HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-2015 Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Hearing Room
City Hall -990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
June 15, 2015Monday5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:Commrs. Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of June 1, 2015. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items
raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City
Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
1.1234 Broad Street.ARCH-0856-2015; Continued review of façade remodel for
brewery, restaurant, and retail lease spaces, with a categorical exemption from
CEQA; C-Dzone; 1234 Broad Street, LLC, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
2.1921 Santa Barbara Avenue.ARCH-0521-2014;Review of four live/work units
and a small commercial suite in the Railroad Historic District. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration is proposed to be adopted for this project;C-S-Hzone; Garcia Family
Trust, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Architectural Review Commission
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities.Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
3.Staff
a.Agenda Forecast
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Walter Oetzell
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of façade remodel for brewery, restaurant, and retail lease spaces
PROJECT ADDRESS:1234 Broad St BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:ARCH-0856-2015 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) granting final approval to
the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant 1234 Broad, LLC
Representative Eric Newton
General Plan General Retail
Zoning Downtown-Commercial (C-D)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15301: Minor
alteration of existing structures)
Filed Jan 28, 2015
Complete Mar 25, 2015
SUMMARY
Eric Newton has filed an application on behalf of the applicant, 1234 Broad LLC, for
architectural review of modifications to the exterior of an existing building, to prepare it for a
brewpub, restaurant, retail sales, and wine-tasting rooms. A use permit allowing these activities
on the site was approved by the Planning Commission on January 14th, 2015.
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed this project at their April 20th meeting, and
continued consideration of the application, with direction to the applicant to consider certain
modifications to the project.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the applicant’s response to the Commission’s direction, and
Meeting Date:June 15, 2015
Item Number:1
ZR
ARC1 - 1
PJD
File ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad) Page 2
June 15, 2015
evaluate the suitability and appropriateness of the modified project design, using standards and
policies of the City’s Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines, to achieve
attractive, environmentally sensitive development.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site is a rectangular parcel of about 9,000 square feet in area, at the corner of Broad
and Pacific Streets. It is developed with a commercial structure that most recently housed a home
furnishings store and before that the Villa Automotive shop. The immediate surroundings are
characterized by single-story commercial structures and some residential structures, most
converted to office uses.
2.2Project Description
This project is described by the applicant as an “artisan establishment including a restaurant,
brewery, brew & wine service, and retail venues with food.” Tenant improvements will be made
to the building interior to accommodate these activities, along with modification of the building
façade and frontage improvements along Broad and Pacific.
3.0COMMISSION DIRECTION
Though the Commission was generally supportive of the proposed design, several areas of
concern were identified. The applicant was directed to explore various modifications to the
project to address these concerns.
Directional item 1:Reduce the scale of the corner element at Broad and Pacific
Streets
The height of the building corner remains unchanged. The applicant notes that careful
consideration has been given to the proportion and rhythm of the building, and that changes in
ARC1 - 2
File ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad) Page 3
June 15, 2015
the height of this portion of the building result in undesirable changes to its design (see
Attachment 4). Because of the shape and visibility of the roof, these corner features are also
needed for screening of mechanical equipment, and lowering the height of the corners could
create difficulty in effectively screening this equipment.
Community Design Guidelines call for setting back buildings above the 2nd or 3rd level, and
keeping the height of a building at the back of the sidewalk less than the width of the adjoining
right-of-way.1 This portion of the building, at 25 feet, is right at the level above which setbacks
are suggested, and Pacific Street is 50 feet wide. Given these design concerns, and relevant
guidelines, staff considers the height of the building corner to be appropriate at this location.
Directional items 2 and 3:Retain the expression of the existing bow roof form;
Remain true to the existing building form.
The applicant has reluctantly explored alternative designs that more strongly express the bow
roof form (Attachment 5). Although the applicant desires to keep the original design, staff
believes this revised design better responds to ARC direction.
Directional item 4:Explore alternatives to metal siding.
The applicant was directed to explore alternatives to the metal siding on the building corners.
The applicant has provided an alternative that incorporates smooth plaster into the bottom half of
the building corner (see below), but the applicant states a preference for the original design:
As we already have a large portion of the Broad St facade in stucco, we feel more
stucco would be inappropriate in this context. An industrial modern approach is
suitable in this context, as the existing building was in fact used for industrial
purposes. Metal siding, steel awnings, and industrial exterior fixtures and finishes
suggest a relationship with the building's industrial roots.
1 CDG § 4.2(B)
ARC1 - 3
File ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad) Page 4
June 15, 2015
Staff supports the use of the metal siding in order to preserve the industrial approach. However,
as discussed below, the design should include a concrete bulkhead at the base of the building
corner.
Directional item 5:Explore the use of bulkheads.
The applicant has added solid panels “at bulkhead height” to the bottom of the doors along
Pacific Street to “create a visual pedestrian scale that would otherwise be achieved with a
bulkhead.” Wooden rails have been added along portions of the Broad Street side of the building
(Attachment 6).These features provide the desired visual pedestrian scale encouraged by
Community Design Guidelines.2 The bulkhead feature should be continued around the base of
the corners of the building (see Condition 7).
Directional item 6:Explore the use of awnings.
The applicant has broken up the continuous metal awning along Broad Street into smaller
sections, for a more pedestrian scale and to better define building entries. Awnings along the
Pacific Street frontage were not incorporated into the design because of the building’s placement
at the back edge of the sidewalk. Awnings on this side of the building would be excessively
small and would essentially be non-functional, providing little shade.
Directional item 7:Explore options to limit neighborhood impacts from noise
and light.
The impacts from the use of the building were addressed during the review of the use permit
approved for the project. This permit requires that doors along Pacific Street be closed during
nighttime hours to contain noise. Insulation has been added to the interior of the roof, which will
serve to further absorb noise within the structure. Lighting of tenant spaces along Pacific will be
installed in ceiling space above the window line, limiting the spillover of light from these spaces.
4.0ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and has been determined to be a class of project that does not have a significant effect on the
environment. It is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents because it involves only interior and exterior alterations to an existing
structure, as described in CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Existing Facilities).
5.0OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Project plans were routed to several City departments for review (Fire, Public Works, Utilities,
and Building). Comments provided in response have been incorporated into suggested conditions
of approval for this project.
2 CDG § 4.2(D.7)
ARC1 - 4
File ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad) Page 5
June 15, 2015
6.0ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2.Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, or Community Design Guidelines.
7.0ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Vicinity Map
3.Project Plans
4.Exhibits: Lowered Corner
5.Exhibits: Bow Form
6.Exhibits: Wood Rails
ARC1 - 5
RESOLUTION NO. ####-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE
FAÇADE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 1234 BROAD STREET
(DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL (C-D) ZONE; FILE ARCH-0856-2015)
WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on April 20, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARCH-0856-2015, 1234 Broad, LLC, applicant, and directed the applicant to revise the project;
and
WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on June 15, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing the revised project design;
and
WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS,notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the proposed project ARCH-0856-2015, based on the following findings:
1.The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The project involves modifications to the building
façade along with frontage improvements, constructed in compliance with applicable building
safety regulations and Engineering Standards.
2.The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines
applicable to commercial projects. It has been designed to fit its site and context and activities
and project elements are logically located for efficient and effective operation. Site elements are
coordinated with the building, and pleasing transitions have been provided between the street and
the project.
3.The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is limited to alterations to an existing structure, as
described in CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Existing Facilities).
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 6
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 2
ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad)
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project ARCH-0856-2015, with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference
shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed
appropriate.
2. Landscaping:Final plans for the project will include a landscape plan that employs the
imaginative use of landscaping (for example, planters and potted plantings) to enhance the
building architecture and soften the visual impact of buildings and paving, help provide a
pleasing transition between the street and the project and define outdoor spaces, as described
in the City’s Community Design Guidelines.
