HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-2015 ARC Item 2 - 1921 Santa Barbara Ave. (ARCH-0521-2014)ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Construction of 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
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0521-2014 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item with direction to the applicant on project
modifications for consistency with the Railroad District plan and Community Design Guidelines.
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 (C-S)
Historical Preservation (H)
General Plan Service and Manufacturing
Environmental
Status
A proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared
for the project
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. The site is within the
Railroad Historic District.
Meeting Date: June 15, 2015
Item Number: 2
ARC2 - 1
wo
PJD
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 2
Prior review
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed this project at their December 15th meeting
and directed the applicant to modify the project for consistency with the Railroad District Plan.
On January 26th they reviewed a revised project design and found it to be consistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Railroad District Plan. They
recommended that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve the project, but
consider the massing and scale of the proposed building. Their action included a request to use
an Initial Study of Environmental Review to evaluate “potentially-significant impacts on
adjacent neighboring historic properties in terms of massing, scale, and materials.”
In response to this direction, staff prepared an Initial Study (Attachment 4) to identify the
project’s impacts to nearby historic structures. Based on this study, staff concluded that the
project alters the context of nearby historic structures, and developed mitigation measures
requiring building separation and upper-floor setbacks to avoid this potential impact. The CHC
reviewed the Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures at their April 27 th and May 26th
meetings, and found that the proposed mitigation measures for cultural resources addressing
massing, scale, compatibility of development, and protection of the Valley Oak tree were not
adequate to address potentially significant impacts to historic resources. They recommended that
the ARC develop adequate mitigation measures that alter the project design as part of project
review, or deny the project.
In response to the CHC’s findings, the applicant redesigned the project, resulting in a mirror
image of the project, in an attempt to pull the massing of the building further from historic
properties. The CHC has not reviewed the revised project design.
Staff reports and meeting minutes from each CHC meeting are available in the Commissioner’s
packets.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the proposed project and evaluate the suitability and
appropriateness of its design, using standards and policies of the City’s Zoning Regulations and
Community Design Guidelines, to achieve attractive, environmentally sensitive development.
The Commission will also review the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the
project and evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed to avoid impacts to
historical and biological resources.
ARC2 - 2
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 3
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information and Setting
The project site is a flat rectangular parcel on the west side of Santa Barbara Street, 120 feet
south of Upham Street, in a commercial area within the Railroad Historic District. It is developed
with a single-family residence and two small rental units.
Table 1: Site Data
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 7,268 square feet
Width: 50 feet
Depth: 145 feet
Street Frontage: 50 feet
Present Use &
Development
Three dwellings
Topography Elevation: Min. 237 feet; Max. 240 ft.
Slope: Flat
Natural Features: None
Access From Santa Barbara Street
The area is characterized by a mix of uses and structures. To the north and immediately adjacent
to the site are two single-family residences and the Del Monte Grocery Building (operating as
the Del Monte Café), all of which are listed historic resources. To the south, along the west side
of the 1900 block of Santa Barbara Avenue are small residences, metal warehouses, and three
recently constructed mixed-use buildings designed in an historical vernacular style.
2.2 Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story building containing a 400 square-foot commercial
suite and 4 live/work units. The commercial suite is located on the ground floor at the Santa
ARC2 - 3
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 4
Barbara Street frontage and the live/work units are behind and above the commercial suite, on
the 2nd and 3rd floors. Work space for the units is provided on the ground floor and second floor
of each unit, except Unit B which has no work area on the ground floor and has work space on
the third floor. Balcony and deck space is provided for the live/work units on the upper floors
and roof.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project has been evaluated for consistency with the City’s Zoning Regulations, Community
Design Guidelines, and Railroad District Plan.
3.1 Zoning Regulations
The project is within the Service-Commercial (C-S) Zone, which is intended to provide for
services, limited retail, business service uses, storage, transportation, wholesaling, and light
manufacturing uses.1 Live/Work is classified as a residential use, and is allowed in the Service-
Commercial (C-S) Zone. The live/work units are intended
to be occupied by business operators who live in the
same structure that contains the commercial activity or
industry2. The commercial suite and the work area of
each live/work unit may be used for a range of activities
that are permitted in the zone.
Street Yards: The first and second floors of this building
are set back 10 feet from the street. However, the height
of the building exceeds, by about 4 feet, the maximum
20-foot height allowed at this setback. A variance
relaxing this standard is not supportable, as there aren’t
any circumstances applying to the site that do not apply
to land in the vicinity with the same zoning. The project
1 Zoning Regulations § 17.46.010
2 Zoning Regulations § 17.08.130(A)
ARC2 - 4
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 5
design should be modified to slightly reduce the building height at the 10-foot setback to comply
with this development standard.
Directional Item 1: Reduce the height of the building at the front setback to
comply with the yard requirements set forth in § 17.46 of the Zoning Regulations.
Parking
Requirement. Current standards require 9 vehicle parking spaces to serve the activities on this
site. A total of 7 vehicle parking spaces are proposed to serve the live/work units and the
commercial suite. A 25% reduction in required parking, for shared parking and mixed use
parking, has been requested by the applicant.
Parking reductions. Inadequate parking is identified as a problem within the Railroad District
Plan area, and the plan encourages new uses to meet parking requirements through shared
parking solutions.3 It also describes the potential for “synergy” with complementary uses in the
area: “residents and employees can live close to their jobs and public transit, potentially reducing
vehicle trips and emissions, and traffic congestion by using bikeways, rail and public transit .”4 A
“shared parking” reduction of up to 10% can be granted where two or more uses share a common
parking area, and a further 20% “mixed use parking reduction” may be granted when the parking
demand for various uses does not coincide.5
Two uses share parking in this project: the “live/work” units and the commercial suite. The mix
of residential and commercial uses may have complementary parking demands, with strongest
demand during business hours for the commercial uses, and strongest demand outside of
business hours for the occupants of the live/work units. Staff supports the reduction in required
vehicle parking, though the reduced amount of parking may barely meet the demand that will be
generated by the activities on the site. To encourage alternative transportation that reduces
demand for vehicle parking, an additional five bicycle parking spaces are suggested, as described
in Zoning Regulations § 17.16.060(E).
