HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2016 CHC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Cul tural Heri tage Co mmittee
Monday, February 22, 2016
5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL
TO ORDER: Chair Hill
ROLL CALL: Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah
Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of January 25, 2016 and the joint
Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission meetings of
July 13, 2015 and December 7, 2015
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items
not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the
Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development
Director, another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot
be appealed.
1. 847 Monterey Street. ARCH-2300-2015; Review of proposed exterior
modifications for a new restaurant use within the Master List Historic Sinsheimer
Building, with a categorical exemption from environmental review.; C-D-H zone;
Pane E. Pomodoro, LLC, applicant. (Kyle Bell)
Cultural Heritage Committee
Page 2
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
2. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates
3. Training opportunities
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Date: February 22, 2016
Item Number: 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of proposed exterior modifications to a Master List Historic Resource
(Sinsheimer Building) for a new restaurant use, with a categorical exemption from
environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 847 Monterey Street BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2300-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and recommend the
Community Development Director approve the project design subject to findings and conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Pane E Pomodoro LLC
Representative Ten Over Studio, Inc.
Historic Status Master List
Submittal Date November 4, 2016
Complete Date February 5, 2016
Zoning C-D-H
General Plan General Retail
Site Area ~6,700 s.f.
Environmental
Status
Exempt from CEQA under
Section 15301, Existing
Facilities.
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans for the exterior modifications of a Master List Historic
Resource (Sinsheimer Brothers Building) located at 847 Monterey Street in the Downtown
Historic District. Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) review is required to review proposed
changes to the Master List Historic Resource. Following CHC review, the project will be
forwarded to the Community Development Director for consideration of final project approval.
CHC1 - 1
847 Monterey Street
ARCH-2300-2015
Page 2
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located on Monterey Street between Chorro Street and Morro Street in
the Downtown-Commercial zone with Historic Overlay (C-D-H); (Attachment 2, Vicinity Map).
The property contains two buildings, the Sinsheimer Building that is a two story Master List
Historic Resource fronting Monterey Street, and a one story structure with a basement at the rear
of the property with access from Rose Alley. The Sinsheimer Building has been used as a retail
store on the ground floor with offices on the second floor. The building at the end of Rose Alley
has been used as a retail space.
The closest historic resource to the site is the Wade Building at the corner of Monterey and
Chorro Streets (1026 Chorro), which was built in 1909. The Wade Building is on the Master
List of Historic Resources, and its architectural style is described in the Historic Resources
Survey as “First Renaissance Revival.” Additional historic resources in close proximity to the
project (Figure 3) include; Warden/Tower Building, A.F. Fitzgerald Building, Sandercock
Transfer Building. Directly across Monterey Street the project known as Chinatown is currently
under construction, the project includes three historic resources; The Blackstone Hotel, Sauer
Bakery, and Muzio’s Grocery.
3.2 Sinsheimer Building Background
The firm of Sinsheimer Brothers was founded in 1876 by Bernard and Henry Sinsheimer and
constructed the Sinsheimer Building in 1884. Through the years, the Sinsheimer Building has
required little repair work. The Sinsheimer Building is the only known cast iron façade building
on the Central Coast, the castings were delivered by boat to Port Harford and then taken
overland in sections to San Luis Obispo. According to the Historic Inventory Report, the bricks
used to construct the store were fabricated in the brickyard owned and operated by Ah Louis,
who established the first brick kiln in the county. The architectural style was contemporary for
the period in which it was built. A.Z. Sinsheimer stands out among the pioneer merchant class of
San Luis Obispo who became highly successful. His son, Louis Sinsheimer, eventually
purchased the gas works for the City and remained mayor for twenty years.
The existing design of the building is described as First Renaissance Revival style
(Attachment 3, Historic Inventory Report). Character defining features include;
• Flat roof
• Double bracketed cornice with Neo-Classic details
• Segmental arched windows
• Iron and brick façade
• Seven iron classic columns which frame six elongated double French doors
• Steel shutters on the rear elevation (Figure 1)
CHC1 - 2
847 Monterey Street
ARCH-2300-2015
Page 3
3.3 Project Description
The project scope involves interior modifications
for the new restaurant use including a dining room,
kitchen, bar, and express deli. Modifications are
also proposed for exterior dining in the courtyard
off Rose Alley and a banquet room with basement
storage in the rear building. Exterior modifications
are limited to the rear elevation of the Sinsheimer
Building, see Figure 2. The Monterey Street
elevation and the Rose Alley elevation will remain
unchanged.
The proposed modification on the rear elevation of
the Sinsheimer Building includes the replacement
of two existing windows with two new doors in the
same location. The existing opening widths and
arch topped wall profiles at window heads are
proposed to remain. The material types, colors, and
sizing of the doors & openings are proposed to
match the existing openings. The modifications
propose the shutters to remain, or to be
reconfigured to extend the length of the new
openings. The application also includes the
construction of a new trash/equipment enclosure
with direct access from Rose Alley (see Attachment
4, Project Description/Project Plans for further
discussion of the proposed modifications).
Figure 1: Existing view from Monterey Street (left). Existing view from courtyard (right).
Figure 2: Existing elevation from
courtyard (top). Proposed modifications
(bottom).
CHC1 - 3
847 Monterey Street
ARCH-2300-2015
Page 4
5.0 EVALUATION
The below evaluation includes staff analysis of Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
and Historic Preservation Guidelines for alterations on historic properties and in historic
districts.
5.1 Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI)
The most appropriate treatment standard to consider in the evaluation of the project is SOI
Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Standards are intended to make possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions, while preserving those
portions of features which concern its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will
be preserved…
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, alterations, or related new
construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing
to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff Analysis: The SOI Standards for Historic Rehabilitation recommends constructing new
alterations so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials, and so that character-
defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed 1. Since only the portion below the
existing windows are proposed to be removed for the new doorways, and the existing arches,
width, and iron shutters will remain, the proposed modifications present a minimal change to the
existing building that does not radically change or obscure character defining features.
As discussed in the Historic Preservation Guidelines evaluation below, staff recommends
refinements to the design to leave the existing shutters, thereby preserving the architecturally
distinctive shutters unmodified 2.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new
construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
1 Secretary of Interior Standards Additions/Alterations. Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic
building are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alteration do not
radically change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.
2 Secretary of Interior Standards, Standards for Rehabilitation #3: Each property will be recognized as a
physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such
as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties will not be undertaken.
CHC1 - 4
847 Monterey Street
ARCH-2300-2015
Page 5
Staff Analysis: The new trash enclosure has been designed with board formed concrete to reflect
the materials of some of the adjacent buildings. The trash enclosure has been designed to be
compatible with the historic materials of the surrounding buildings that will not impair the
integrity of the historic resources (Attachment 4, Project Plans page 11). In the future, it would
be possible to remove the trash enclosure without impairing the historic significance of the
building and the modifications to add doorways to the rear of the Sinsheimer building could be
removed and returned to the original appearance.
5.2 Historic Preservation Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources
and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes
Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources should not introduce new
or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the
original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and
architectural context…
Staff Analysis (architectural elements, exterior materials): New features added to historically-
listed buildings should preserve the original architectural character and appearance of the
building 3, and should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements with the original
style of the structure 4. The applicant has proposed to extend the existing steel shutters to the full
length of the new doors. Staff recommends Conditions #1 & #2 to ensure that the original
character defining steel shutters remain in place, unmodified (Attachment 1, Condition No. 2).