3. Bicycle parking:The bicycle rack on the Broad Street frontage will be relocated to a more
convenient location that preserves adequate pedestrian clearance along the sidewalk, brings
bicyclists and bicycles away from the possibility of accidental damage or injury from traffic,
and that is close to the main entrance.
4. Solid waste and recycling collection:Details of the design of the proposed trash and
recycling enclosure shall be submitted in both plan and elevation views. Plans shall include
the size, capacity, and location of the enclosure, consistent with the City’s Solid Waste
Enclosure Standards.
5. Rooftop equipment screening:With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall
include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers
and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other
roof features will adequately screen them. A line of sight diagram may be needed to confirm
that proposed screening will be adequate.
6. Security grates or grills: Permanent, fixed security grates or grilles in front of windows are
not permitted. Any necessary security grilles should be placed inside, behind the window
display area.
7. Bulkheads: The bulkhead features incorporated into the building facades will be extended
around the corners of the building, as a concrete bulkhead. Final plans submitted for
ARC1 - 7
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 3
ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad)
construction permits will clearly depict this detail, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
Building
1. Final project plans will include structural design calculations and related detailing for the
proposed metal awning.
2. Final project plans will include analytical justification for the clerestory windows that are
proposed to highlight the trusses, and verification that the structural integrity of the exterior
wall is maintained (it appears to be a shear wall).
Fire
8. The proposed frontage will need to accommodate a legal second exit from Lease Space #2A,
to be equipped with panic hardware. Exit from patio area may satisfy this requirement, so
long as the exit provided is free from barriers. Patio railings and barriers may not obstruct
this exit. The second exit will be clearly depicted on final project plans, for review and
approval by the Fire Marshal.
Public Works/ Engineering
9. Projects involving the substantial remodel of an existing structure requires that complete
frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city
standard. MC 12.16.050
10. The City generally supports the proposed sidewalk widening across the Broad Street
frontage. The building plan submittal shall include a complete design prepared by a licensed
Civil Engineer. The plans shall include all existing and proposed improvements. The design
shall show how drainage is being directed around the bulb out and able to maintain minimum
flows in the street gutter. Drainage calculations may be required to confirm curb capacities
and to evaluate any spread into the adjoining travel lanes. The bulb out shall be designed to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The transition from the widened sidewalk
area back to the existing curb shall include the minimum inside radius and minimum outside
radius per City Engineering Standards. The updated curb ramp and any signal pole
modifications shall comply with ADA and City Engineering Standards and shall be clarified
in the plans. A separate improvement plan and plan review fee will be required for the
proposed sidewalk widening. Standard encroachment permit inspection fees will apply to the
project. Record drawings will be required at the completion of construction.
11. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District of downtown. Any new or
replacement driveway approach, curb ramp, curb, gutter, sidewalk, tree well, or utility vaults
ARC1 - 8
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 4
ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad)
shall be installed in the Mission Style per city standard #4220. The existing driveway
approaches shall be removed and replaced with sidewalk per city standard.
12. The building plan submittal shall include the dimensions and bearings for all property lines
for reference. The plans shall show and label the 12.5’ Broad Street plan line for reference.
13. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of
frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage
improvements, including street trees, shall be shown for reference.
14. The building plan submittal shall show an 8’ clear pedestrian path of travel void of all
sidewalk obstructions along the Broad Street sidewalk in order to meet pedestrian level of
service thresholds required for this area.
15. A “sidewalk dining” permit or a “tables and chairs” permit shall be required for any dining in
the public right-of-way. The necessary permits shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. The sidewalk dining areas shown on these plans has not
been specifically approved or endorsed.
16. Provisions for trash, recycle, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of
the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-
site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Individual
waste wheeler services are not supported in-lieu of common trash and recycle collection.
17. The building plan submittal shall show a trash ramp per city standard. The trash ramp shall
be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the San Luis Obispo
Garbage Company.
18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All
work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted.
19. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled
structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code
Chapter 17.84
20. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood
elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2’ above adjacent grade. The structure must be raised or
floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest
ARC1 - 9
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 5
ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad)
adjacent grade. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional structure
protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged.
21. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed floodproofing, floodgate
storage areas, utility protections, etc. The building plan submittal shall include a reduced
floor plan showing and noting the location and type of floodgates and the labeled floodgate
storage area/room. The plan will be forwarded to the Fire Department for inclusion in their
records for recurring fire inspections.
22. The building plan submittal shall including complete details of all new door landings.
Details of door landings shall be in compliance with current building code and to the
satisfaction of the Building Department.
23. The building plan submittal shall show the new street parking and loading zone to be
installed per City Engineering Standards.
24. The building plan submittal shall show all required street trees. Street trees are generally
required at a rate of one 15 gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The building
plan submittal shall show one additional street tree required on the Broad Street frontage.
The City Arborist shall approve tree species. The new tree planting shall be per City
Engineering Standards and shall include a frame, grate, and tree guard. The existing tree
well for the existing tree to remain along Broad Street shall be upgraded to include a frame
and tree grate per City Engineering Standards unless otherwise waived by the City Arborist.
25. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve
any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A
city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures
shall be shown or noted on the building plans.
Public Works/ Transportation
26. Final plans will include an exhibit depicting path of travel of vehicles making a right-hand
turn from Pacific Street onto Broad Street. The exhibit will demonstrate that sufficient
maneuvering space is provided for the intended design vehicle. The exhibit will also
demonstrate the path of travel for a City fire engine (however it is not expected that the
turning maneuver can be completed by a fire engine).
27. Final plans will depict the extent and dimensions of the inside traffic lane (closest the project
frontage) along the Broad Street right-of-way.
Utilities
ARC1 - 10
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 6
ARCH-0856-2015 (1234 Broad)
28. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided
with the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
29. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV
inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and
approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Indemnification
30. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim."
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of June, 2015.
_____________________________
Phil Dunsmore, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ARC1 - 11
O
O
C-D
C-D
O
O
C-D
C-D C-D
O-H
R-2-H
C-D
R-2-HPF-H
C-D-H
O
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
O-H
R-2-H
R-4
C-D-H
C-D-H
B
R
O
A
D
PAC
I
F
I
C
MAR
S
H
G
A
R
D
E
N
PISM
O
N
I
P
O
M
O
C
H
O
R
R
O
VICINITY MAP File No. 0865-2015
1234 BROAD ST ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 12
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
#
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
2#
6
+
1
$4
'
9
'
4
;
52
#
%
'
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
17'-512"18'-1012"17'-1112"17'-11"16'-10"
31
'
-
5
12"
22
'
-
9
12"
45
'
-
9
"
20'-11"25'-9"
80
'
-
5
12"
11
'
-
6
12"
18'-512"24'-1012"
4'
5
6
#
7
4
#
0
6
6
#
8
'
4
0
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
1
%
%
7
2
#
0
6
5
'
#
%
*
6
*
'
4
'
(
1
4
'
1
0
.
;
'
:
+
6
5
+
5
4
'
3
7
+
4
'
&
2
'
4
5
2
#%
'
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
#
$
$4
'
9
'
4
;
(
Ä
5
3
(
6
1
%
%
7
2
#
0
6
5
'
:
+
6
4'
5
6
#
7
4
#
0
6
6
#
8
'
4
0
#
Ä
5
3
(
6
1
%
%
7
2
#
0
6
5
'
:
+
6
5
':
+
6
+
0
)
%
#
.
%
7
.
#
6
+
1
0
5
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
$
$4
1
#
&
5
6
2#%+(+%56
4'
(
'
4
'
0
%
'
0
1
6
'
5
0
'
9
Ä
5
+
&
'
9
#
.