Bicycle and motorcycle parking: Fewer than 10 vehicle parking spaces are required, so no
bicycle or motorcycle spaces are required for this project, except that 2 bicycle spaces must be
provided for each live/work unit. 6. Bicycle parking spaces are provided in the garages of Units
C, D, and E, and in Unit A (the commercial space), but not for unit B. Space for two bicycles
needs to be identified in Unit B.
3 See: Community Survey Responses, pg. 9; Land Use Issues, pg. 36; Transportation and Circulation Issues, pg. 45;
Problem Identification, pg. 45; Land Use Policies, pg. 66
4 Railroad District Plan, Land Use Patterns, pg. 30
5 Zoning Regulations § 17.16.060(B) and § 17.16.060(C)
6 Zoning Regulations § 17.16.060(G) and Table 6.5
ARC2 - 5
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 6
Directional Item 2: Provide 2 bicycle parking spaces for Unit B, in conformance
with Table 5 of § 17.16.060(C) of the Zoning Regulations, and 5 additional
bicycle parking spaces to further reduce the demand for vehicle parking.
Adequate on-site facilities for bicycle parking throughout the City will encourage
more widespread bicycle use. (CDG § 6.3(F))
3.2 Railroad District Plan
The Railroad District Plan was prepared to guide development in the Railroad Historic District.
The Plan’s policies and programs seek to preserve and promote the area’s historic character and
enhance the area’s appearance and role as a gateway to the City, and the plan includes specific
architectural guidelines that provide a “menu” of architectural elements which can be
incorporated into new development projects.
The historic railroad structures that remain in the district give it its recognizable architectural
character. Historic structures in the district include the Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse, the
Del Monte Grocery building adjacent to the project site, 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.7
The proposed project was found by the CHC to be consistent with the Railroad District Plan,
including its architectural guidelines. The building exhibits forms and incorporates surface
treatments and architectural details inspired by the district’s function and its older buildings. Its
design gives 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.
7 See: Land Use Policies, page 66; Historic Preservation Issues, page 27; Issues Summary, page 43; Opportunities
and Constraints, page 45
ARC2 - 6
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 7
3.3 Neighborhood Compatibility
The City’s Community Design Guidelines direct project designers to consider neighboring
development when designing commercial projects:
Each development proposal should demonstrate consideration for the existing
conditions on and off the site, including: The uses on, and site layout of neighboring
properties; The architectural style, and the shape and massing of neighboring structures.
Existing natural features (i.e., mature trees, landforms, etc); Opportunities to preserve or
enhance views of the hills; Privacy and solar access of the site and neighboring
properties; Opportunities for new projects to provide visual links to adjacent
development in the form of similar landscaping, trees, etc., in addition to contextual
architectural design… (CDG § 3.1(C.1))
The project is within a commercial zone, and the character of the area south of the project site,
along Santa Barbara Avenue, is changing as low-density residential development is replaced by
higher-intensity Service-Commercial development. The project site is also directly adjacent to a
stable medium-density residential neighborhood characterized by early 20th-Century dwellings,
many of which are listed historic resources. The project design, then, must also respect the
character and fabric of that neighborhood:
In designing development at the boundary between residential and non-
residential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority.
(Land Use Element Policy 2.2.3)
Property owners should preserve the scale, pattern, and spacing of the existing
buildings along the west side of Santa Barbara Avenue (Railroad District Plan,
Land Use Policies § 3.2(C))
Preserve the design integrity of architecturally or historically significant
structures and neighborhoods adjacent to the commercial area (CDG §3.1(A.3)).
ARC2 - 7
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 8
The scale and massing of the project, and the materials and colors used in its construction are
appropriate to its location within the larger service-commercial zone and within the Railroad
Historic District. The contemporary style and form of the proposed building, and the industrial
materials used, depart from traditional vernacular architectural elements, but the building does
not threaten the design integrity of the adjacent residential neighborhood or the structures within
it. The placement of the building on the south side of the lot and the arrangement of building
forms to step back away from adjacent residences helps to protect the residential atmosphere of
the neighborhood north and west of the project.
3.4 Project Design
The architect has provided a project statement (Attachment 2) describing his design approach.
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.” The resulting building style is a
contemporary design with an industrial character that is in keeping with the function of the
railroad area without directly referencing vernacular styles and details.
The Committee did, however, express concerns about the compatibility of the project with the
adjacent residential neighborhood, as did residents of the neighborhood, particularly with the
project’s height, scale, and massing. These concerns echo guidance provided in the Community
Design Guidelines:
…While variety in design is generally encouraged, the compatibility of new
projects with the existing built environment should be a priority. The goal is to
preserve not only the historic flavor of the community but, equally important, its
scale and ambience… (CDG § 3.1(B.1))
Form, Massing, Height
The proposed building is based on simple, rectilinear forms with massing and proportions
suggestive of railroad structures and equipment. The main mass of the building is a three-story
rectangle a bit less than 25 feet wide and 130 feet deep. Each end of the building extends over
the width of the site, and the middle portion is concentrated on the south half of the site. This
arrangement provides a well-proportioned frontage along Santa Barbara Avenue and preserves
building separation from the smaller-scale residences to the north and west of the project.
Design factors that contribute to neighborhood compatibility include proportional
building scale/size; and appropriate building setbacks and massing (CDG
§ 3.1(B.2a) and (B.2b))
ARC2 - 8
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 9
The height of infill projects should be consistent with surrounding residential
structures. 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))
Relation to adjacent residences. The building was originally oriented along the northerly
property line, so that the building walls rose abruptly behind the adjacent residence at 875
Upham Street. The CHC raised concerns about the impacts the building height and lack of
setback on an adjacent contributing historic residence. Though the CHC ultimately found setback
requirements proposed as mitigation measures to be inadequate for avoid potential impacts, the
applicant has revised the project design, “flipping” the building orientation to place the mass of
the building along the southerly portion of the site.
Provide articulated facades with offsets and recessed entries. Alteration of colors,
textures, and materials should be used to produce diversity and enhance
architectural forms. A compatible variety of siding materials (i.e., metal,
masonry, concrete texturing, cement or plaster) should be used to produce effects
of texture and relief that provide architectural interest. (CDG § 3.3(B.2))
Wall articulation. Building elevations have been articulated with color, texture, and material
changes, and by employing projections and recesses to break the mass into smaller, varied forms.