Recommended Condition #1 includes a modification to proposed doors to include a division or
break in design that lines up with the existing sills in order to better coordinate with the
remaining historic shutters.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section
153301 of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project is an exterior alteration to an
existing building that will have no significant impact on the environment.
3 Historic Preservation Guidelines: Retention of character-defining features 3.4.3: Alterations of historically-
listed buildings shall retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary building
facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that preserves the original
architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building.
4 Historic Preservation Guidelines: Exterior building changes 3.4.4: Exterior changes to historically-listed
buildings or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its
setting and architectural context.
CHC1 - 5
847 Monterey Street
ARCH-2300-2015
Page 6
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
Find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and recommend the
Community Development Director approve the project design subject to the findings and
recommended conditions.
Recommended Condition #1: Final design plans submitted for construction approvals shall
include modifications on the new proposed doorways at the rear elevation to include a design
which coordinates with the existing steel shutters by including a solid section of door, division,
or other change in materials below the shutters and at approximately the location of the existing
sills.
Recommended Condition #2: Plans submitted for Director Review shall retain all character
defining features including, arched windows and the steel shutters. Exterior alterations shall not
destroy or alter any character defining features, and plans submitted for construction permits
shall include sufficient detail and callout notes to ensure the existing archways, window width,
and shutters will be retained and unmodified consistent with plans reviewed by the CHC.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1 Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
8.2 Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Historic Inventory Report
4. Project Description/Reduced Project Plans
CHC1 - 6
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVE
EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO A MASTER LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE
(SINSHEIMER BUILDING) FOR A NEW RESTAURANT USE, DOWNTOWN
HISTORIC DISTRICT, C-D-H ZONE, APPLICATION #ARCH-2300-2015
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on February 22, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-2300-2015;
and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings
1. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines since the proposed
alterations to a historic structure retain character defining features, does not introduce
new or conflicting architectural elements, and complies with rehabilitation standards of
the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
because distinctive materials and features will remain and the historic character of the
property will be retained and preserved.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Section
15301 (Existing Facilities) because the proposed project is an exterior alteration to an existing
building that will have no significant impact on the environment.
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends approval of the
project, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
1. Final design plans submitted for construction approvals shall include modifications on
the new proposed doorways at the rear elevation to include a design which coordinates
with the existing steel shutters by including a solid section of door, division, or other
change in materials below the shutters and at approximately the location of the existing
sills.
CHC1 - 7
Resolution No.XXXX-16 Attachment 1
847 Monterey Street (ARCH-2300-2015)
Page 2
2. Plans submitted for Director Review shall retain all character defining features including,
arched windows and the steel shutters. Exterior alterations shall not destroy or alter any
character defining features, and plans submitted for construction permits shall include
sufficient detail and callout notes to ensure the existing archways, window width, and
shutters will be retained and unmodified consistent with plans reviewed by the CHC.
Note: Code requirements provided to applicant separately.
On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of February 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
CHC1 - 8
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
PF-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-S-H
C
H
O
R
R
O
HIGUE
R
A
MONTE
R
E
Y
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2300-2015847 Monterey St.¯
Attachment 2
CHC1 - 9
Attachment 3
CHC1 - 10
Attachment 3
CHC1 - 11
Attachment 3
CHC1 - 12
Attachment 3
CHC1 - 13
Attachment 3
CHC1 - 14
Attachment 4
CHC1 - 15
Attachment 4
CHC1 - 16
5
2
6
(
$
/
/
(
<
&2
1
&
5
(
7
(
3
$
9
,
1
*
0217(5(<675((7
%$
1
4
8
(
7
6
3
$
&
(
$'
-
$
&
(
1
7
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
$'
-
$
&
(
1
7
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
5(
6
7
$
8
5
$
1
7
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
5
(
(
7
8
3
6
7
$
,
5
6
$3
1
$'
-
$
&
(
1
7
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
5
(
(
7
$'
-
$
&
(
1
7
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
$'
-
$
&
(
1
7
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
$'
-
$
&
(
1
7
%8
,
/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
1
7
5
$
6
+
(
4
8
,
3
(1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
6,
7
(
3
/
$
1
(/
(
&
$5
(
$
2
)
3
5
2
3
2
6
(
'
&+
$
1
*
(
6
0217(5(<675((7
1 7
%
8 ,/
'
,
1*
1 7
%
8 ,/
'
,
1*
$8
5
$
1
7
$8
5$
1
7(
5
(
<
6
7
5
(
(
7
75
(
(
7
83
6
7
$
,
5
6
83
6
7
$
5 2 6 (
$
/
/
(
<
&2
1
&
5
(
7
(
3
$
9
,
1
*
63
$
&
(
6 3$
&
$'-$&(1
$3
1
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
28
5
7
<
$
5
$'-$&(1
$3
1
5(
6
7
(6
7
0
2
1
7
8
8
$3
1
$3
1
67
5
(
(
7
67
5
(
1
7
5
$
6
+
(
4
8
,
3
+
(
4
8
,
3
(1
&
/
26
8
5
(
(1
&
(/
(
&
$5
(
$
2 )
3
5
2 3 2 6(
'
&+$
1
*(6
8
%$
1
4
8
(
7
6
$1
4
8
(
76
$'
-
$&
(
17
%8
,
/'
,
1*
$3
1
0
2
1
7
(5
(
<
02
1
7
(5
(
<
$'
-
$&
(
17
%8
,
/'
,
1*
$3
1
$'-$&(1
7
%8
,/
'
,
1
*
$3
1
$'
-
$&
(
1 7
%8
,
/'
,
1*
$3
1
6 ,7
(
3
/
$
1
6
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 17
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
$(
5
,
$
/
2
)
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
6
,
1
6
+
(
,
0
(
5
%
8
,/
'
,
1
*
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
5
(
$
5
%
8
,
/
'
,
1*
0217(5<675((7
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
52
6
(
$
/
/
(
<
2)6&$/( 1761
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 18
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
3+
2
7
2
2
)
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
)
5
2
0
5
2
6
(
$
/
/
(
<
)1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 19
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
3+
2
7
2
2
)
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
5
(
$
5
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
:
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
'
2
2
5
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
2)
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 20
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
(;
,
6
7
,
1
*
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
5
(
$
5
%
8
,
/
'
,
1
*
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
7
5
$
6
+
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
'(
7
$
,
/
2
)
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
$
'
-
$
&
(
1
7
:
$
/
/
&
+
$
1
*
(
6
(;
,
6
7
,
1
*
5
(
$
5
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
:
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
0
2
1
7
(
5
(
<
6
7
5(
&
(
1
7
/
<
%
8
,
/
7
(
7
5
$
6
+
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
67
2
5
(
)
5
2
1
7
6
.
<
/
,
*
+
7
0
2
1
,
7
2
5
(
%
2
$
5
'
)
2
5
0
(
'
&
2
1
&
5
(
7
(
(
%
5
,
&
.