-
'
:
6
'
0
5
+
1
0
+
0
6
1
4
1
9
2
'
4
%
+
6
;
5
6
#
0
&
#
4
&
5
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
5
2
1
6
'.
'
8
#
6
+
1
0
5
1
0
6
*
+
5
5
*
'
'
6
#
0
&
%
+
6
;
&
'
6
#
+
.
5
#
0
&
10
5
*
'
'
6
#
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
%
#
$
.
'
6
8
8
#
7
.
6
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
2
)
'
1
8
'
4
*
'
#
&
2
1
9
'
4
2
1
.
'
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
2
)
'
8
#
7
.
6
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
1
7
6
.
+
0
'
1
(
2
4
'
8
+
1
7
5
1
7
6
5
+
&
'
(
#
%
'
1
(
%
7
4
$
6
1
$
'
4
'
/
1
8
'
&
(
1
4
'
:
6
'
0
&
'
&
4
1
9
0
'
9
2
1
9
&
'
4
%
1
#
6
'
&
5
6
'
'
.
2
#
6
+
1
4
#
+
.
+
0
)
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
&
'
6
#
+
.
#
(
1
4
/
1
4
'
+0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
0
'
9
1
7
6
&
1
1
4
$
+
-
'
2
#
4
-
+
0
)
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
%
+
6
;
&
'
6
#
+
.
1
0
5
*
'
'
6
#
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
(
+
4
'
4
+
5
'
4
(
+
4
'
%
1
0
0
'
%
6
+
1
0
#
0
&
-
0
1
:
$
1
:
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
6
4
#
(
(
+
%
8
#
7
.
6
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
6
4
#
(
(
+
%
.
+
)
*
6
2
1
.
'
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
0
'
9
#
&
#
%
7
4
$
%
7
6
6
1
$
'
+
0
5
6
#
.
.
'
&
2
'
4
%
+
6
;
5
6
#
0
&
#
4
&
5
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
5
6
1
4
/
9
#
6
'
4
/
#
0
*
1
.
'
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
(
+
4
'
*
;
&
4
#
0
6
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
5
3
(
6
.
#
0
&
5
%
#
2
'
5
6
4
+
2
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
1
9
0
'
4
2
4
1
2
1
5
'
5
6
1
+
0
5
6
#
.
.
0'
9
:
'
4
+
5
%
#
2
'
&
4
1
7
)
*
6
6
1
.
'
4
#
0
6
2
.
#
0
6
5
9
+
6
*
1
7
6
6
*
'
7
5
'
1
(
+
4
4
+
)
#6
+
1
0
0#
6
+
8
'
2
.
#
0
6
5
6
1
$
'
(
'
#
6
*
'
4
'
&
4
'
'
&
)
4
#
5
5
$
.
7
'
5
'
&
)
'
#
0
&
&
'
'
4
)
4
#
5
5
4'
(
'
4
6
1
&
'
6
#
+
.
1
0
5
*
'
'
6
#
(
1
4
5
2
#
%
+
0
)
#
0
&
.
#
;
1
7
6
+
0
(
1
4
/#
6
+
1
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
%
+
6
;
6
4
'
'
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
I
T
Y
T
R
E
E
(
T
R
I
S
T
A
N
I
O
P
S
I
S
L
A
U
R
I
N
A
)
T
O
RE
M
A
I
N
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
T
R
U
N
K
S
I
Z
E
.
0
'
9
.
1
%
#
6
+
1
0
1
(
4
'
.
1
%
#
6
'
&
2
#
4
-
+
0
)
5
2
#
%
'
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
5
*
'
'
6
#
(
1
4
2
4
'
8
+
1
7
5
.1
%
#
6
+
1
0
0
'
9
.
1
%
#
6
+
1
0
1
(
4
'
.
1
%
#
6
'
&
&
1
7
$
.
'
*
'
#
&
2
#
4
-
+
0
)
/
'
6
'
4
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
5
*
'
'
6
#
(1
4
2
4
'
8
+
1
7
5
.
1
%
#
6
+
1
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
2
#
4
-
+
0
)
5
2
#
%
'
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
0
'
9
4
1
.
.
Ä
7
2
#
0
&
/
#
0
&
1
1
4
5
6
1
4
'
(
4
1
0
6
5
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
'
:
6
'
4
+
1
4
'
.
'
8
#
6
+
1
0
5
(
1
4
/1
4
'
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
0
'
9
4
1
.
.
'
&
%
7
4
$
6
1
$
'
+
0
5
6
#
.
.
'
&
2
'
4
%
+
6
;
5
6
#
0
&
#
4
&
5
0
'
9
.
1
#
&
+
0
)
<
1
0
'
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
2
#
4
-
+
0
)
/
'
6
'
4
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
0
'
9
;
#
4
&
6
4
#
5
*
#
0
&
4
'
%
;
%
.
+
0
)
$
+
0
5
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
#
2
2
4
1
8
#
.
.
'
6
6
'
4
$
;
6
1
/
/#
4
6
+
0
(
1
4
/
1
4
'
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
#
/
2
'
.
'
%
6
4
+
%
#
.
/
'
6
'
4
6
1
$
'
7
2
)
4
#
&
'
&
6
1
#
/
2
5
0
'
9
+
0
6
'
4
+
1
4
%
1
8
'
4
'
&
$
+
-
'
2
#
4
-
+
0
)
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
%
+
6
;
&
'
6
#
+
.
1
0
5
*
'
'
6
#
0
'
9
)
#
5
/
'
6
'
4
8
#
7
.
6
9
+
6
*
0
'
9
.
+
0
'
5
'
4
8
+
%
'
0
'
9
4
1
.
.
Ä
7
2
&
1
1
4
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
'
:
6
'
4
+
1
4
'
.
'
8
#
6
+
1
0
5
(
1
4
/
1
4
'
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
0
'
9
'
0
6
4
;
&
1
1
4
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
'
:
6
'
4
+
1
4
'
.
'
8
#
6
+
1
0
5
(
1
4
/
1
4
'
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
5
+
&
'
9
#
.
-
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
'
:
+
5
6
+
0
)
(
+
4
'
/
#
+
0
.
#
6
'
4
#
.
6
1
4
'
/
#
+
0
0
'
9
2
#
6
+
1
5
'
#
6
+
0
)
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
&
'
6
#
+
.
#
(
1
4
/
1
4
'
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
32
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
P
L
E
A
S
E
N
O
T
E
T
H
A
T
O
U
T
S
I
D
E
F
A
C
E
O
F
W
A
L
L
I
S
TH
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
.
33
.
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
5
G
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
.
T
O
M
E
E
T
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
L
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
.
34
.
N
E
W
R
E
M
O
V
A
B
L
E
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
P
E
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
P
O
W
D
E
R
CO
A
T
E
D
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
.
35
.
N
E
W
P
O
T
T
E
D
D
E
C
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
P
L
A
N
T
S
O
R
V
I
N
E
S
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
1
/
A
6
.
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
.'
#
5
'
.1#&+0)<10'
4'-0"
6'-0"
25
2
':+56+0)
$7+.&+0)
$41#&56
':
+
5
6
+
0
)
$
7
+
.
&
+
0
)
2
#
%
+
(
+
%
5
6
8'
-
0
"
8'-0"
7
6'-0"
24
23
30
9
4
3
5
34
27
13
27
6
9
12
10
11
10
19
19
17 19
19
14 21 221618162015
19
16
28
15
28
29
17'-0"27'-2"17'-6"17'-6"39'-6"
#
#
90'-0"
10
0
'
-
0
"
15
TCOR
.'
#
5
'
5
2
#
%
'
-+
6
%
*
'
0
/'
0
5
91
/
'
0
5
/1
2
Ä
9
'
5
6
Ä
'
#
5
6
Ä5176*
Ä0146*
&
+
#
&
+
#
&
+
#
&
+
#
'.