However, the south elevation (Plans, Sheet A2.2) is not as well-articulated. In the previous
design, this elevation was partially obscured by other structures, fencing, and landscaping, but in
the current design this elevation is more visible approaching the site from the south, along Santa
Barbara Avenue. Community Design Guidelines call for consistent use of colors, materials, and
detailing throughout all elevations of a building.8 The wall planes of this elevation should be
further articulated to provide more interesting shapes and patterns and improve its appearance.
8 CDG § 3.1(B.3)
ARC2 - 9
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 10
Directional Item 3: Further articulate the wall planes of the building’s south
elevation, closer to Santa Barbara Street (See illustration below)
Materials and Colors
The palette of materials used for this project is based on a mix of steel, corrugated sheet metal,
and smooth plaster, accented with carbonized wood9. “Rusted metal” and a natural galvanized
steel color predominate, with darker “iron ore” toned accents. These surface treatments and
colors lend the building a contemporary industrial character that complements other industrial
structures in the area that make extensive, or even exclusive, use of metal and wood. Standing
seam siding and metal railings reinforce the building’s industrial character.
The thoughtful selection of building materials can enhance desired neighborhood
qualities such as compatibility, continuity, and harmony… (CDG 5.3(E))
Compatibility with Railroad Historic District., The Railroad District Plan acknowledges that
architectural guidelines should allow for design flexibility and should not dictate detailed
building design.10 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. This is also supported by guidance from the Community Design
Guidelines:
In designing a building, it is important to analyze the areas surrounding the
building site to find elements of compatibility that can be used in a new design.
Simply duplicating the character of surrounding buildings, however, should not
be a design goal. It is important for each site to both maintain its own identity and
be complementary to its surroundings… CDG § 3.1(B.2)
9 Carbonized wood has been treated by heat or fire to make it fire- and corrosion-resistant, leaving it with a dark
functional appearance.
10 Community Workshop #2 comments, page 11
ARC2 - 10
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 11
The building colors and materials were found by the CHC to be compatible with the historic
character of structures in the Railroad District Plan area. The building incorporates elements
from industrial buildings nearby into a contemporary style, rather than replicating characteristic
details of historical vernacular styles. Cement plaster, steel, and corrugated metal are
characteristic materials of many structures in the Railroad District, and are complementary to the
wood, plaster, and masonry materials of other more vernacular buildings in the area.
Compatibility with residential neighborhood. While the building’s contemporary style and
industrial materials are not characteristic of a residential setting, the project site is located in a
service-commercial area at the edge of, and not within, the residential neighborhood. Elements of
compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood include a change in style and material at this
boundary location. The residential neighborhood draws its character from the collection of
residences within the neighborhood, and not from buildings along Santa Barbara Avenue. The
adjacent neighborhood’s residential atmosphere is preserved by placing the building away from
the adjacent residential neighborhood and stepping back its upper floors, rather than by
duplicating styles and materials from adjacent residences.
Rooflines
The contemporary style of the building uses flat rooflines, except for a saw-tooth roof element at
the rear (west) side of the building. The Railroad District Plan and Community Design
Guidelines express a preference for pitched, sloped roof forms, but describe when flat rooflines
are appropriate:
Flat roofs are appropriate for larger commercial structures when it is determined
that a project's overall design is amenable to flat roofs and is otherwise consistent
with the objectives of these guidelines. When flat roofs are used, there should be a
continuous screening parapet topped with coping, or a cornice.
(CDG § 3.1(B.5c))
Use medium-sloping roofs, generally 4:12 - 8:12 pitch; False-front buildings with
shed roofs and parapets may be used; Gable, hip, and shed roof forms are typical,
with some combinations and minor variations (Railroad District Plan, page 76)
The flat rooflines of the contemporary style of this building depart from the vernacular roof
forms encouraged by the Railroad District Plan. Flat rooflines are characteristic of functionally
simple industrial structures, and are not out of place in this area. Additional detail along the wall-
to-roof juncture is suggested, for consistency with Community Design Guidelines.
Directional Item 4: Provide additional detail at the juncture of the roofline and
building wall surfaces.
ARC2 - 11
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 12
Doors and Windows
The architectural guidelines of the Railroad District Plan encourage doors and windows of
certain types and certain arrangements11 to evoke the character of traditional vernacular styles of
historic buildings in the area. As with the roof form, the arrangement and types of doors and
windows support the expression of an industrial building character that is compatible with the
historical character of the Railroad District and reflects its industrial function.
Entries. The entry to the commercial space is at the front of the building, facing Santa Barbara
Street. A large roll-up door provides a means to open the suite to the outside. Entries to the
live/work units are next to each garage, except for Unit B, which is entered through the front of
the building.
Building entries should be important and obvious elements in the design of a
façade; Each entry should be protected from the elements and should create an
architectural focal point for the building; Wall recesses, roof overhangs,
canopies, arches, columns, signs, and similar architectural features should be
integral elements of the building’s entry design, and used to call attention to its
importance. (CDG § 3.1(B.8))
The entries to each live/work unit, including Unit B, are somewhat non-descript, where design
guidelines encourage definition of entries. Techniques mentioned in these guidelines should be
employed to give the entries further definition and importance.
Directional Item 5: Modify the entries to the live/work units using wall recesses,
roof overhangs, canopies, arches, columns, signs, and similar architectural
features to call attention to their importance.
11 Railroad District Plan, Architectural Guidelines, pg. 77
ARC2 - 12
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 13
Privacy
Windows. Most of the building’s window area faces north, toward adjacent residences.
Community Design Guidelines provide direction on the placement and orientation of buildings in
a manner that preserves privacy:
…New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses
through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows
do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of
adjacent units. (CDG § 5.4(A.1))
In the original project design, the window area of the live/work units was originally oriented
facing south. The building orientation has been “flipped” on the site, to provide additional
setback from the adjacent residences, but the building elevations are unchanged, and the
windows of the live/work units now face north, looking directly from the second- and third-floor
levels of the building into the backyards of the residences at 843 and 875 Upham Street. The
orientation, pattern, and screening of window openings on this side of the building should be
given additional attention to reduce the amount of overlook into adjacent residential properties,
to preserve their privacy.
Directional Item 6: Modify the orientation, placement, and screening of the
windows on the north elevation of the building to enhance the privacy of adjacent
residential property by minimizing overlook into those properties.