(
6
7
(
(
/
*
/
$
6
6
(
0
,
6
&
0
(
7
$
/
6
2)
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 21
29
(
5
$
/
/
)
/
2
2
5
3
/
$
1
:
,
7
+
3
$
7
+
2
)
7
5
$
9
(
/
7
2
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
52
6
(
$
/
/
(
<
.(
<
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
$
7
+
2
)
7
5
$
9
(
/
7
+
5
8
3
5
2
3
2
6
(
'
1
(
:
'
2
2
5
6
(;
,
6
7
,
1
*
3
$
7
+
2
)
7
5
$
9
(
/
7
+
5
8
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
'
2
2
5
2
1
/
<
;;
18
0
%
(
5
2
)
2
&
&
8
3
$
1
7
6
$
/
2
1
*
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
3
$
7
+
2
)
7
5
$
9
(
/
18
0
%
(
5
2
)
2
&
&
8
3
$
1
7
6
$
/
2
1
*
3
5
2
3
2
6
(
'
3
$
7
+
2
)
7
5
$
9
(
/
(/
(
&
1(
:
7
5
$
6
+
5(
&
<
&
/
,
1
*
1(
:
-
$
1
,
7
2
5
(4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
',
1
,
1
*
.,
7
&
+
(
1
%$
5
:$
6
+
(;35(66
'
3$
7
+
2
)
7
5$
9
(/
7+
5
8
3
52
3
26
(
'
1
(:'22 56
3$
7
+
2
)
7
5$
9
(/
7+
5
8
(
;,
6
7,
1
*
'
22
5
21 /<
2 )
2&
&
83
$
1
7
6 $
/
2 1 *(
;
,
6 7,
1
*3
$
7
+
2 )75$9(/
2 )
2&
&
83
$
1
7
6 $
/
2 1 *3
5
2 3 26
('
3
$
7
+
2 )75$9(/
',1
,
1
*
:$
6+
(;35(66
5 $9
(
/
7
2 &2
8
57
<
$
5
'
26
(
$
/
/
(
<
.(<
35
2
32
6
('
(;
,
67
,
1*
3
;;
1 80
%
(
5
2
1 80
%
(
5
2
1 (:
-
$
1
,
72
5
(4 8,
3
0
(
1
7
5 7<
$
5
'
.,7
&+(
1
%$5
2 9(
5
$
/
/
)
/
22
5
3
/
$
1
:
,
7
+
3
$
7
+
2 )
7552
(/(
&
1 (:
7
5
$
6
+
5(
&<&/,
1
*
&2
8 5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 22
83
83
)/
2
2
5
3
/
$
1
:
,
7
+
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
)/
2
2
5
3
/
$
1
:
,
7
+
3
5
2
3
2
6
(
'
1
(
:
'
2
2
5
6
(
6
7
$
,
5
(
6
7
$
,
5
(
)
3
(
)
3
(
9$
8
/
7
(
9$
8
/
7
&2
0
0
&2
0
0
(
;
:2
2
'
:
,
1
'
2
:
(
;
:2
2
'
:
,
1
'
2
:
(
;
67
(
(
/
'
2
2
5
75
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
1
;
:2
2
'
'
2
2
5
75
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
1
;
:2
2
'
'
2
2
5
75
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
1
;
:2
2
'
'
2
2
5
75
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
8 3
3/
$
1
:
,
7
+
3
5
2 3 26
('
1
(
:
'
22 5 6
(
6
7
$
,
5
6 7$
(
)3
(
9 $8 /7 &2
00
5
:,
1
'
2:
5
:,1
'
2 :
5
:,
1
'
2:
83
:,
7
+
(
;
,
6 7,
1
*:
,
1
'
2 :6
)/22
5
(
6
7
$
,
5
6
$
5
( )3
(
9 $8 /7
&2
00
1
;
:22
'
'
22
5
75
$
1
62
0
:
1
;
:22
'
'
22
75
$
1
62
0
:
1
;
:22
'
'
22
5
75
$
1
62
0
:
)/22
5
3
/
$
1
(
;
:22
'
:
,
1
'
2 :
(
;
:22
'
:
,
1
'
2 :
(
;
6 7(
(
/
'
22
5
75
$
1
62
0
:
,
1
'
2 :
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 23
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
(;
,
6
7
,
1
*
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
:
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
35
2
3
2
6
(
'
1
(
:
'
2
2
5
6
:
0
2
'
,
)
,
(
'
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
(
;
:
2
2
'
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
+
,
*
+
6
,
/
/
$
)
)
(
;
6
7
(
(
/
'
2
2
5
:
+
,
*
+
7
5
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
(
:
2
2
'
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
7
<
3
(
:
2
2
'
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
7
<
3
1
;
:
2
2
'
'
2
2
5
6
:
7
5
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
(
3
7
'
3
/
$
6
7
(
5
:
$
/
/
(
3
7
'
3
/
$
6
7
(
5
:
$
/
/
(
6
7
(
(
/
6+
8
7
7
(
5
6
7
<
3
1
;
:
2
2
'
'
2
2
5
:
+
,
*
+
7
5
$
1
6
2
0
:
,
1
'
2
:
( 67((/6+877(56725(0$,17<3 ( 67((/6+877(5672%((;7(1'('$7 1 '22567<32)6&$/(
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 24
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
9,
(
:
2
)
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
:
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
)
5
2
0
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
9,
(
:
2
)
3
5
2
3
2
6
(
'
1
(
:
'
2
2
5
6
:
0
2
'
,
)
,
(
'
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
)
5
2
0
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
2)
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 25
3$1((3202'252 0217(5(<675((76$1/8,62%,632&$'$7(
9,
(
:
2
)
(
;
,
6
7
,
1
*
:
,
1
'
2
:
6
:
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
)
5
2
0
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
9,
(
:
2
)
3
5
2
3
2
6
(
'
1
(
:
'
2
2
5
6
:
0
2
'
,
)
,
(
'
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
)
5
2
0
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
2)
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 26
5(
&
<
&
/
(
<
'
%
,
1
75
$
6
+
<
'
%
,
1
;
;
:$
/
.
,
1
&2
2
/
(
5
%
2
;
:$
6
7
(
*
%
,
1
,&
(
0$
&
+
,
1
(
75
$
6
+
(
4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
)
/
2
2
5
3
/
$
1
75
$
6
+
(
4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
5
2
2
)
3
/
$
1
12
5
7
+
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
)
5
2
0
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
62
8
7
+
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2
1
)
5
2
0
5
2
6
(
$
/
/
(
<
:$
/
/
3
$
5
$
3
(
7
6&
8
3
3
(
5
'2
:
1
6
3
2
8
7
6/
2
3
(
7
2
'
5
$
,
1
7<
3
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
52
6
(
$
/
/
(
<
1
6
7
(
(
/
*
$
7
(
7
<
3
1
0
(
7
$
/
'
2
2
5
(
(
;
,
7
'
2
2
5
9,
(
:
2
)
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
)
5
2
0
&
2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
1
3
$
,
1
7
(
'
0
(
7
$
/
'
2
2
5
0$
7
&
+
*
$
7
(
&
2
/
2
5
1
%
2
$
5
'
)
2
5
0
(
'
&
2
1
&
5
(
7
(
(1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
6
,
0
,
/
$
5
7
2
2
3
3
2
6
,
7
(
&2
8
5
7
<
$
5
'
:
$
/
/
(
6
7
(
(
/
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
75
$
6
+
-$
1
(4
8
,
3
&28
57
<$
5'
5 26
(
$
/
/
(
<
26
85
(
)
5
2 0
&2
85
7
<
$
5
'
1 3$
,
1
7(
'
0(
7
$
/
'
2
25
0 $7
&+
*$7
(
&2
/2 5
1 %2
$
5
'
)
2
50
(
'
&2
1
&5
(
7
(
(1 &/26
85
(
6 ,0
,
/
$
5
7
2 2 33
26
,7
(
&2
85
7<
$
5
'
:
$
//
;
;
:$
/
.