'
%
64
#
5
*
4'
%
'
+
8
+
0
)
26
8
Ä
(
5
Ä
(
5
Ä
%
6
4
5
6
4
'
'
6
Ä
(
5
Ä
(
5
Ä
%
6
4
5
6
4
'
'
6
Ä
(
5
Ä
%
6
4
5
6
4
'
'
6
Ä
(
(
(
5
Ä
(
5
%
6
4
5
6
4
'
'
6
Ä
(
5
Ä
(
5
Ä
(
5
Ä
(
5
Ä
(
5
Ä
6;2
Ä
6;2
Ä
6;2
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
6
;
2
(
(
(
(
1
6;2
('
4
/
'
0
6
#
6
+
1
0
%1
.
&
5
6
1
4
$#4
31
32
32
32
)'
0
'
4
#
.
0
1
6
'
5
#
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
5
*
'
'
6
#
(
1
4
2
.
7
/
$
+
0
)
%
#
.
%
7
.
#
6
+
1
0
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
$
6
*
'
'
0
6
+
4
'
2
4
1
2
'
4
6
;
+
5
9
+
6
*
#
(
'
/
#
(
.
1
1
&
<
1
0
'
4
'
(
'
4
6
1
5
*
'
'
6
#
(
1
4
(
.
1
1
&
2
4
1
1
(
+
0
)
/
#
2
#
0
&
+
0
(
1
4
/
#
6
+
1
0
33
4
8
"
M
I
N
.
48
"
M
I
N
.
35
6;
2
+
%
#
.
35
6;
2
+
%
#
.
%.'#4
%.'#4
6'-0"
6'-0
"
6'-0"
%.'#4
%.'
#
4
1234 BROAD ST.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Co
d
y
M
c
L
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
,
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
CA
.
L
I
C
.
#
3
3
6
1
6
EM
A
I
L
:
TE
L
:
8
0
5
.
4
4
0
.
5
9
0
3
FO
R
M
|
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
FO
R
M
01
.
2
7
.
1
5
14
0
0
8
AR
C
H
-
0
8
5
6
-
2
0
1
5
CO
M
P
.
R
E
V
I
E
W
#
1
0
3
.
0
9
.
1
5
AR
C
R
E
V
#
1
0
4
.
2
3
.
1
5
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
4'
8
'
0
1
6
'
24
1
2
1
5
'
&
%
1
0
%
'
2
6
7
#
.
(
.
1
1
4
2
.
#
0
A3 CONCEPTUAL
FLOOR PLAN
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 13
24
'
-
1
0
"
AF
F
21
'
-
1
0
"
AF
F
28
'
-
8
"
AF
F
10
'
-
0
"
AF
F
24
'
-
1
0
"
AF
F
28
'
-
8
"
AF
F
15
'
-
9
"
AF
F
11
'
-
3
"
AF
F
2
3
4
2
5
1
7
6
8
8
15
9
9
10
8
9
1
12
2
13
4
3
3
14
9
1
2
1
0'
-
0
"
FF
1'
-
6
"
FF
AV
E
R
A
G
E
N
A
T
U
R
A
L
G
R
A
D
E
=
1
'
-
6
"
/
2
=
0
'
-
9
"
18
'
-
9
"
AF
F
17
-
3
"
AF
F
11
'
-
3
"
AF
F
$1
6
6
1
/
1
(
#9
0
+
0
)
19
6;
2
20
18
6;
2
16
16
16
16
16
11
6;
2
17
17
17
17
6
6
6
1234 BROAD ST.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Co
d
y
M
c
L
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
,
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
CA
.
L
I
C
.
#
3
3
6
1
6
EM
A
I
L
:
TE
L
:
8
0
5
.
4
4
0
.
5
9
0
3
FO
R
M
|
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
FO
R
M
01
.
2
7
.
1
5
14
0
0
8
AR
C
H
-
0
8
5
6
-
2
0
1
5
CO
M
P
.
R
E
V
I
E
W
#
1
0
3
.
0
9
.
1
5
AR
C
R
E
V
#
1
0
4
.
2
3
.
1
5
4'
(
'
4
'
0
%
'
0
1
6
'
5
1.
T
E
N
A
N
T
F
L
A
G
S
I
G
N
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
(
2
/
A
6
.
1
)
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
2.
B
A
R
N
S
T
Y
L
E
S
C
O
N
C
E
L
I
G
H
T
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
C
U
T
S
H
E
E
T
S
AN
D
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
S
I
T
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
N
O
T
E
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
6
F
O
R
MO
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
3.
1
5
"
W
I
D
E
S
T
A
N
D
I
N
G
S
E
A
M
M
E
T
A
L
P
A
N
E
L
I
N
G
.
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
BE
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
E
D
C
O
P
P
E
R
.
4.
N
E
W
S
M
O
O
T
H
S
T
U
C
C
O
W
I
T
H
I
N
T
E
G
R
A
L
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
MA
T
C
H
S
H
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
(
P
A
V
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
#
S
W
7
6
4
2
)
5.
L
I
B
E
R
T
I
N
E
S
I
G
N
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
(
3
/
A
6
.
1
)
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
6.
N
E
W
M
E
T
A
L
A
W
N
I
N
G
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
(
1
/
A
6
.
1
)
A
N
D
SC
H
E
M
A
T
I
C
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
7.
N
E
W
L
A
R
G
E
C
L
E
A
R
S
T
O
R
Y
W
I
N
D
O
W
S
T
O
H
I
G
H
L
I
G
H
T
TR
U
S
S
E
S
.
8.
N
E
W
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
D
O
O
R
S
W
I
T
H
S
I
D
E
L
I
T
E
S
.
F
R
A
M
E
FI
N
I
S
H
T
O
B
E
B
L
A
C
K
O
R
D
A
R
K
B
R
O
N
Z
E
.
9.
N
E
W
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
G
A
R
A
G
E
R
O
L
L
-
U
P
D
O
O
R
S
W
I
T
H
IN
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
A
N
D
F
R
A
M
E
S
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
.
T
H
E
B
O
T
T
O
M
O
F
T
H
E
D
O
O
R
S
A
R
E
T
O
HA
V
E
S
O
L
I
D
I
N
F
I
L
L
P
A
N
E
L
S
T
O
G
I
V
E
T
H
E
A
P
P
E
A
R
A
N
C
E
OF
A
B
U
L
K
H
E
A
D
.
10
.
N
E
W
W
R
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
P
A
T
I
O
F
E
N
C
I
N
G
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
(1
/
A
6
)
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
11
.
N
E
W
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
I
N
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
C
I
T
Y
R
O
W
12
.
S
T
U
C
C
O
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
J
O
I
N
T
.
13
.
M
A
R
K
E
T
P
L
A
C
E
S
I
G
N
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
(
3
/
A
6
.
1
)
F
O
R
MO
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
14
.
N
E
W
W
H
I
T
E
C
O
L
O
R
E
D
T
P
O
R
O
O
F
I
N
G
M
E
M
B
R
A
N
E
.
15
.
N
E
W
S
T
A
I
N
G
R
A
D
E
S
E
L
E
C
T
C
E
D
A
R
W
O
O
D
S
I
D
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
A
LO
W
E
R
R
A
I
L
D
E
T
A
I
L
T
O
M
E
E
T
T
H
E
B
U
L
K
H
E
A
D
D
E
S
I
G
N
CR
I
T
E
R
I
A
.
16
.
N
E
W
P
O
T
T
E
D
P
L
A
N
T
S
A
N
D
V
I
N
E
S
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
H
E
E
T
A
3
FO
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
17
.