Outdoor areas. Roof decks and balconies provide outdoor areas for the occupants of the
live/work units. The Community Design Guidelines support providing outdoor areas in
residential infill structures,12 Outdoor areas that are provided should be oriented in a manner that
does not impair the privacy of adjacent residential development.
12 CDG § 5.3(D)
ARC2 - 13
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 14
Plans indicate that deck areas on the north side of the second and third floors of the building
overlook 843 and 875 Upham. Techniques to orient and screen these areas in a manner that
minimizes the impact to the privacy of these properties should be considered.
Directional Item 7: Consider methods of orienting and screening second and
third floor deck and balcony space to minimize impacts to the privacy of adjacent
residences and their outdoor living areas.
Trees and landscaping
A minimal amount of landscaping (441 square feet) is proposed, consisting mainly of street trees
and shrubs at the front of the building, and a row of shrubs across the northerly property line.
Valley Oak. A large tree grows from the adjacent property at 875 Upham. The City Arborist has
reviewed the project plans and has commented on the importance of the tree: “Quercus lobata,
commonly called Valley Oak or White Oak, grows into the largest of North American oaks. It is
endemic to California. Mature specimens may attain an age of 600 years. This tree is estimated
to be 100 – 150 years old.” The City’s Tree Committee recommended on April 27th that the City
Council designate this tree as a Heritage Tree.
The City Arborist has advised that stub cutting of any of these large structural branches is not
acceptable, as it could reduce the trees longevity by leading to the formation of upright sprouts
and decay. The project does not involve removal or substantial pruning of this tree.
Lighting
Exterior lighting is provided by building-mounted fixtures. No exterior lighting fixtures were
included on building elevation drawings. Approval of the project will be subject to a conditions
requiring that details of exterior fixtures, and exterior lighting must be included in final plans
submitted for construction permits, and must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 17.23 of the
Zoning Regulations regarding Night Sky Preservation.
Site Improvements
The parking area will be composed of permeable pavers, except in the portion that passes
underneath the building, which will be paved with a concrete surface. Special attention will be
necessary in the portions of the site which may be within the canopy of the Valley Oak tree
growing from the adjacent site, to protect its root system from damage. As discussed above, this
will be addressed through conditions of approval to ensure that proper tree protection methods
are implemented.
Parking lots should be designed to help direct pedestrians comfortably and safely to building
entrances and to connect to streets.13 Residential units not adjacent to a street should be
13 CDG §§ 6.3(A.2), 6.3(D), and 6.3(A.3)
ARC2 - 14
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 15
accessible via pedestrian walkways separate from vehicle parking areas and driveways.14
Walkways should be clearly delineated by changes in the color or texture of paving materials,
and parking areas should be connected to building entrances by means of enhanced paving.15
Parking for the live/work units this project is adjacent to the entrances to the live/work units, and
a concrete pathway provides access across the parking area to the back of the commercial suite.
But, the pathway is not connected to the street, and the concrete material is not sufficiently
enhanced in pattern or texture. The pedestrian pathway should be extended to the street and
clearly delineated by changes in the color or texture of paving materials.
Directional Item 10: Extend the pedestrian path from building entrances to the
street. Use enhanced paving to connect parking areas to building entries, and
clearly delineate walkways by changes in the color or texture of paving materials.
Turning movements: The design of parking areas should avoid awkward or cramped turning
movements.16 The width of the aisle through the parking area is constricted to 20 feet in some
places. Access to several of the parking spaces may be awkward or cramped, particularly the
uncovered space at the west end of the building. This end spot is also obstructed on either side by
a fence and a building wall, but insufficient width is provided to accommodate this obstruction17
The project design should be modified to provide additional maneuvering space, to make turning
movements less awkward or cramped, and to provide sufficient width at the “end-spot” to
accommodate its obstruction by the building wall and fence.
Directional Item 11: Provide additional maneuvering space so that turning
movements are not awkward or cramped. Provide at least 24 inches of additional
space, beyond the minimum parking space dimension, to accommodate the
obstructions on either side of the uncovered parking space at the rear of the
building.
Signage
Every structure should be designed with specific consideration for adequate
signing, including provisions for sign placement, sign scale in relation to building
scale, and readability. The colors, placement, and materials of all signs should be
integrated with the architecture and facade details of the structure.
(CDG § 3.1(B.13))
Plans depict signage for the commercial space. The design of the signs and typography used
suggests a railroad motif that is integral to the building’s character and enhances the
14 CDG § 5.4(A.5)
15 CDG §§ 3.1(C.2k) and 6.3(D.1)
16 CDG § 3.1(A.5)
17 Engineering Standards, Off-Street Parking Standards (#2220)
ARC2 - 15
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 16
compatibility of its style with the Railroad Historic District. Additional sign area should be
established for each live/work unit to call attention to the entry to their work areas.
Directional Item 12: Develop additional signage details for signs at the entries to
the live work units, to enhance call attention to the entry to each unit’s work area.
Solid Waste Collection and Storage Areas
A solid waste and recycling collection area is provided at the rear of the site, in the southerly
portion of the parking area, holding 10 waste wheelers to serve the project
Trash/recycling enclosures and service and loading docks should be conveniently
located and large enough to accommodate the uses on the site, but must not
interfere with other circulation or parking on the site. (CDG § 6.1(F.1))
Trash containers should be located away from public streets and primary
building entrances, and should be completely screened with materials that are
consistent with those on adjacent building exteriors. Trash storage areas that are
visible from the upper stories of adjacent structures should be screened with a
trellis or other horizontal cover to mitigate unsightly views…
(CDG §§ 6.1(F.2 and F.4))
The enclosure is out of public view, but is not screened from view within the site itself, or from
view of the upper floors of the live/work units. Its location constrains maneuverability within the
parking area. The placement of containers, with one row directly behind another, makes it
inconvenient to reach over the front row of containers to access the rear row. The enclosure
should be redesigned so that it is located to allow for adequate maneuvering space through the
parking area, is completely screened, and so that containers are arranged in a conveniently
accessible manner, in compliance with the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste
Services.