,1
&2
2
/
(
5
%
2
;
,&
(
0 $&+,
1
(
/$1
$1
12
57
+
(/
(9
$7
,2
1
)5
20
62
8
7+
(
/
(
9
$
7
,
2 1
)
5
2 0
:$
/
/
3
$
5
$
3
(
7
6&
83
3
(
5
'2
:1
6 3 2 8 7
6 /2 3(
7
2 '
5
$
,
1
7<
3
$//
(
<
1 6 7(
(
/
*$7
(
7
<
3
1 0
(
7
$
/
'
2
2
5
( (
;
,
7
'
2
2
5
9,
(
:
2 )
(
1
&/2
( 6
7
(
(
/
6
+
8
7
7
(
5
6
-$
1
(4
8,
3
5(
&
<
&
/(
<
'
%
,
1
75
$
6
+
<
'
%
,
1
:$
6
7
(
*
%,
1
7 5$
6
+
(
4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
)
/
2
2
5
3
7 5$
6
+
(
4
8
,
3
0
(
1
7
(
1
&
/
2
6
8
5
(
5
2
2
)
3
/$
&2
8
57
<
$
5
'
52
6
(
$
7 5$
6+
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
CHC1 - 27
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
January 25, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to
order on Monday, January 25, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located
at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee (arrived at 5:56
p.m.), James Papp, Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime
Hill
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Codron, Senior Planner Brian Leveille,
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni,
Contract Planner Shawna Scott, and Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES
By consensus, the committee approved the Minutes of November 23, 2015 as
amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no members of the public desiring to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Citywide. ARCH-2408-2015; Review of City wayfinding signs: Downtown
Orientation Map kiosks and a new City Hall Information Center and Wayfinding
Kiosk in the Downtown Historic District, City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works
Department, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 2
Associate Planner Cohen narrated a PowerPoint presentation and presented a brief
timeline of events, noting that the project was developed with the assistance of RRM
Design Group and Rademaker Design.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no members of the public desiring to speak.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Associate Planner Cohen presented the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosk mock up
samples, describing the dimensions: 7 feet tall and 5 feet 6 inches wide; added that the
information displayed on the kiosk will be double-sided and located in pedestrian
walkways in locations that will be identifiable from a distance; stated that the City Hall
mailboxes will be relocated and the City Hall Information Center and Wayfinding Kiosk
will replace the existing kiosk.
Associate Planner Cohen presented a map of the proposed locations of the kiosks,
highlighting that the Wayfinding Kiosk will be located in front of City Hall and incorporate
similar colors and design to the City Hall Building.
Chair Hill recognized Engineer III McGuire, Debbie Rudd of RRM Design Group, and
Pierre Rademaker of Rademaker Design to answer inquiries made by the Committee.
Committee Member Kincaid inquired about the lack of a kiosk in the quadrant near the
Firestone Grill area, noting that visitors enter the downtown in that general area.
In response to Committee Member Kincaid’s inquiries, Engineer III McGuire stated that
the primary locations have been determined near parking garages and secondary
locations have been cited for future consideration.
Chair Hill inquired about the use of the existing directory signs; questioned if feedback
has been provided from the public and asked why existing style and signage are not
replicated for consistency.
In response to Chair Hill’s inquiries, Mr. Rademaker explained that the new kiosks have
been developed to include maps, highlighting that the kiosks are strictly for pedestrian
use.
Community Development Director Codron stated that the presented kiosks are in a
different classification for signage in the downtown area.
Vice Chair Brajkovich inquired about the location of the kiosk site near City Hall.
In response to Vice Chair Brajkovich, Mr. Rademaker explained that the sign near City
Hall has been developed to help assist pedestrians in determining locations for City
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 3
facilities.
Mr. Rademaker and Ms. Rudd narrated a PowerPoint presentation, noting that this
project is in the second phase; emphasized that this phase is conceptual, pending
design development phase for maps, orientation, and content. Mr. Rademaker spoke on
the influence of the current concepts and characteristics of kiosks from Russel Square,
London and New York, New York, highlighting content presented in the different kiosks:
pedestrian crossings, historical landmarks, and other pedestrian map information. Ms.
Rudd explained that the maps may include additional information such as website links
to historical maps and visitor information.
Mr. Rademaker presented photos of the mock up kiosks in their anticipated locations
respectively and spoke on the anticipated design for the City wayfinding Kiosk, noting
that the style of the kiosk has been developed to reflect a similar style to the City Hall
building.
During the course of discussion, individual members of the committee concurred that
the following recommendations should be considered: change to color contrast, refine
locations of signs, and review the scale and height of the kiosks.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the ARC approve the project based on findings
and subject to conditions.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Chair Hill, to
forward a resolution recommending approval to the Architectural Review
Commission with the following revisions: (7:0)
1. Provide better color contrast between the background sign color and the map on
the Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks.
2. Refine the locations of signs considering potential for sign clutter with existing
signage and various sign types included in the Wayfinding Sign Program.
3. Include a context map along with the detailed map on the Downtown Orientation
Map Kiosks.
4. Review the scale/height of Downtown Orientation Map Kiosks for compatibility in
the Downtown.
5. Provide alternative illumination for the signs (internally illuminated cabinet signs
not allowed in downtown)
6. Review cohesiveness of the different style of signage in front of City Hall.
2. 1009 Monterey Street. HIST-2592-2016; Historic Significance Determination for a
Contributing List property at 1009 Monterey Street, C-D-H zone, Rossi/King
Organization, applicant. (Rachel Cohen).
Contract Planner Shawna Scott narrated a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the
contents of the staff report, highlighting that the building’s original style has undergone
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 4
several modifications and the current structure does not retain the original historic
character and is not historically significant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Applicant Rob Rossi provided a brief background of the building, presented a timeline of
events, and described the current building to be in poor condition, echoing his previous
comments at the meeting held on December 7, 2015.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
During the course of discussion the individual members of the Committee discussed the
lack of support for the building qualifying for the City’s list of historic resources. The
Committee encouraged the applicant to reflect the history of the building by
incorporating graphics or artwork in the new proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution removing 1009
Monterey Street from the City’s List of Contributing Historic Resources.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Papp, seconded by Committee
Member Baer, to adopt the resolution recommending the Council to remove the
property from the Contributing List of Historic Resources (7:0).
3. 2223 Monterey Street. ARCH-2363-2015; Review of a hotel project with 52 rooms
and a recreational vehicle park with 24 RV hookups on the Master List Historic
Motel Inn property; C-T-S & C-O-S zone; Motel Inn, L.P., applicant. (Marcus
Carloni).
Associate Planner Carloni narrated a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the
contents of the staff report, explaining the project in terms of its consistency with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Applicant Rob Rossi provided a brief background of the property, presented a timeline
of events, and described the project site. Mr. Rossi explained that the previously
approved restaurant building includes portions of the original Historic Motel Inn and
noted that it is on the city’s Master List of Historic Resources.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Chair Hill inquired about the property being subject to the Mills Act.
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 5
In response to Chair Hill’s inquiry, Senior Planner Leveille stated that the property is not
under a Mills Act contract.