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
C
I
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
T
R
E
S
S
,
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
H
E
E
T
A
3
FO
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
18
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
K
Y
L
I
G
H
T
S
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
.
19
.
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
E
X
H
A
U
S
T
F
A
N
S
.
20
.
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
H
O
O
D
,
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
T
B
D
.
21
.
P
R
E
-
C
A
S
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
U
L
K
H
E
A
D
S
A
L
O
N
G
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
F
R
O
N
T
A
G
E
.
A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
)'
0
'
4
#
.
0
1
6
'
5
1.
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
A
N
D
W
E
S
T
F
A
C
A
D
E
S
T
O
B
E
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
I
T
H
SH
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
(
P
A
V
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
#
S
W
7
6
4
2
)
.
SO
U
T
H
/
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
EA
S
T
/
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
5%
#
.
'
Ä
5%
#
.
'
Ä
5+
)
0
#
)
'
%
#
.
%
7
.
#
6
+
1
0
5
ST
R
E
E
T
W
A
L
L
A
R
E
A
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
BR
O
A
D
S
T
.
2
,
6
8
6
S
Q
.
F
T
7
2
.
2
5
S
Q
.
F
T
2
.
6
%
PA
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
1
,
5
3
7
S
Q
.
F
T
1
8
.
0
S
Q
.
F
T
1
%
RE
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
O
N
S
H
E
E
T
A
6
.
1
ARC1 - 14
1234 BROAD ST.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Co
d
y
M
c
L
a
u
g
h
l
i
n
,
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
CA
.
L
I
C
.
#
3
3
6
1
6
EM
A
I
L
:
TE
L
:
8
0
5
.
4
4
0
.
5
9
0
3
FO
R
M
|
D
E
S
I
G
N
+
B
U
I
L
D
24
3
6
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
RE
P
:
D
U
S
T
I
N
P
I
R
E
S
du
s
t
i
n
@
f
o
r
m
d
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
.
c
o
m
RE
V
H
I
S
T
O
R
Y
JO
B
#
DA
T
E
AP
P
#
PA
G
E
N
U
M
B
E
R
FO
R
M
01
.
2
7
.
1
5
14
0
0
8
AR
C
H
-
0
8
5
6
-
2
0
1
5
CO
M
P
.
R
E
V
I
E
W
#
1
0
3
.
0
9
.
1
5
AR
C
R
E
V
#
1
0
4
.
2
3
.
1
5
A5 EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVES
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
O
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
B
R
O
A
D
&
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
F
B
R
O
A
D
&
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
F
A
C
A
D
E
A
L
O
N
G
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
E
A
S
T
F
A
C
A
D
E
A
L
O
N
G
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
O
U
T
H
-
W
E
S
T
F
A
C
A
D
E
(
C
O
R
N
E
R
)
@
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
N
O
R
T
H
-
E
A
S
T
F
A
C
A
D
E
(
C
O
R
N
E
R
)
@
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
S
T
.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
PA
I
N
T
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
W
A
L
L
SH
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
(P
A
V
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
#
S
W
7
6
4
2
)
T
O
MA
T
C
H
T
H
E
R
E
S
T
O
F
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
PA
I
N
T
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
W
A
L
L
SH
E
R
W
I
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
(P
A
V
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
#
S
W
7
6
4
2
)
T
O
MA
T
C
H
T
H
E
R
E
S
T
O
F
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
RE
T
U
R
N
N
E
W
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
W
A
L
L
A
N
D
SI
D
I
N
G
1
8
'
-
0
"
.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
ON
S
H
E
E
T
A
2
.
1
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
I
N
F
O
M
A
T
I
O
N
ARC1 - 15
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
D
ARC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 17
ARC1 - 18
ARC1 - 19
EX
H
I
B
I
T
H
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1 - 20
EX
H
I
B
I
T
J
ARC1 - 21
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
F
ATTACHMENT 6
ARC1 - 22
ExhibitG
ARC1 - 23
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
ZR
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 27th 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.
1.0COMMISSION’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
2.0PROJECT 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.
2.2Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 3-story building containing a400 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.
3.0PROJECT 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
thatare 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))
3.2Railroad 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
3.3Neighborhood 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.
3.4Project 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 theirprivacy.
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.Alarge 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 recommendedon 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 theaisle through the parking area is constricted to 20 feet in some
places. Access to severalof 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.2and 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
4.0ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
5.0PUBLIC 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 isincluded in the Commissioner’s packet with staff reports from each of the
CHC meetings.
6.0OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Project plans were circulated to several City departments for review. Their comments about the
project have been incorporated into suggested directional items.
7.0ALTERNATIVES
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.
8.0ATTACHMENTS
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 Minutesfrom 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-H
R-3
C-R-S-HR-3-HR-3
C-S-H
UPH
A
M
CH
O
R
R
O
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
CHU
R
C
H
VICINITY MAP File No. 0521-2014
1921 Santa Barbara Ave.¯
ATTACHMENT 2
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.
ArchitecturalGuidelinesfortheRailroadDistrict
SanLuisObispohasadoptedcitywidearchitecturalguidelineswhichapplytonewbuildings,significant
remodels,siteimprovements,andpublicareaimprovements.TheRailroadDistrictArchitectural
Guidelinesaretosupplementthecitywide
architecturalguidelinesandaretobeappliedina
similarmanner,exceptthattheyapplyonlytothe
RailroadDistrictasshowninFigure4.Withinthis
area,newdevelopment,remodelsandadditions,site
improvements,andpubliclyͲfundedprojectsshould
followtheseguidelines.Propertyowners,
developers,designers,Citystaffandadvisorybodies,
suchastheCulturalHeritageCommittee,
ArchitecturalReviewCommissionandthePlanning
Commissionwillusetheseguidelinestoreview
developmentprojects,consistentwithMunicipal
CodeChapter2.48.
ManyoftheolderbuildingsintheRailroadDistrict
aregenerallydescribedas“RailroadVernacular”
buildings.Avarietyofarchitecturalstylesfallunder
thiscategory.Someofthemorecommon
architecturalelementsexemplifyingthisarchitectural
styleareillustratedinthisdocument.These
examplesprovidea“menu”ofarchitecturalelements
whichcanbeincorporatedintonewdevelopment
projectsintheRailroadDistrict.Newbuildingsneed
notincludealloftheseelements,norbedesignedtobeareplicaofahistoricbuilding.TheCultural
HeritageCommitteeandArchitecturalReviewCommissioninterprettheguidelinesandwillconsider
contemporaryarchitecturalstyleswhichareconsistentwiththeseguidelinesandwhichcomplementthe
District’shistoriccharacter.
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
SiteandPublicAreaImprovements
1.Siteimprovements,suchasseatingareas,bollards,stairs,rampsandwalkwaysshouldbedesignedto
complementtherailroadarchitecturalcharacter.Publicimprovementssuchas,butnotlimitedto,traffic
controls,streetlights,signs,benchesandtrashcontainersshouldbedesignedinahistoriccharacter
similartostylesprevalentintheRailroadDistrictbefore1950,andtheyshallbeapprovedbythe
ArchitecturalReviewCommissionbeforethefinaldesigniscompleted.
DesignCompliance:Asprescribedabove,theproposeddesignintendstoauthentically
complementratherthanartificiallyreplicatethosedesignelementsthatdefine“railroadvernacular”.
2.Lightinginthedepotareashouldcloselyresemblethedesignoftherailroaderadownlightsusedin
thepassengerplatformarea.Alllightingshouldbeshieldedtopreventglareontoadjacentproperties.
DesignCompliance:HistoricͲeralightfixturesarenolongeranappropriatemethodofarea
lightingduetotheirinefficientlampingconfiguration(i.e.nonͲLED),nonͲshieldeddesign,andnonͲ
compliancewiththecity’snightͲskyordinance.Theprojectproposesmoreappropriatelightingfixtures
thatnotonlycomplementtherailroadvernacular,butarealsoenergyefficienttomeettoday’sstrict
Title24energystandards.