Collection service. City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services recommend larger
waste and recycling bins to serve commercial development and multiple dwellings. They also
call for sufficient curb frontage for container placement for collection purposes. Only about 20
feet of curb frontage is available for container placement in front of this site, which is not
sufficient to accommodate the placement of 10 waste wheelers for collection.18
The applicant indicates that San Luis Garbage will provide service for the 10 waste wheelers
proposed for the site. However, deviations from the City’s Development Standards for Solid
Waste Services must be reviewed by City departments prior to plan approval.19 Given the lack of
curb frontage to accommodate 10 waste wheelers for collection, and the need to address the
waste enclosure’s placement and screening, the applicant should be directed to consider an
18 An unobstructed area at least 15½ feet wide is required for just three wheelers, for example.
19 Development Standards for Solid Waste Services, General Requirements § A.8
ARC2 - 16
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 17
alternative solution for waste collection and storage. The alternative should address the number
and type of containers and their arrangement within an enclosure, and the location and screening
of the enclosure, particular in relation to maneuvering space within the parking area.
Directional Item 13: Redesign the solid waste collection area enclosure so that it
allows for adequate maneuvering space through the parking area, is completely
screened, and so that containers are arranged in a conveniently accessible manner,
in compliance with the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services.
Directional Item 14: Provide solid waste bins in conformance with the
requirements of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. If
exceptions are necessary to accommodate special circumstances, complete a
Conditional Exception Application for review by the Community Development,
Public Works, and Utilities Departments.
Mechanical Equipment and Utilities
Utility equipment: Utility meters and panels are proposed to be located together within an
enclosed area adjacent to the trash and recycling area.
Utility service equipment (for example, electric and gas meters, electrical panels,
and junction boxes) should be located in a utility room within the structure, or
enclosed utility cabinets at the rear of the structure that are consistent with
building architecture and, where feasible, integral to the building. Locations of
meter boxes and other similar equipment should be clearly shown on elevations.
(CDG § 6.1(G.1))
Equipment is in an unenclosed area adjacent to the trash enclosure. Final plans should include
elevation drawings depicting the appearance of this area and the methods used to enclose the
equipment. This can be addressed through conditions of project approval.
Sprinkler standpipes: This building uses an exposed fire sprinkler standpipe on the front
elevation to support the railroad-related machine-era motif, as an element that contributes to its
industrial character. This is, however, inconsistent with guidelines for mechanical equipment:
Standpipes for fire sprinkler systems should be shown on plans early in the review
process so that their visual impact will be understood. They should preferably be
placed within the building. (CDG §6.1(D.5))
The Commission may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to allow the equipment to be
exposed in support of the architectural theme, or whether it should be screened or placed within
the building, consistent with design guidelines.
ARC2 - 17
ARCH-0521-2014 (1921 Santa Barbara)
Page 18
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the project (Attachment 4),
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND includes proposed
mitigation measures intended to avoid potential impacts to the setting within which adjacent
historic resources are located.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT
During consideration of the project by the City’s Cultural Heritage Review Committee, several
members of the public, including project neighbors, provided comments at the Committee’s
public hearings. Correspondence about the project was also received for each meeting. This
correspondence is included in the Commissioner’s packet with staff reports from each of the
CHC meetings.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Project plans were circulated to several City departments for review. Their comments about the
project have been incorporated into suggested directional items.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
7.1. Approve the project, based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, Railroad District Plan, and Community Design Guidelines.
7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, Railroad District Plan, or Community Design Guidelines.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant’s project statement
3. Project plans (reduced size)
4. Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Available in Commissioner’s packet:
Project plans (half-size)
Report, Correspondence, and Minutes from the December 15th CHC Meeting
Report, Correspondence, Minutes, and Resolution from the January 26th CHC Meeting
Report, Correspondence, and Minutes from the April 27th CHC Meeting
Report, Correspondence, Minutes, and Resolution from the May 26th CHC Meeting
ARC2 - 18
R-2
PF-H
R-2 C-S-H
R-2
R-2
R-2
C-S-S-H
R-3-HR-3
C-R-S-HR-3-HR-3
C-S-H
UPHAM
CH
O
R
R
O
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
CHUR
C
H
VICINITY MAP File No. 0521-20141921 Santa Barbara Ave.¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC2 - 19
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
The following Project Statement is a part of the Cultural Heritage and Architectural Review
application submittal requirements for a proposed redevelopment project located at 1921 Santa
Barbara Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo. The applicants, SLO Asset Management, in
conjunction with Garcia architecture + design, are proposing to redevelop an existing C-S-H
zoned property into the project known as CAFÉ Lofts, in the historic Railroad District of Old
Town San Luis Obispo.
The existing 7,268 S.F. property is currently zoned C-S-H Commercial Services with a Historical
overlay. The property is bounded by Santa Barbara Street to the east, an existing commercial
parcel south, existing R-2 development to the west, and the Del Monte Café restaurant to the
north. The existing site topography generally slopes from the northeast to the southwest corner
of the site. Existing improvements include an older single-story house near the street, a rear
apartment and a detached garage, which will all be removed to allow for the proposed
redevelopment of the site.
The project, therefore, proposes to replace the existing residential uses with new residential and
commercial uses, in a combined live+work commercial + residential setting. This proposal will
bring additional living units to the city, while simultaneously encouraging appropriate
commercial uses on the property.
This proposal also seeks to continue the neo-railroad vernacular that was embraced by the
recently completed Railroad Square redevelopment, a historic
rehabilitation, restoration and contextual mixed-use infill project
located directly across the street from this site. In that spirit, the
CAFÉ Lofts project will utilize shapes, colors and materials
indigenous to the historical railyards surrounding the property.
Project Statement & Railroad District Plan Compliance
CAFÉ Lofts Redevelopment Project
1921 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, California
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC2 - 20
p a g e 2 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
In addition to traditional railroad architectural elements such as metal siding and saw-tooth
building massing, specific design inspiration for this
specific project was derived from the Southern
Pacific wooden boxcars of the 1940’s and 1950’s.
These simple, utilitarian railcars were the work-
horse of the bustling railyards, providing the city of
San Luis Obispo and surrounding areas with the
goods and materials needed for everyday life. This
local and indigenous inspiration provides a
simultaneous “neo-retro” architectural language and
complementary design aesthetic for a new 21st
century railroad vernacular. More importantly, the
railroad boxcar analogy has been reimagined into
the DNA of the proposed project, opting to honor and respect those who labored in the railyards
by propagating this same hard-work sensibility into a modern-day interpretation of a live+work
environment.
In addition to the proposed architectural improvements, new landscaping for this redevelopment
project will include new trees and vegetation along the frontage and interior areas of the site.