Committee Member Papp inquired about potential noise impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood.
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiries, Applicant Rob Rossi explained that
the project site borders along the side of the U.S. 101 freeway, and that the site is at a
slightly lower grade than the freeway which reduces noise impact some. He added that
the new construction will likely block noise from the freeway and reduce noise in the
neighborhood and stated that the ambient noise of the highway is expected to be
greater than the anticipated ambient noise of the motel and RV park.
During the course of discussion the individual members of the Committee inquired
about the building’s significance and proposed construction in terms of its consistency
with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior
Standards for compatibility, deliberating about the layout of the 52 rooms and a
recreational vehicle park with 24 RV hookups.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the ARC approve the project based on findings
the project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and
the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee
Member Larrabee, to adopt the resolution recommending the Architectural Review
Commission approve the project (7:0).
4. 1516 Broad Street. ARCH-2225-2015; Review of a new 2-bedroom dwelling behind
the Master List Renetzky House in the Old Town Historic District; R-2-H zone;
Bagnall Gary W. Family, applicant (Walter Oetzell).
Senior Planner Leveille narrated a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the proposed
project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Peg Pinard, San Luis Obispo, stated that her property will be most affected by the
proposed project due the mass and scale; announced that during her role as a former
Council Member and Mayor, she worked to preserve the Old Town Historic District,
including the preservation of other historic properties; expressed concerns with the
project in terms of compatibility and presented an aerial photo of property, noting that
the proposed structure will have a negative impact of allowing sunlight and air flow to
her adjoining property.
Senior Planner Leveille presented a map to the Committee, highlighting the surrounding
properties of 1516 Broad Street.
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 6
Leo Pinard, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the orientation of homes in the surrounding
area; expressed concerns with the proposed project, stating that the proposed
secondary unit is near the property line.
In response to the Public Comments, Chair Hill clarified that the Committee’s role is to
provide recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the historic
preservation standards and guidelines.
There being no others desiring to speak, Chair Hill closed the public hearing.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Omni Design Representative Jonathan McAlpin provided a brief summary of the
proposed project and responded to the Committee’s inquiries, regarding the height of
the existing main residence and proposed unit; explained that the main house has
undergone a complete restoration.
Committee Member Papp announced his visit to a neighboring property and explained
similar concerns provided by Ms. Pinard were echoed by an adjacent neighbor;
expressed concerns with the mass and scale of the proposed unit that does not appear
consistent with the development pattern of the Old Town Historic District; inquired on
the CEQA status of the property. Senior Planner Brian Leveille responded that the
project qualified for a categorical exemption from CEQA as a small scale infill project.
Committee Member Kincaid thanked Ms. Pinard for her presentation and for expressing
her concerns to the Committee.
By consensus, the Committee expressed concern over the mass, scale, and access
configuration of the proposed dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to a date uncertain with directional items.
ACTION: On a motion by Committee Member Brajkovich, seconded by
Committee Member Kincaid, continue the item to a date uncertain with the
following directional items: (7:0)
Reduce the scale, massing, and height of the proposed structure to be more
consistent with the pattern of secondary structures on historic properties in the Old
Town Historic District (subordinate to primary). Address impacts to adjacent Master
List properties by revising lot positioning and access away from neighboring
properties internal to the property.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
1. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 7
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast of anticipated CHC agenda
items for the February 22, 2016 meeting.
2. Committee
The Committee discussed the desire to have an agenda item to discuss CEQA as
it relates to historic resources; discussed concerns over a new archaeology firm
working on the next phase of the Chinatown project and inquired on the status of
an update on recent archaeological work on the project.
Chair Hill provided an update on the Downtown Concept Plan, Mission Plaza
Update project, and Sign Regulations Update project.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
John Paul Maier
Assistant City Clerk
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC)
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE (CHC)
JOINT MEETING MINUTES
December 7, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present: ARC Members: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn.
CHC Members: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Shannon Larrabee,
James Papp, Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime
Hill.
Absent: ARC Commissioner Amy Nemcik and CHC Committee Member Craig
Kincaid.
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Interim Community Development Liaison
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary
Sarah Reinhart.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Maryann Stansfield, Atascadero, spoke on behalf of the Leadership SLO graduating
class. Stated that the class completed a “SLO Legacy Project” dealing with water
conservation and was looking forward to presenting the project in the spring of 2016.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 1009 Monterey Street. ARCH-2339-2015; Conceptual architectural review and
preliminary feedback for a new mixed-use project that includes a five-story, 60-foot
tall structure with approximately 5,400 square feet of retail space, 49,400 square
feet of office space, 10,600 square feet of residential space (21 units), 7,300 square
feet of common area, and 2,500 square feet of restaurant space; C-D-H zone; Rossi
King Organization, applicant.
Applicant Representative Rob Rossi provided an overview of the history of the building,
and reviewed the plans for the proposed project which include expanding retail, office,
and residential space; pointed out that the marquee of the Fremont Theater would
remain visible.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 2 of 10
Planning Consultant Shawna Scott, presented the staff report and reviewed the scope
of the project, including the design, architectural compatibility, and preservation of the
Fremont Theater, recommending to continue the project to a date uncertain, with
direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans submitted for
formal review, based on findings and subject to conditions outlined in the staff report.
Committee Member Papp inquired about the height of the project; the applicant clarified
that the County Building is 68 feet tall and the proposed building would be 60 feet tall.
In response to inquiry by Committee Member Papp regarding the legal implications of
removing the existing buildings, Senior Planner Leveille, explained that a full historic
evaluation would be done to ensure consistency with the historic preservation
guidelines.
Commissioner Andreen inquired about the visibility impacts to the marquee; Consultant
Scott noted not having exact renderings at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, suggested eliminating the glass enclosure feature,
increasing setbacks in order to protect views of the Fremont Theater, and
recommended a lighter brick color be used; voiced concern over the fate of the Ficus
trees on Monterey Street.
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noting it meets City
objectives; appreciated the inclusion of housing. Indicated he would like to see the
views of the Fremont Theater preserved; stated supporting the removal of the adjacent
buildings.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, expressed the importance of protecting the iconic view
of the Fremont Theater, it is a community building and should be protected; opined that
the height, size and level of design of the proposed project would overshadow the
Fremont Theater.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, stated that the County Government Center should
remain prominent, noting that the proposed building height of 60 feet is very close to the
height of the County building. Shared concerns over the architecture not being
compatible with the exterior of the historic building; recommended that the Fremont
Theater sign remain up against the sky.
Michael Boudreau, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project; stated that with
less land available it makes sense for buildings to become taller.
Chris Richardson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, stated the
importance of adding variations in the design to maintain the charm downtown; stated
that the office space is needed in the area to help accommodate the growing demands.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 3 of 10
Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project, not liking the design
and size of the building.
Elizabeth Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, noted
concerns over the façade of the Fremont Theater becoming undermined; shared
discontent with the direction the City has taken, not maintaining the charm and
walkability in the downtown area.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, asked for
commercial uses to be limited; noting concerns over the project potentially diminishing
the unique and special qualities of San Luis Obispo.
Susan Pyburn, San Luis Obispo, suggested that the scale of the historic building should
be maintained; stated concerns with the affordability of the proposed housing; inquired
as to the intended demographics for the housing component.
Joeseph Abrams, San Luis Obispo, stated that he hoped the applicant’s good design
and track record are reflected in the final outcome of the project.