3.Polelights,bollards,informationsigns,treesandotherverticallandscapefeaturesshouldbeusedto
createrepetitive,linear,rhythmicelementsalongtherailroadcorridortocomplementtheDistrict’s
historiccharacter.
DesignCompliance:Understood.Verticallandscapingisbeingutilizedviapalmstreettree
alongtheSantaBarbaraStreetfrontage.
4.Inthepassengerdepotandotherhightrafficareas,anopenͲstyle,decorativefencingand/orrails
shouldbeused.InnonͲtrafficareasabuttingtherailroadrightͲofͲway,storageareas,constructionyards
andsimilarusesshouldbevisuallyscreenedfromtherailroadrightͲofͲway.Appropriatefencing
materialsincludevinylͲcladchainlink,steelpicket,wroughtironandothersimilar,lowͲmaintenanceopen
fenceswhichdiscouragegraffiti.Combinationwoodandmetalrailsmayalsobeappropriate.Solid,
plainmasonryandconcrete,walls;andresidentialͲstylewoodfencingshouldgenerallybeavoidedor
accompaniedbyclimbingvinestodiscouragegraffiti.
DesignCompliance:Notapplicable,asthisprivateprojectisnotinthepassengerdepotorother
hightrafficpublicareas
5.Securityfencing,suchasbarbedorconcertinawire,shouldbeminimizedwherevisiblefromthe
railroadyardorapublicway.TheArchitecturalReviewCommissionmayapprovetheuseofsecurity
fencingwhensuchmaterialsarevisuallycompatiblewiththeirsurroundingsandusedsparingly.
DesignCompliance:Astheproposedprojectwillbeamixeduseprojectwithaninherent24/7
presence,nosecurityfencingisbeingproposed.
6.PublicsidewalksalongportionsofOsos,SantaBarbara,Church,Emily,High,andRoundhousestreets
withintheRailroadDistrictshouldbeaCityͲapprovedwoodboardwalkdesign.
DesignCompliance:Agreed,however,sitecurrentlycontainsfullcurb,gutterandsidewalk
improvementswhichareexistingtoremain.
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.Decorativepavingusingpatternsorintegralcolorisencouragedinspecificareastodefineorclarify
circulationoractivityareas.
DesignCompliance:Theprojectproposestousedecorative“permeable”paversforthefront
entryanddrivewayportionsofthesite,inordertonotonlyachievecompliancewiththisdirective,but
alsoasanLIDcompliancestrategyforstormͲwaterwaysmanagementcompliance.
8.Pedestrianbridges,underpassesandothertransportationͲorrailͲrelatedstructuresshoulduse
historicmaterialsanddesignelements.Possibleelementsinclude:metalandheavytimberstructural
supportswithexposedconnectors;localstoneorbrickfoundationsorbases;anduseofspurtrack,
railroadtiesorotherrailroadequipmentandmaterials.
DesignCompliance:Notapplicable.
BuildingForm,Massing,andRoofLines
1.Simple,rectilinearbuildingformsshouldpredominate.
DesignCompliance:Overalldesignandmassingoftheprojectindicatesimple,rectilinear
buildingformsthroughout.
2.Lowerbuildinglevel(groundfloor)massingshouldbehorizontalwithequalorlesservolumeonupper
levels.
DesignCompliance:Thegroundfloormassingisdesignedwithahorizontalemphasis,witha
complementarymassingfortheupperlevels.
3.UsemediumͲslopingroofs,generally4:12Ͳ8:12pitch.
DesignCompliance:Notapplicable,asthebuildingmassingfollowsamoreflatͲroofand
parapetdesign.
4.FalseͲfrontbuildingswithshedroofsandparapetsmaybeused.
DesignCompliance:Understood.
5.Gable,hip,andshedroofformsaretypical,withsomecombinationsandminorvariations.
DesignCompliance: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.Deeproofoverhangsarecommon,particularlyforcommercialbuildings,atgroundfloorlevel.
DesignCompliance:ThefrontgroundͲfloorcommercialspacehasadeep(3’)overhangforthe
entirelengthofthebuildingfrontingalongSantaBarbaraStreet.
7.Roofoverhangsaretypicallysupportedwithexposed,diagonalsupportbracesordecorativebrackets.
DesignCompliance:Understood.PleaserefertoGuideline#1underthe“ArchitecturalDetails”
sectionbelow.
8.Simplegable,hipped,orDutchhippeddormerscanbeusedforlightorventilation.
DesignCompliance:Understood,howevertheproposedprojectwillutilizeoperablewindows
andskylightsforrequiredlightandventilation.
DoorsandWindows
1.Doorsandwindowsshouldemphasizesymmetryandbeverticallyoriented.
DesignCompliance:Designemphasizesverticallyorientedfenestrationpatters,andare
designedforbothsymmetryandasymmetry,basedonapplication,balanceandpurpose.
2.DoorsshouldtypicallybesingleormultiͲpanel,occasionallywithglazingandtransomwindows
abovedoors.
DesignCompliance:Asprescribedabove
3.Windowsaretypicallyfixed,ordoublehung,oftenwith
dividedlites.
DesignCompliance:Projectisfestoonedwitha
varietyoffenestrationtypologies,includingfixed,singleͲ
hung,doubleͲhung,withthelargeropeningglassrollͲup
doorscontainingdividedlites.
4.Windowsareoftengroupedinmultiplesoftwoor
three,sidebyside.
DesignCompliance:Whereappropriate,windows
andopeningsaregrouped.
5.Horizontalwindowsmaybeusedwithdividedlitesand
maybegrouped.
DesignCompliance:Inresponsetothefunctional
“formfollowsfunction”ruleofdesign,horizontalwindows
areusedwhereappropriate.
6.Doorsandwindowsshouldgenerallyhavewoodor
plastertrim.
DesignCompliance:Wherewarranted,openingsaredesignedtobefinishedwithplaster.
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.Windowsinplasterbuildingsmaybearchedandrecessed,sometimeswithwoodtrim.
DesignCompliance:Allwindowslocatedinplasterareasarerecessed.
8.Ifchimneysareused,theyaregenerallyofbrickwithsimpleornamentationatthecap.
DesignCompliance:Nochimneysareproposedforthisproject.
9.Foundationsarecommonlyemphasizedwithbrick,stone,orplasterwainscot.
DesignCompliance:Understood.
Plaster/MasonryBuildings
1.Brickiscommonlyusedasanexteriorbuildingmaterial.
DesignCompliance:Understood.
2.Plastershouldhaveasmooth,handͲfinishedappearance.StuccoorheavilyͲtroweledfinishesshould
beavoided.
DesignCompliance:Allplastersurfacesarecalledoutassmooth,handͲtroweledfinish.
3.PlasterbuildingsareusuallywhiteoroffͲwhitewithaccentplastercolorsatwainscotorinaccent
areas.Accentcolorsshouldbepastelorlowchroma.
DesignCompliance:Amajorityofthebuildingistobefinishedinawhiteplastercolor.
4.Plasterbuildingwainscotsatlowerwallsmaybeflushandpaintedsimply,ordimensional.
DesignCompliance:Allplasterwallareaswillbedividedandarticulatedviauseofplasterand
revealscreeds.
5.Roofmaterialisgenerallybarreltile,orsometimes“diamondpattern”orsimilardecorative
compositionshingleroofingwithaccenttiles.BuiltͲuproofingisalsocommon.
DesignCompliance:BuiltͲup“singleͲply”roofingisproposedforthisproject.
ArchitecturalDetails
1.Commercialbuildingsgenerallyhavesimpledetailingwithlittle
decorationorornamentation.