All new landscaping is proposed to complement both the existing streetscape as well as the
Railroad District at large. All plant material provided will be drought tolerant and irrigated with
typical water-conserving systems.
In summary, the design approach to this project was intended to take a nostalgic and historic
look at railroad vernacular architecture, as well as intervene a new design vocabulary that would
not only pay homage the existing railroad vernacular, but would also provide a new and
reinterpreted identity to the emerging railroad district area.
ARC2 - 21
p a g e 3 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
Railroad District Plan Compliance
The following is a detailed, itemized and comparative narrative of
how the proposed project’s architecture and design complies with
the architectural guidelines found in the City’s Railroad District Plan.
For sake of clarity, the excerpts from the Railroad District Plan
(RDP) are shown in italicized text, followed by our corresponding
compliance statement in bold text.
Architectural Guidelines for the Railroad District
San Luis Obispo has adopted citywide architectural guidelines which apply to new buildings, significant
remodels, site improvements, and public area improvements. The Railroad District Architectural
Guidelines are to supplement the citywide
architectural guidelines and are to be applied in a
similar manner, except that they apply only to the
Railroad District as shown in Figure 4. Within this
area, new development, remodels and additions, site
improvements, and publicly‐funded projects should
follow these guidelines. Property owners,
developers, designers, City staff and advisory bodies,
such as the Cultural Heritage Committee,
Architectural Review Commission and the Planning
Commission will use these guidelines to review
development projects, consistent with Municipal
Code Chapter 2.48.
Many of the older buildings in the Railroad District
are generally described as “Railroad Vernacular”
buildings. A variety of architectural styles fall under
this category. Some of the more common
architectural elements exemplifying this architectural
style are illustrated in this document. These
examples provide a “menu” of architectural elements
which can be incorporated into new development
projects in the Railroad District. 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.
ARC2 - 22
p a g e 4 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
Site and Public Area Improvements
1. Site improvements, such as seating areas, bollards, stairs, ramps and walkways should be designed to
complement the railroad architectural character. Public improvements such as, but not limited to, traffic
controls, street lights, signs, benches and trash containers should be designed in a historic character
similar to styles prevalent in the Railroad District before 1950, and they shall be approved by the
Architectural Review Commission before the final design is completed.
Design Compliance: As prescribed above, the proposed design intends to authentically
complement rather than artificially replicate those design elements that define “railroad vernacular”.
2. Lighting in the depot area should closely resemble the design of the railroad era downlights used in
the passenger platform area. All lighting should be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties.
Design Compliance: Historic‐era light fixtures are no longer an appropriate method of area
lighting due to their inefficient lamping configuration (i.e. non‐LED), non‐shielded design, and non‐
compliance with the city’s night‐sky ordinance. The project proposes more appropriate lighting fixtures
that not only complement the railroad vernacular, but are also energy efficient to meet today’s strict
Title 24 energy standards.
3. Pole lights, bollards, information signs, trees and other vertical landscape features should be used to
create repetitive, linear, rhythmic elements along the railroad corridor to complement the District’s
historic character.
Design Compliance: Understood. Vertical landscaping is being utilized via palm street tree
along the Santa Barbara Street frontage.
4. In the passenger depot and other high traffic areas, an open‐style, decorative fencing and/or rails
should be used. In non‐traffic areas abutting the railroad right‐of‐way, storage areas, construction yards
and similar uses should be visually screened from the railroad right‐of‐way. Appropriate fencing
materials include vinyl‐clad chainlink, steel picket, wrought iron and other similar, low‐maintenance open
fences which discourage graffiti. Combination wood and metal rails may also be appropriate. Solid,
plain masonry and concrete, walls; and residential‐style wood fencing should generally be avoided or
accompanied by climbing vines to discourage graffiti.
Design Compliance: Not applicable, as this private project is not in the passenger depot or other
high traffic public areas
5. Security fencing, such as barbed or concertina wire, should be minimized where visible from the
railroad yard or a public way. The Architectural Review Commission may approve the use of security
fencing when such materials are visually compatible with their surroundings and used sparingly.
Design Compliance: As the proposed project will be a mixed use project with an inherent 24/7
presence, no security fencing is being proposed.
6. Public sidewalks along portions of Osos, Santa Barbara, Church, Emily, High, and Roundhouse streets
within the Railroad District should be a City‐approved wood boardwalk design.
Design Compliance: Agreed, however, site currently contains full curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements which are existing to remain.
ARC2 - 23
p a g e 5 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
7. Decorative paving using patterns or integral color is encouraged in specific areas to define or clarify
circulation or activity areas.
Design Compliance: The project proposes to use decorative “permeable” pavers for the front
entry and driveway portions of the site, in order to not only achieve compliance with this directive, but
also as an LID compliance strategy for storm‐waterways management compliance.
8. Pedestrian bridges, underpasses and other transportation‐ or rail‐related structures should use
historic materials and design elements. Possible elements include: metal and heavy timber structural
supports with exposed connectors; local stone or brick foundations or bases; and use of spur track,
railroad ties or other railroad equipment and materials.
Design Compliance: Not applicable.
Building Form, Massing, and Roof Lines
1. Simple, rectilinear building forms should predominate.
Design Compliance: Overall design and massing of the project indicate simple, rectilinear
building forms throughout.
2. Lower building level (ground floor) massing should be horizontal with equal or lesser volume on upper
levels.
Design Compliance: The ground floor massing is designed with a horizontal emphasis, with a
complementary massing for the upper levels.
3. Use medium‐sloping roofs, generally 4:12 ‐ 8:12 pitch.
Design Compliance: Not applicable, as the building massing follows a more flat‐roof and
parapet design.
4. False‐front buildings with shed roofs and parapets may be used.
Design Compliance: Understood.
5. Gable, hip, and shed roof forms are typical, with some combinations and minor variations.
Design Compliance: Understood
ARC2 - 24
p a g e 6 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
6. Deep roof overhangs are common, particularly for commercial buildings, at ground floor level.
Design Compliance: The front ground‐floor commercial space has a deep (3’) overhang for the
entire length of the building fronting along Santa Barbara Street.
7. Roof overhangs are typically supported with exposed, diagonal support braces or decorative brackets.
Design Compliance: Understood. Please refer to Guideline #1 under the “Architectural Details”
section below.