Marilyn Forselles, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, opined that big
developers do not have the same values as the residents of San Luis Obispo.
There were no further comments made from the public.
CHC COMMENTS:
Committee Member Papp affirmed supporting the removal of the buildings; indicated the
proposed project has too many design elements that do not respect the art deco
aspects of the Fremont Theater. Stated that the new building does not need to
necessarily be art deco, but it should honor, not obstruct, the historic elements of the
Fremont Theater.
Committee Member Brajkovich expressed having mixed feelings over the proposed
height of the building; noted the importance of preserving the historical feel of the
Fremont Theater and using architecture that would complement it; voiced concerns over
parking issues; suggested the plaza idea be developed more, appreciated the
suggestion of using lighter colors and stepping the building back to help preserve the
presence of the Fremont Theater.
Chair Hill voiced concerns with the placement of the paseo, noting she would prefer the
building be shifted closer to the Sperry Building; suggested making the alley feature
interesting and opening up the current paseo; advised for the use of materials with long-
term durability; suggested eliminating glass in the residential balconies, and simplify the
design so it becomes a backdrop to the Fremont Theater; recommended adding bike
racks instead of parking.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 4 of 10
Committee Member Papp, inquired about parking requirements; Senior Planner Leveille
explained that City policies are in place to guide this type of development in the in-lieu
fee area of the Downtown Core area.
The Commission discussed the tradeoffs for increasing the height limit of the building
and allowing public access to the roof and the paseo; concluding that the public spaces
should add value to the community.
Following the discussion, Chair Hill summarized the comments of the Commission,
stating that the building should not overshadow existing buildings and should be
sensitive as it relates to the Fremont Theater and concerns with the current design of
the paseo; noted that with alterations and response to CHC comments, the 60-foot
height could be appropriate.
Committee Member Papp clarified that issues surrounding the level of density and
parking in downtown are not in the purview of the Cultural Heritage Commission.
There were no further comments made from the CHC Committee.
ARC COMMENTS
Chair Wynn, requested to see accurate renderings in order to best assess the size of
the building in relation to the downtown area.
Commissioner Andreen pointed out that the CHC comments were very helpful; noted
she would like the paseo to be of value to the Community; stated that the design of the
building needed to be refined; shared concerns over the lack of parking for the residents
of the building; spoke in support of preserving the views of the sky behind the marquee
of the Fremont Theater.
Commissioner Root voiced concerns regarding the paseo; stated that the articulation of
the building would need to be re-designed; point out the Bradbury building in Los
Angeles as a good example of the use of glass and steel, and noted the proposed
design could be improved; suggested adding an opaque treatment to the balcony.
Commissioner Curtis stated it would be beneficial to have a second conceptual review
hearing; noted no objection to the height but suggested modifying and reducing the
massing; recommended gradually stepping the massing back from Monterey Street and
articulating it as if it were two separate buildings for Monterey Street and Higuera Street;
stated that the paseo could be useful; noted that the glass looked too stark for the
design; stated not having an objection to the brick exterior but would like to see a lighter
feeling in the upper levels; indicated being concerned that lack of parking could attract
residents that would only use the housing units as a weekend homes or vacation
rentals.
Commissioner Soll thanked the public for their feedback, recommended re-designing
the building with a more cohesive look; noted concerns regarding the lack of parking
being proposed, but supported the idea of adding a paseo.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 5 of 10
Vice-Chair Edhaie suggested having another conceptual review; agreed with previous
comments regarding the design being too complicated; suggested adding bicycle racks;
stated that the paseo would add value to the people living and working in the area;
noted supporting the uses and indicated this project would be beneficial to the
community.
Commissioner Wynn explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide the
applicant with directions during the pre-conceptual phase of the project; affirmed
wanting the process to be transparent; stated he would support adding the paseo after
some refinement, suggesting it should be useful to the community; indicated not having
issues with the glass elevator or the brick; suggested that if there is original brick that it
gets re-used and preserved; concurred with Commissioner Curtis’ concerns that the
lack of parking could attract weekend residents or that the units might be turned into
airbnb’s; noted not having an issue with the restaurant being on the same level as the
housing; recommended the applicant provide renderings demonstrating site-lines and
projections on a 9-block radius.
Applicant, Rob Rossi of Rossi King Organization, affirmed that changes would be made
to the project; noted having considered changing the placement of the paseo but
decided against it because the current design allows for more light to come through;
noted that the paseo would be an enjoyable space that would include a food court and a
market place; explained having ideas for parking, including the use of shared cars and
also including a bicycle parking area; noted that a driveway is needed to service the
Fremont Theater .
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiry regarding shading requirements,
Consultant Shawna Scott stated that a shading analysis would be included.
The joint CHC/ARC portion of the hearing was concluded.
Pre-Conceptual Review only. No action was taken.
2. 1101 Monterey Street. ARCH 2323-2015; Conceptual architectural review and
preliminary feedback for a new 75-foot tall mixed-use project that includes an 80
room hotel, 26,000 square feet of residential units, 20,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant space, and 33,000 square feet of office space; C-R zone; Stone
Park Capital, applicant.
Applicant Representative, Andrew Firestone, provided an overview of the project which
seeks to connect the downtown to the uptown areas; noting that this project would best
utilize the property and help energize the area.
Applicant Representative, Pam Richie, Planner, reviewed the history of the project site
including zoning regulations and allowed uses; noted that the project is consistent with
downtown guidelines. Representative Richie shared the scope of the project which
includes a 75-foot hotel, a 75-foot structure intended for residential, office and
restaurant use, and indicated the intent for a Planned Development; where 45-feet is
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 6 of 10
the maximum height in the C-R- zone; affirmed that this project would serve many
needs in the community.
Applicant Representative, Scott Martin, reviewed the details of the project and
requested feedback on the main aspects of the development; stated that the project
would fit in well with the overall downtown area.
In response to Commissioner Andreen’s inquiry regarding the proposed Transit Center;
Representative Richie clarified that there is ongoing dialogue with the regional transit
authority and the location has been vetted but noted no commitment has been made.
Planner Rachel Cohen, presented the staff report, provided an overview of the project,
recommended the ARC continue the project to a date uncertain based on findings and
subject to conditions outlined.
Planner Cohen addressed Commissioners’ questions regarding shading requirements,
the possibility of adding a pedestrian bridge, and the size and position of the parking
garage; noted that adding a pedestrian bridge was discussed and could be a possibility
in the future; clarified that the parking garage would be 4-5 levels; indicated that
subterranean parking would not be possible due to drainage issues. These questions
did not seem crucial to the discussion.
Commissioner Curtis commented to do a re-zoning of the CBD with clear design
guidelines; Planner Cohen explained that it was staff’s opinion that a Planned
Development was the best process for the site, but indicated that it would be
reassessed by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, stated that it was his opinion that the SLO Chamber of
Commerce does not represent the interest of the people who live in San Luis Obispo,
and noted that residents do not want large tall buildings; stated that the project does not
adhere to the General plan; indicated supporting the mix uses but would like the
building height reduced to 45 feet.
Pam Orth, San Luis Obispo, Monterey Heights resident, spoke in opposition to the
project, noted concerns over shading and obstruction of the views to the mountains;
pointed out the large amount of vacant commercial spaces in downtown, many business
and restaurants that do not remain in operation for very long.