DesignCompliance:Theprojectisrepleteofsimple
detailingwithnoartificialdecorationorornamentation.
2.Somecarvedshapesareusedforraftertiles,brackets,roofeave
bracing,androofgutters.
DesignCompliance:Nocarvedshapesareproposednor
warrantedforthisdesign.
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.Moreelaborateornamentationiscommononmasonrybuildings,includingparapetdetails,towersor
decorativecornicesorquoins.
DesignCompliance:Thisisnotamasonrybuilding.
4.Finialsanddecorativewoodworkissometimesusedatroofridges.
DesignCompliance:Thisprojectdoesnotcontainanyroofridges.
5.Plastercornersaretypicallyrounded.
DesignCompliance:Roundedplastercorners,morecommonlyknownas“bullͲnose”,isadetail
typicallyfoundinEarlyCaliforniaorMission/Italianatearchitecturalstyles,andthereforenot
appropriateinthisapplication.
6.Connectiondetails,particularlyforlargestructures,arevisuallyemphasized,sometimeswithtimber
connectors,bolts,bracketsorothersimilarhardware.
DesignCompliance:Refertodesignguideline#1above.
7.Linearraiseddecksorplatformscommonwithstructureswithraisedfloors.
DesignCompliance:Projectcontainsmanylinearraised
decks,terraces,androofdecks.
8.ExteriorͲmountedmechanicalequipment,includingHVACunits,
firesuppressionequipment,andantennasshouldbearchitecturally
screened.
DesignCompliance:Whereappropriated,allroofͲtop
exteriormechanicalequipment
willbescreened.However,the
requisitefireriserwillbefully
exposed,andevencelebrated,
asanecessaryandappropriate
complimentarygesturetothe
“SteamEra”railroad
vernacular.
SignsandAwnings
DesignCompliance:Sectionnotapplicable,asnosignsarebeingproposedatthistime.
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
LandscapeDesign
1.Plantingareasshouldbeprovided:1)inoradjacenttooutdoorpublicuseareas;2)alongtherailroad
rightͲofͲwaytoscreenstorageyards,solidwallsorfences,orunsightlyviews;andalongpublicstreet
parkways.
DesignCompliance:Newlandscapingisbeingproposed1)adjacenttotheoutdoorstreetͲscape
area.
2.Plantingshouldbeusedsparinglytodefinepedestrianuseareas,waitingareas,andotherhigh
visibility/hightrafficareasthatcanberegularlymaintained.
DesignCompliance:Plantingsinthisareawillbeusedsparingly.
3.PlantingwithintherailroadrightͲofͲwayshouldbelowͲprofile,generallynotover12Ͳ15feettall,to
providescreeningandcolor.
DesignCompliance:Notapplicable,asthesubjectpropertyisnotadjacenttotherailroadROW.
4.TreeplantingwithinorimmediatelyadjacenttotherailroadrightͲofͲwayshouldemphasizeopen,
mediumsͲheightcanopytrees;andtreesshouldbeselectedandplacedtopreserveandframescenic
vistasoftheMorrosandsurroundinghillsides.WithinthehistoricRailroadYard,CanaryIslandDate
PalmsorequalshouldbeusedtoextendtheSouthernPacificthemeasanentrystatementforthe
RailroadDistrict.
DesignCompliance:TherequiredstreettreeisproposedasaPalmTreetoachievecompliance
withthisdirective.
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
ResidentialBuildings
DesignCompliance:Sectionisnotapplicabletothisprojectisacommercial+residentialmixed
usedevelopment.However,thedirectiverequiringscreeningofutilityareassuchastrashhavebeen
incorporatedintothisproject.
RemodelsandAdditions
DesignCompliance:Sectionisnotapplicableasthisisanewredevelopmentprojectandnot
partofaremodeloraddition.
EndofDocument
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-footparcel located in the City’s Railroad Historic District. The site is adjacent to
two properties that are listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Commercial and Medium-Density Residential
South: Commercial and Residential
East: Public Facilities: Railroad Depot Parking and Railroad History Museum
West: Medium-Density Residential
10. Project Entitlements Requested:Architectural Review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:None
ATTACHMENT 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 theDepartment that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. CalTrans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
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 remainto be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have beenanalyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development For: Derek Johnson,
Printed Name Community Development Director
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 degradethe existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?2a,8 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?10b X
Evaluation
Setting: The project site is located in the southeastern portion of central San Luis Obispo, on the west
side of Santa Barbara Street, about 150 feet south of its intersection with Upham Street. Views to the
east look over the Railroad Depot parking lot, past the railroad right-of-way, towards a residential
neighborhood and beyond to the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range. The west side of Santa Barbara
Street has a mixed, transitional character, with modest houses interspersed with larger industrial
structures.
The historic Del Monte Grocery building situated at the corner of Santa Barbara and Upham marks a
transition to a medium-density residential neighborhood along Upham Street. When approaching this
same corner travelling in a southerly direction along Santa Barbara Street, the Del Monte Grocery
building dominates the view, as it is oriented diagonally toward the corner, with the adjacent
residential neighborhood extending along Upham Street to the right (west).
a), b) The site is not located near a scenic vista or within a local or state scenic highway, and does not
contain scenic resources. A large Valley Oak tree grown from the property adjacent to the site, and
will be protected under the City’s Tree Regulations (Municipal Code Ch. 12.24).
c) The project replaces several smaller structures with a larger, taller 3-story building, about 32 feet in
height, slightly less than the maximum permitted height in the Service Commercial (C-S) Zone. It is
subject to review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission and
will be evaluated for consistency with the architectural guidelines of the Railroad Historic District
and the City’s Community Development Guidelines intended to avoid degradation of the visual
character and quality of the site and its surroundings.
d) No site lighting is proposed for the project. Exterior lighting is limited to lighting fixtures on the
building exterior. The City’s Night Sky Preservation regulations require that outdoor lighting be
designed, installed, and operated in a manner that prevents nighttime sky light pollution. Lighting that
is consistent with these operational standards will not create glare or light trespass.
Conclusion: The project is not expected to generate significant aesthetic impacts.
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 20th-Century
residential neighborhood. Its contribution is diminished by placing tall walls, windows, and balconies
in close proximity to the residence, without the building separation that is an important element of the
design of residences in the area that give the neighborhood its historic character. The walls, windows,
and balconies physically deprive 875 Upham of building separation, solar access, and privacy that are
characteristic residential amenities of these historic houses.
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 ofloss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
2d X
Evaluation
a-c) The project, four live/work units and a small commercial suite, does not involve the transport,
use, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials in its construction or operation. Hawthorne
Elementary School is located ¼ mile to the southwest of the project site.
d) The project site is not included in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database
of cleanup sites or Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database of hazardous waste
and substances sites.
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
havebeen 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) Asubstantial 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 projectresult in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection?2a X
b) Police protection?2a X
c) Schools?2a X
d) Parks?2f X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?2b X
f) Other public facilities?2 X
Evaluation
a-f)The project is of a scale and intensity that is consistent with General Plan policies for the Service-
Commercial (C-S) Zone, requiring no construction of new facilities in order to maintain acceptable
service levels.
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) Conflictwith an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
2b X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?2d X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2b X
Evaluation
a-b) The project is consistent with the use and density limitations applicable to a Services and
Manufacturing area and does not conflict with circulation system or congestion management plans. It
involves a limited number of vehicle trips generated by four live/work units and a small (444 square-
foot) commercial suite. The project is served by existing public transit, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. It is centrally located within a developed portion of the City, which encourages walking.
Bicycle parking is provided, in conformance with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, which
encourages bicycling.
c) The project is located outside of the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land
Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County, and has no potential to result in a change in air traffic
patterns.
d) No potential for increased hazard due to design features or inadequate emergency access has been
identified.