8. Simple gable, hipped, or Dutch hipped dormers can be used for light or ventilation.
Design Compliance: Understood, however the proposed project will utilize operable windows
and skylights for required light and ventilation.
Doors and Windows
1. Doors and windows should emphasize symmetry and be vertically oriented.
Design Compliance: Design emphasizes vertically oriented fenestration patters, and are
designed for both symmetry and asymmetry, based on application, balance and purpose.
2. Doors should typically be single or multi‐ panel, occasionally with glazing and transom windows
above doors.
Design Compliance: As prescribed above
3. Windows are typically fixed, or double hung, often with
divided lites.
Design Compliance: Project is festooned with a
variety of fenestration typologies, including fixed, single‐
hung, double‐hung, with the larger opening glass roll‐up
doors containing divided lites.
4. Windows are often grouped in multiples of two or
three, side by side.
Design Compliance: Where appropriate, windows
and openings are grouped.
5. Horizontal windows may be used with divided lites and
may be grouped.
Design Compliance: In response to the functional
“form follows function” rule of design, horizontal windows
are used where appropriate.
6. Doors and windows should generally have wood or
plaster trim.
Design Compliance: Where warranted, openings are designed to be finished with plaster.
ARC2 - 25
p a g e 7 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
7. Windows in plaster buildings may be arched and recessed, sometimes with wood trim.
Design Compliance: All windows located in plaster areas are recessed.
8. If chimneys are used, they are generally of brick with simple ornamentation at the cap.
Design Compliance: No chimneys are proposed for this project.
9. Foundations are commonly emphasized with brick, stone, or plaster wainscot.
Design Compliance: Understood.
Plaster/Masonry Buildings
1. Brick is commonly used as an exterior building material.
Design Compliance: Understood.
2. Plaster should have a smooth, hand‐finished appearance. Stucco or heavily‐troweled finishes should
be avoided.
Design Compliance: All plaster surfaces are called out as smooth, hand‐troweled finish.
3. Plaster buildings are usually white or off‐white with accent plaster colors at wainscot or in accent
areas. Accent colors should be pastel or low chroma.
Design Compliance: A majority of the building is to be finished in a white plaster color.
4. Plaster building wainscots at lower walls may be flush and painted simply, or dimensional.
Design Compliance: All plaster wall areas will be divided and articulated via use of plaster and
reveal screeds.
5. Roof material is generally barrel tile, or sometimes “diamond pattern” or similar decorative
composition shingle roofing with accent tiles. Built‐up roofing is also common.
Design Compliance: Built‐up “single‐ply” roofing is proposed for this project.
Architectural Details
1. Commercial buildings generally have simple detailing with little
decoration or ornamentation.
Design Compliance: The project is replete of simple
detailing with no artificial decoration or ornamentation.
2. Some carved shapes are used for rafter tiles, brackets, roof eave
bracing, and roof gutters.
Design Compliance: No carved shapes are proposed nor
warranted for this design.
ARC2 - 26
p a g e 8 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
3. More elaborate ornamentation is common on masonry buildings, including parapet details, towers or
decorative cornices or quoins.
Design Compliance: This is not a masonry building.
4. Finials and decorative wood work is sometimes used at roof ridges.
Design Compliance: This project does not contain any roof ridges.
5. Plaster corners are typically rounded.
Design Compliance: Rounded plaster corners, more commonly known as “bull‐nose”, is a detail
typically found in Early California or Mission / Italianate architectural styles, and therefore not
appropriate in this application.
6. Connection details, particularly for large structures, are visually emphasized, sometimes with timber
connectors, bolts, brackets or other similar hardware.
Design Compliance: Refer to design guideline #1 above.
7. Linear raised decks or platforms common with structures with raised floors.
Design Compliance: Project contains many linear raised
decks, terraces, and roof decks.
8. Exterior‐mounted mechanical equipment, including HVAC units,
fire suppression equipment, and antennas should be architecturally
screened.
Design Compliance: Where appropriated, all roof‐top
exterior mechanical equipment
will be screened. However, the
requisite fire riser will be fully
exposed, and even celebrated,
as a necessary and appropriate
complimentary gesture to the
“Steam Era” railroad
vernacular.
Signs and Awnings
Design Compliance: Section not applicable, as no signs are being proposed at this time.
ARC2 - 27
p a g e 9 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
Landscape Design
1. Planting areas should be provided: 1) in or adjacent to outdoor public use areas; 2) along the railroad
right‐of‐way to screen storage yards, solid walls or fences, or unsightly views; and along public street
parkways.
Design Compliance: New landscaping is being proposed 1) adjacent to the outdoor street‐scape
area.
2. Planting should be used sparingly to define pedestrian use areas, waiting areas, and other high
visibility/high traffic areas that can be regularly maintained.
Design Compliance: Plantings in this area will be used sparingly.
3. Planting within the railroad right‐of‐way should be low‐profile, generally not over12‐15 feet tall, to
provide screening and color.
Design Compliance: Not applicable, as the subject property is not adjacent to the railroad ROW.
4. Tree planting within or immediately adjacent to the railroad right‐of‐way should emphasize open,
mediums ‐ height canopy trees; and trees should be selected and placed to preserve and frame scenic
vistas of the Morros and surrounding hillsides. Within the historic Railroad Yard, Canary Island Date
Palms or equal should be used to extend the Southern Pacific theme as an entry statement for the
Railroad District.
Design Compliance: The required street tree is proposed as a Palm Tree to achieve compliance
with this directive.
ARC2 - 28
p a g e 10 g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
g a r c i a a r c h i t e c t u r e + d e s i g n
1 3 0 8 m o n t e r e y s t r e e t , s u I t e 2 3 0 , s a n l u i s o b i s p o , c a l i f o r n i a 9 3 4 0 1
p h o n e 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 0 f a x 8 0 5 . 7 8 3 . 1 8 8 1 w w w . g a r c i a a r c h d e s i g n . c o m
Residential Buildings
Design Compliance: Section is not applicable to this project is a commercial + residential mixed
use development. However, the directive requiring screening of utility areas such as trash have been
incorporated into this project.
Remodels and Additions
Design Compliance: Section is not applicable as this is a new redevelopment project and not
part of a remodel or addition.