William Cochran, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, noted concerns
over the height of the proposed building; believed the City is at a crossroads in terms of
the direction it could take; urged the Commission not approve the project.
Mike Manchar, San Luis Obispo, stated he could not endorse the project; was
concerned with the vitality of the local community; and that there is a need for improved
infrastructure and workforce housing.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 7 of 10
Elizabeth Thyne, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project, did not want to be
overshadowed by tall buildings; stated this building does not fit in with the City; shared
concerns over the wind due to the height of the project; and that the location was good
for a bus depot.
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project; it would help make
downtown more robust, and is compatible with the downtown area.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, designer with over 60 years of experience, stated
concerns with losing views of the Hills; believes Santa Rosa Street is a barrier and
people won’t go to the other side; suggested an environmental study should be
conducted to ensure The project site is not toxic and/or hazardous.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the project, noted concerns with the
height.
Genevieve Czech, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over the project becoming
housing for Cal Poly students and not workforce housing; shared concerns over the size
and scale of the proposed building and suggested learning from Florence Italy, a city
that never constructed a building taller than the cathedral.
Pete Rodgers, San Luis Obispo, suggested transit center in the plans for this location.
Dr. Steve Hanson, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over draught and climate issues;
asked for a building moratorium until water issues are resolved; warned against over
building.
Todd Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, stated the project
enhances the downtown and maximizes the space; commented that infill development
is critical and parking is needed; indicated that young professionals in the area need
places to live.
Kyle Wiens, San Luis Obispo, owner of iFixit, spoke in support of the project, stated that
a transit center is needed, and noted that employees of iFixit would like to be able to live
and work in downtown.
Bob Lucas, San Luis Obispo, commended the City for having an open process; voiced
concerns over this qualifying as a plan development given the low amount of square
footage being dedicated for housing; stated that if details are overlooked the height,
massing, and scale of this project would be too big and not the right project for the
community.
Chris Richardson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, noted that the
height makes sense for the area; stated that this could make it possible for Cal Poly
grads to stay, work and live in the area post-graduation; pointed out that despite
different perspectives everyone loves this community and wants to see it succeed.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 8 of 10
Sheryl Flores, San Luis Obispo, stressed the need for workforce and affordable housing
and voiced support for the project.
Charlene Rosales, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber
does not take positions, but noted that they advocate for thoughtful planning, sustaining
economic vitality, supporting appropriate infill, adding pedestrian amenities, protecting
corridors and redevelopment areas and mixed used housing; stated that many elements
of this project align with the Chamber’s policy position; clarified that she was not
advocating for the height increase.
Diane Duenow, San Luis Obispo, stated that SLO Chamber of Commerce did not
represent her interests either; ; spoke in opposition to the project, concerned about the
impact the proposed project would have on the views of the hills and the small town
charm of the City.
Wendy Lucas, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project; noted it would have
negative impacts in the City; urged not to allow height limits to change.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project; stated concerns over the
height, and lack of water resources; commented that Santa Rosa Street is one of the
loudest streets, and noted there would not be a substantial public benefit by allowing
this project to move forward; referred to the project as the Monterey Monster, and urged
for it to be scaled down.
Andrew Follick, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project and would meet a lot of
community needs.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Motion by Committee Member Andreen, seconded by Committee Member Ehdaie,
carried 6:0 to extend the meeting past 9:00 p.m.
AYES: Committee Members Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Root, Soll, and Wynn.
NOES: None.
RECUSED: None.
ABSENT: Committee Member Nemcik.
COMMISSIONER / COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS:
Commissioner Curtis, stated he could not support a seven floor building; suggested
changing the mix of uses and reducing the amount of retail space and housing; felt this
location would not be ideal for housing due to the large amounts of traffic and noise
level, noting this would be especially true if it becomes a transit center; shared concerns
over lack of demand for retail space noting that Santa Rosa is a substantial barrier for
people; suggested adding facilities for pedestrians to the parking garage in order to
make it more visually appealing; recommended fine tuning the massing and location.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 9 of 10
Commissioner Andreen, stated that if the project yields good services and amenities
people would be willing to cross Santa Rosa St. and patron there; voiced concerns over
the height of the project; noted she would like to see nice pedestrian amenities in the
ground level of the parking structure, as proposed by Commissioner Curtis; suggested
scaling back on other uses but maintaining the housing element; stated that this project
would add a key component to downtown and felt it could help that section of downtown
blossom.
Commissioner Root, commented that the project seemed exciting and ambitious; stated
that the issues that were brought forth had to be scrutinized; recommended the housing
units be oriented away from the street in order to increase livability; stated that the plaza
had to be re-thought to take into consideration wind, and noise issues; stated having
mixed feelings about the height of the project; recommended a massing study; pointed
out that the demographics in San Luis Obispo are changing and noted that some people
want to work and live in downtown; stated that after some adjustments this could be a
good project.
Commissioner Soll, voiced concerns over the height of the building being too tall;
endorsed the idea of adding retail space to the floor level of the parking garage;
concurred with comments made by Commissioner Curtis regarding the location being
too loud; suggested changing the location of the plaza to help shield the noise from
Santa Rosa Street; advised against building to accommodate tourists and not for the
people living in that neighborhood; suggested incorporating a market; pointed out that
this project would be precedent setting.
Vice-Chair Edhaie, commended the applicant for proposing a high density project; did
not have an issue with the height as long as it accommodates workforce and affordable
housing; the scale and massing to be a good fit; but voiced concerns over the parking
structure being too bulky; recommended re-orienting the location of the plaza to the
inner sides of the parcel; but wanting to see the project move forward.
Commissioner Curtis recommended that the parking structure be concurrent with the
development itself.
Commissioner Wynn, stated that a 75-foot building should not be on the corner;
recommended starting at 3 feet and scaling back towards the middle of the parcel in
order to help the building appear smaller and to limit shadows; concurred with the
recommendations to add programming to the side of the parking structure; believes the
paseo should be on the Santa Rosa Street due to the sun; suggested the applicant look
at how other plazas have mitigated the noise by using waterfalls or other materials;
recommended including a grocery or other access to food; stated changing the zone
would be the best option; recommended closing a portion of Higuera Street to be used
only by public transportation and emergency vehicles if there is a transit center at this
location; stated not being in favor of midway crossings; suggested the height of the
project be comparable to the County Building, around 60 feet voiced support for the
design of the project.
Commissioner Root stated that the barrier between Santa Rosa Street and the
downtown area could be softened with an enhanced pedestrian crossing.
Draft ARC and CHC Joint Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2015
Page 10 of 10
There were no further comments made from the Committee.
Applicant Representative Andrew Firestone expressed appreciation for the feedback
and input.
No action was taken.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
Interim Community Development Liaison Carloni provided an agenda forecast, noted
that the meetings on December 21, 2015 and January 4, 2016 had been canceled; the
next meeting was scheduled for January 11, 2016
a. Agenda Forecast
January 11, 2016 – Review of a mix project on 2450 Victoria.
February 1, 2016 – Tentative
February 8, 2016 – Review of Motel Inn project.