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 Negative Declaration(CEQA Guidelines
§15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analysis used:
Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed:
Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures:
For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
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. 2013Construction & Fire Codes; Building a Safer Community
(January 2014).
4. City of San Luis Obispo. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October
2009).
5. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. Railroad District Plan (June
1998).
6. City of San Luis Obispo, Cultural Heritage Committee. Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (November 2010).
7. City of San Luis Obispo. Citywide Historic Context Statement (September 30, 2013), prepared by
Historic Resources Group.
8. City of San Luis Obispo. Community Design Guidelines (June 2010)
9. City of San Luis Obispo. Municipal Code.
a.Noise Control (Ch. 9.12)
b.Tree Regulations (Ch. 12.24)
c.Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ch. 14.01)
10. City of San Luis Obispo. Zoning Regulations (SLO Municipal Code Title 17)
a.Zoning Map (§17.06.020)
b.Night Sky Preservation Regulations (Ch. 17.23)
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department, and County of San Luis Obispo, Flood
Control District –Zone 9. Waterways Management Plan (March 2003).
12. State of California, Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder.
ONLINE: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html [13 Mar 2015].
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
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
June 1, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present:CommissionersPatricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll,Vice-ChairSuzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent:None
Staff:Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, and
City Clerk Anthony Mejia
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:The minutes of May 18, 2015,were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments fromthe public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.279 Bridge Street.ARCH-0286-2014; Design review of three shell buildings
(including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 24,000 square feet, with
associated site improvements. Project includes a creek setback exception request
for addition of a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek. Project also includes
review of an environmental determination which incorporates measures to reduce
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level; M zone; Devin Gallagher,
applicant.
Associate Planner Carloni presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission continue review of the building designs and site layout to a date uncertain
with direction to the applicant on project revisions, grant approval for the proposed
creek-crossing bridge, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings
and subject to conditions which he outlined.Mr. Carloni clarified that the environmental
document was being presented for adoption prior to approval of project uses in order to
commence the approval process for the bridge, allowing site access.
Commrs. Nemcik, Commr. Soll and Vice-Chair Edhaie commented on potential
concerns relating to the building’s roll-up doors, particularly those facing residential
uses.
Devin Gallagher, Applicant, New Zealand, summarized the history of the project; noted
constraints relating to the creek.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 1, 2015
Page 2
Jim Duffy, project architect, SLO,made a presentation; summarized the vision for the
project site as a neighborhood destination with high-quality architecture.
John Knight, project planner, summarized project constraints and potential mitigations,
particularly relating to noise impact upon neighboring residences.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Judy Nielsen, neighboring resident, SLO, inquired as to the purpose of discussing the
disposition of loading docks and bay doors at a time when future building uses are
undetermined.
Seth McCormick and Justin Slade, neighboring property owners, SLO, commented on
the impact this project and their project, which is under construction, would have on
each other; spoke in support of the project’s architectural styling; spoke in opposition to
the site layout, particularly relating to the proximity of Building A to their residential uses.
Fred Kessler, nearby resident, SLO, spoke in opposition to the project; noted concern
about obstruction of access to open space and the impact of noise and light pollution
upon residential uses.
Gina Cindrich, nearby resident, SLO, spoke in support of the project’s architectural
styling; noted concern about obstruction of views and public access to open space, and
negative noise impacts upon residential uses.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to concern from Commr. Curtis regarding the ability to limit future uses,
Associate Planner Carlonicommented that future conditions or a recorded agreement
may be applied to the project, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
amended if needed.
Chair Wynn, Commr. Root,and Commr. Curtis spoke in opposition to limiting uses by
deed restriction.
Commr. Curtis spoke in opposition to the environmental document’s applicability to the
whole site, the uses for which were as-yet known, and lack of bindingeffectupon future
owners.
On motion by Commr. Root, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to adopta resolution
granting approval for the proposed creek-crossing bridge, and adopting the project’s
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, andWynn
NOES:Commr. Curtis
Draft ARC Minutes
June 1, 2015
Page 3
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 6:1 vote.
Commr. Root spoke in support of the architectural styling in general; noted concern
about the proposed wood siding; spoke in support of relocating the roll-up doors and
trash enclosure, and ensuring open space access for the public.
Commr. Nemcik spoke insupport of theproposed location of theroll-up doors,so long
as sound impacts are adequately mitigated, and enclosing refuse areas; spoke in
opposition to clustering of buildings.
Commr. Curtis spoke in support of the project’s architectural styling, moving building A
farther away from residential uses, the size of the caretakers’ quarters,
enclosing/relocatingloading docks and trash areas; noted no objection to the proposed
location of the roll-up doors; noted concern about offset of any vegetation removed from
the creek.
Commr. Andreen felt the roll-up doors and trash enclosures need to be relocated and
spoke in support of redesigning to protect views and privacy.
Commr. Soll spoke in support of the project’s architectural styling, minimizing all
impacts to neighboring residential uses, and relocating building Ato protect views;
noted no objection to the proposed location of the roll-up doors.
Vice-Chair Edhaie spoke in support of the project’s architectural styling, moving building
A farther away from neighboring residences, and enhancing connections between
residential uses and open space areas.
Chair Wynn spoke in support of the project as presented; commented that attenuation
of sound and uses was unnecessarydueto the site’s zoning and other intensive uses in
the area.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Curtis, to continue the project’s
design review to a date uncertain, with the following direction to the applicant:
1.Relocate Building Ato be further from adjacent residential uses in order to
preserve viewsfrom the 215 Bridge Street projectand providing additional
buffering fromthe proposed commercial building.
2.Relocate loadings docks and trash enclosures as far away as possible from
adjacent residential uses. Loading docks should be provided on the north side
of the proposed buildings or between clustered buildings to buffer noise from
adjacent residential uses.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 1, 2015
Page 4
3.Revise thesite plan to include one parking lot tree per every six parking
spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces per parking
and driveway standards.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
The Commission recessed at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. with all members
present.
2.2120 Santa Barbara Avenue.ARCH-0917-2015; Review of a mixed-use project
with 69 multi-family units and 3,000 square feet of retail space; C-S-H zone;
Covelop Management, Inc., applicant.
Chair Wynn announced his recusal due to a professional conflict of interest and left the
meeting.
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner,presented the staff report, recommending approval of
the project designbased on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Steve Rigor, project architect, summarized the history of the project and revisions to the
proposal in response to recent direction from the Planning Commission and Cultural
Heritage Committee.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Glen Matteson, San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum, commented that applicants and
staff have taken steps to address the Museum’s concern about the impact of the project
upon their neighboring property, particularly relating to access.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commrs. Andreen and Soll spoke in support of the project design.
Commr. Curtis noted concern about the lack of vertical articulation of the project’s north
elevation and the mansard roof; noted desire to see tallertower components as in
previous iterations of the design,better-incorporated roof linesand improved pedestrian
context.
Commr. Root noted support for the design overall; noted desire for further vertical
articulation.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 1, 2015
Page 5
Commr. Nemcik noted desire for taller tower components as in previous iterations of the
design, as well as improved horizontal articulation of tower locations.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie concurred; spoke in support of the project in general.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Nemcik, to adopta resolution
approving the design of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions
contained in staff’s report, with the following revisions:
A.Greater horizontal articulation shall be applied to the easternmost building
tower, such that it resembles the towers on the west end of the project.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll
NOES:Commr. Curtis
RECUSED:Commr. Wynn
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3.Staff:
a.Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Dunsmore gave a forecast of upcoming agendaitems; noting a
joint Architectural Review Commission–Cultural Heritage Committee design
workshop to be held June 10-11, 2015.
4.Commission:
The Commission discussed a potentialchange to itsJuly 2015 schedule.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary