brajkovich ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. Vice-Chair Brajkovich arrived at 6:41 p.m. 2.1921 Santa Barbara Avenue.ARCH-0521-2014; Environmental review (Mitigated Negative Declaration) of a new building with four live/work units and a small commercial suite in the Railroad Historic District; C-S-H zone; Garcia FamilyTrust, applicant. Senior Planner Leveille summarized the history of the project, noting that the CHC conducted a conceptual review of the project in December 2014, and found it to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan in January 2015.He noted that the project was returned to the CHC for review since the initial study found potential impacts to a historic resourceat 875 Upham; and that the CHC should focus on the adequacy of the mitigation measure in their recommendation to the ARC. Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner,presented the staff report, recommendingadoption of aresolution recommending that the Architectural Review Commission approve the project with the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Draft CHC Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 3 George Garcia, Applicant, summarized the status of the project, noting that the potential to flip the building footprint would result in greater setback from neighboring residential uses, and allow the large tree to remain. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jason Browning, nearby property owner, SLO, distributed photographs of structures in the neighborhood; expressed concern that the size and massing of the proposed project will negatively impact neighboring residential uses. John Grady, SLO, stated that the CHC has clearly noted its concern in the past about the building’s mass, commented that General Plan policies dictate the prioritization of protecting residential uses where they abut commercial zones. Don Ray, nearby property owner, SLO, noted the “low profile” character of the neighborhood; expressed concern about building incompatibility and lost viewshed. Leslie Terry, nearby property owner, SLO, expressed concern that approval of the proposed project will set a detrimental precedent; opinedthat the proposed mitigation measures, particularly relating to aesthetics,are insufficient. Debbie Collins-Johnson, nearby property and business owner, SLO, commented that the proposed building appears to be inconsistent with the Railroad District Plan. There were no further comments from the public. COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Papp expressed disapproval of the project based primarily on scale andnegative impacts to neighboring residential uses. Vice-Chair Brajkovich noted concern about public comment relating to height of the building. Committee Member Baer concurred. Committee Member Wood expressed lack of approval of the proposedproject based primarily on the size of the structure which does not fit on the narrow lot. Committee Member Kincaid concurred, commenting that bungalow-style architecture could make the buildingmore compatible. Chair Hill stated that zoning design criteria are intended as maximums, not goals,and that evaluation must be tailored to Historical Districts. Senior Planner Leveille noted that the CHC previously found the project consistent with the Railroad District Plan and Historic Preservation Guidelines on January 26, 2015, and that in order to remain consistent with the prior action, the CHC should focus direction based only on responding to condition #2 from the January 26, 2015 CHC Draft CHC Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 4 action relating to potentially significant impacts on adjacent neighboring historic properties. There were no further commentsfrom the Committee. Onmotion by Vice-Chair Brajkovich, seconded by Committee Member Baer,tocontinue the project based on previous CHC conditions #1 & #2, to allow the applicant to return with a redesigned project incorporating the following items: x Reductionin building scale x More cohesivenesswith the historic neighborhood and Railroad District Plan. x Smoother transition between residential and commercial uses x Preservation of the tree onsite Committee Member Wood notedfor the record her observation that allCommittee members and all neighbors who have commented have expressed a desire for reduction in building mass and scaleand the project has not changed. AYES:Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Kincaid, Papp, Wood NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. The Committee recessed at 7:45, and reconvened at 7:55 with all members present. 3.570 Higuera Street.ARCH-0913-2015; Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and anew mixed-use structure within the Downtown Historic District; C-D zone; Creamery, LLC, applicant. Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the Committee adopt a resolution recommending that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve the proposed remodel and the addition of a new mixed-use structure, based on findings and subject to conditions. Greg Wynn, project architect, and Damien Mavis, developer,summarized the evolution of the project and the history of the project site, clarifying that parking requirements will be satisfied by the payment of in-lieu fees. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ursula Bishop, representing nearby Dana Street residents, SLO, spoke in support of the project.She noted concern about potential noise impacts with the inclusion of proposed windows addedto the east side of building 2and about limited parking. There were no further comments from the public. Draft CHC Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 5 COMMITTEE COMMENTS: Committee Member Wood spoke in support of retaining brick walls. She noted concern about the corrugated metal siding,the sawtooth roof design of the new structure, and about reducing parkingon site. Committee Member Kincaid expressed support for the project, with the exception of the sawtooth roof design for the new structureandnoted concernaboutreducingparking on site. Committee Member Papp spoke in support of the project’s historical sensitivity and staff’s recommendation. He noted aesthetic concernofthe sawtooth roof design ofthe new structurewith the existing architecture of the Creamery. Vice-Chair Brajkovich spoke in support of the project and staff recommendation. Chair Hill spoke in support for the projectandcommented that the sawtooth roof formation will rarely be seen in profiledue to its location. She also noted for the record that landscaping couldbe used to minimize noise impacts upon the Dana Street residences. There were no further comments from the Committee. Onmotion by Committee Member Papp,seconded by Committee Member Baer,to adopt a resolutionrecommending that the ArchitecturalReview Commission approve the proposed remodel and the addition of a new mixed-use structure. AYES:Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Hill, Kincaid, Papp NOES:Committee Member Wood RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 5:1vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4.Staff a.Agenda Forecast Senior Planner Leveille gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items. b.Cultural Heritage Committee BylawsReview Senior Planner Leveille summarized the packet materials, and the CHC discussed their role as an advisory body and review process of recommending projects to the ARC for final action. Draft CHC Minutes April 27, 2015 Page 6 There were no recommended changes from the Committee. 5.Committee ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at9:25p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Erica Inderlied Recording Secretary