End of Document
ARC2 - 29
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC2 - 30
ARC2 - 31
ARC2 - 32
ARC2 - 33
ARC2 - 34
ARC2 - 35
ARC2 - 36
ARC2 - 37
ARC2 - 38
ARC2 - 39
ARC2 - 40
ARC2 - 41
ARC2 - 42
ARC2 - 43
ARC2 - 44
ARC2 - 45
ARC2 - 46
ARC2 - 47
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application #ARCH-0521-2014
1. Project Title: Café Lofts
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director (805) 781-7177
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner (805) 781-7593
4. Project Location: 1921 Santa Barbara Street
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Garcia Family Trust, et al
1308 Monterey St
Suite 230
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning: Service-Commercial (C-S); Historical Preservation (H)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project is the construction of a new 35-foot tall building with 6,060 square feet of
floor area. The building is comprised of 4 live/work units, each with 2 bedrooms, arranged on
three floors, and a 444 square foot ground-floor commercial suite. It will be constructed on a
7,270 square-foot parcel located in the City’s Railroad Historic District. The site is adjacent to
two properties that are listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Commercial and Medium-Density Residential
South: Commercial and Residential
East: Public Facilities: Railroad Depot Parking and Railroad History Museum
West: Medium-Density Residential
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Architectural Review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC2 - 48
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 the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one o r more
State agencies (e.g. CalTrans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ARC2 - 49
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development For: Derek Johnson,
Printed Name Community Development Director
ARC2 - 50
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.
ARC2 - 51
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2e X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2e X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? 2a, 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.
ARC2 - 52
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
ARC2 - 53
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
ARC2 - 54
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,
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, and has been recommended
by the City’s Tree Committee for designation as a Heritage Tree.
Conclusion: The project could impact biological resources, namely a large Valley Oak tree on
adjacent property. To avoid damage to the tree, Mitigation Measure 2 requires preparation of a Tree
Protection Plan by a Certified Arborist for review and approval by the City Arborist, and provides
several specific measures and limitations to be included in the plan to ensure protection of the tree.
The mitigation measure will be incorporated as a condition of final approval granted to the project,
and the project design must be modified to comply with the terms of the mitigation measure. The
project is not expected to introduce any other impacts related to biological resources.
Mitigation Measure 2: The large Quercus lobata (Valley Oak or White Oak) on the adjacent property
at 875 Upham will be protected from injury, in compliance with Tree Regulations (SLOMC 12.24). A
Tree Protection Plan must be completed by a Certified Arborist for review and approval by the City
Arborist. The plan will include, at a minimum, protection fencing, hand digging and clean cuts on
roots encountered over 1” in diameter. Pruning of limbs overhanging the site will be kept to the
minimum necessary, in order to minimize the impact to tree health. Stub cutting of any large
structural branch near the proposed building is not acceptable. Removal of the limb back to its point
of origin at the branch collar should be subject to the consent and permission of the adjacent property
owner, and any pruning shall be completed only by a Certified Arborist. All tree protection measures,
including fencing and requirements, shall be clearly depicted on Grading and Drainage Plans and on
Erosion Control Plans and shall be in place before any demolition, grading or construction begins.
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
ARC2 - 55
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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 20 th-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.
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.
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))
ARC2 - 56
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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 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
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.
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:
ARC2 - 57
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
2d X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 2d X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2d X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 2d X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
2d X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
2d X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
Evaluation
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 gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 15a X
ARC2 - 58
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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
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 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
2d,
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
ARC2 - 59
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
2d X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
2d X
Evaluation
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.
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
ARC2 - 60
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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
the failure of a levee or dam?
2d X
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2d X
Evaluation
The City regulates the design, construction, and operation of private facilities to ensure they will not
have adverse effect on water quality. The City’s Waterways Management Plan was prepared as a
comprehensive, watershed-based management plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, to identify and
develop programs to address flooding, erosion, water quality, and ecological issues in the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed. It was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper
drainage within the creek’s watershed.
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
ARC2 - 61
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plans? 2e X
Evaluation
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
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
ARC2 - 62
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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
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 project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? 2a X
b) Police protection? 2a X
c) Schools? 2a X
d) Parks? 2f X
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.
ARC2 - 63
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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
ARC2 - 64
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 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) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
2b X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2d X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
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.
ARC2 - 65
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 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 AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2g X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
water treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control,
or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
2a,
2g X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
2a,
2g X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
2a,
2g X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
2a,
2g X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 2a, 2e X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? X
Evaluation
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
ARC2 - 66
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 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 Negati ve 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.
ARC2 - 67
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 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. 2013 Construction & Fire Codes; Building a Safer Community
(January 2014).
4. City of San Luis Obispo. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October
2009).
5. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. Railroad District Plan (June
1998).
6. City of San Luis Obispo, Cultural Heritage Committee. Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (November 2010).
7. City of San Luis Obispo. 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].
ARC2 - 68
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 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).
ARC2 - 69
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
ARCH-0521-2015 (1921 Santa Barbara)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 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: The large Quercus lobata (Valley Oak or White Oak) on the adjacent property at 875
Upham will be protected from injury, in compliance with Tree Regulations (SLOMC 12.24). A Tree Protection
Plan must be completed by a Certified Arborist for review and approval by the City Arborist. The plan will
include, at a minimum, protection fencing, hand digging and clean cuts on roots encountered over 1” in diameter.
Pruning of limbs overhanging the site will be kept to the minimum necessary, in order to minimize the impact to
tree health. Stub cutting of any large structural branch near the proposed building is not acceptable. Removal of
the limb back to its point of origin at the branch collar should be subject to the consent and permission of the
adjacent property owner, and any pruning shall be completed only by a Certified Arborist. All tree protection
measures, including fencing and requirements, shall be clearly depicted on Grading and Drainage Plans and on
Erosion Control Plans and shall be in place before any demolition, grading or construction begins.
Monitoring Program: The mitigation measures to be incorporated into this project consist of changes to the
design of the project and the preparation of a Tree Protection Plan, including specific direction and limitations
related to tree protection.
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. Revised project plans clearly depicting these design
modifications will be submitted 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.
The Tree Protection Plan described in Mitigation Measure 2 must be prepared prior to submittal of plans for
construction permits to complete the project. It will be reviewed by the City Arborist. All tree protection measures
are required to be in place before site preparation or construction can begin.
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. No grading or construction permit will be issued until compliance with the approved Tree Protection Plan
is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
ARC2 - 70