4. Committee
Commissioner Andreen noted regretting approving the portal at the Toyota dealership.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sarah Reinhart
Recording Secretary
SAN LUIS OBISPO
JOINT MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
& CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
July 13, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Architectural Review Commission:
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent: Commissioner Angela Soll
Cultural Heritage Committee:
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, James Papp, Chair
Jaime Hill
Absent: Vice-Chair Brajkovich
Staff: Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate
Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Public meeting to review the conceptual architectural design of a new mixed-use
project that includes three, four-story structures with approximately 21,322 square
feet of retail space and 48 residential units located at 570, 578, 590 Marsh Street
and 581 Higuera Street (ARCH-0609-2014). This is a public meeting to conduct
design review and provide direction to the applicant. No action on the project will
be taken at this meeting. This item will be scheduled for review at a future public
hearing.
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 2
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending
continuation of the project to a date uncertain before the Architectural Review
Commission, with direction to staff and the applicant on items to be addressed in plans
submitted for formal review.
In response to inquiry from Committee Member Papp, Associate Planner Cohen
clarified that the plans show the removal of the existing walnut tree at the corner of the
Jack House property and that further review and a determination by the City Arborist
regarding the health of the tree and possibility of removal would be required.
In response to inquiry from Committee Member Baer and Commissioner Curtis, Senior
Planner Dunsmore clarified that the project had been brought for review prior to
completion of a traffic study in order to vet other key issues, and that in-lieu fees are an
option under the Municipal Code since the project site is located in the Downtown
Parking District area, should an underground parking facility prove infeasible.
In response to inquiry from Committee Member Papp, Associate Planner Cohen
confirmed that the applicant did not reduce the height of the proposed building by one
story as directed by the Architectural Review Commission at a previous meeting.
Ryan Petetit, applicant representative, summarized the history of the project and its
constraints; described the vision for the site as a downtown neighborhood providing
needed housing and vitality for the area.
Erik Justesen, applicant representative, commented on the relative rarity of the
availability of enough land in the downtown area to build a project of this size; noted the
opportunity to build a project that honors the historical and contemporary contexts of the
area.
John Belsher, owner and applicant, summarized project history and public outreach;
noted the City Council’s goal of creating more housing units downtown; commented on
the economic factors that drive project design elements such as building height and
pedestrian amenities. Mr. Belsher read into the record comment from neighbor Nancy
Grant in support of the project.
In response to inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Belsher clarified that engineering and
flood protection planning for the proposed parking structure was under development,
and that the walnut tree, if the City Arborist determines that it needs to be removed,
would be replaced and mitigated with additional plantings as required.
Randy Alonzo, applicant representative, made a presentation; summarized public and
advisory body feedback incorporated into the project to date; commented on the ways in
which the project aligns with the City’s Downtown Conceptual Plan and Community
Design Guidelines.
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jennifer Isbell, SLO, spoke in support of the project as an affordable option for people
wishing to live downtown.
Penny Rappa, SLO, commented on the need for balance among uses downtown; noted
concern about the apparent informality of the Downtown Conceptual Plan and whether
the proposed project is the appropriate type of infill project for the location.
Bob Spector, neighboring property owner, thanked the project applicants for their
outreach efforts; spoke in support of the project in general; noted concern about the
proposed building height and insufficiency of economic rationale for the height.
James Lopes, Save our Downtown, SLO, commented that the historically-styled
buildings should be adjacent on Marsh Street adjacent to the Jack House rather than on
Higuera; noted concern that the proposed project materials do not honor the historical
character of the Jack House.
Pierre Rademaker, SLO, noted the project’s ability to implement aspects of the
Downtown Concept Plan with midblock crossings and pedestrian amenities; noted that
early downtown neighborhoods were components of mixed uses; stated that the
combining of parcels and removal of curb cuts will create more on-street parking.
Mike Manchak, Economic Vitality Corporation President, commented on the importance
of thriving businesses and workforce housing for the health of the community.
Adam Hill, SLO, noted on State and County policies for the creation of a variety of
housing in urban centers; commented on the importance of providing workforce housing
for employees of technology-oriented companies.
Kathi Settle, Jack House Committee Member, SLO, noted concern about elements of
the proposed project including its contemporary styling, minimal setbacks, landscape
impacts, building height; opined that the project does not conform to Community Design
Guidelines protecting views.
Victoria Wood, SLO, nearby property owner, noted concern about the overall size of the
project and potential negative impacts upon historical resources; spoke in support of the
construction of underground parking to serve the project.
Jeff Eckles, Homebuilders’ Association of the Central Coast, spoke in support of the
project; commented on the importance of the creation of a progressive and vibrant
downtown.
Lisen Bonnier, San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Liaison Advisory Board,
commented on the negative impacts of urban sprawl; spoke in support of the project as
an infill opportunity providing affordable housing.
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 4
Tyler Ikeda, SLO, spoke in support of the project; commented on the importance of
creating businesses that remain in the city.
Emily Sullivan, SLO, spoke in support of the project; commented on the importance of
creating a space for entrepreneurial enterprises and creating housing for business
owners.
Lauren Ferrara, SLO, commented on the progressive nature of San Luis Obispo; spoke
in support of the project.
Russell Sheppel, SLO, spoke in support of the project and its contemporary styling;
commented on the difficulty of finding housing in San Luis Obispo for people of all ages.
William Vega, SLO, spoke in support of the project; commented on the value of
attracting and retaining a variety of residents and businesses.
Brianna Ruland, SLO, spoke in support of creating density and new businesses
downtown; commented that adequate consideration appeared to have been given to the
Jack House.
Farid Shahid, SLO, spoke in support of the project based on its pedestrian and bicycle
amenities and provision of affordable housing.
Jim Duffy, project applicant, SLO, commented on the desirability of being able to locate
a business downtown; noted that the development of density in downtown areas is a
key planning principle for the protection of open spaces outside downtown areas.
Chuck Larson, SLO, spoke in support of the proposed four-story design; noted the
importance of preserving the affordability of the project by creating density.
There were no further comments from the public.
The Commission and Committee recessed at 7:54 p.m. and reconvened at 8:04 p.m.
with all members present.
COMMISSION & COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Cultural Heritage Committee:
Committee Member Papp noted for the record his professional connections with
applicant representative John Belsher, as well as with proponents of the Jack House;
clarified that no financial conflicts exist.
Mr. Papp noted concern about the impacts of project height upon the neighboring Jack
House property and other historical resources; stated that views from the gardens are
explicitly protected by the Community Design Guidelines; noted concern about
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 5
architectural compatibility, visual height transition and the avoidance of monolithic
building faces as required by Community Design Guidelines, and the need for sufficient
environmental review.
Committee Member Baer concurred with Committee Member Papp, noting concern
about protection of the Jack House and garden, while recognizing that infill development
should be encouraged.
Committee Member Kincaid commented that the proximity of 570 Marsh Street to the
Jack House in particular was a concern, rather than the project as a whole; suggested
that 570 Marsh be designed in a more historically-sensitive style, and that the
forthcoming shade study include year-round conditions; requested that the Margaret
Kaetzel monument in the Jack House gardens receive special protection.
Chair Hill commented on the need for a view study from the vantage point of the Jack
House gardens and enclosure of upper-story decks for improved acoustics and
aesthetics; noted that proposed project setbacks are generous given the downtown
location; spoke in support of the proposed pedestrian access and amenities; suggested
that the architectural design be made simpler on the Marsh Street building, with an
emphasis on high-quality materials.
On Motion by Committee Member Papp to provide direction to the applicant that the
Jack House gardens shall be protected from shade created by the project as required
by Community Design Guideline 4.3.B.2; that surrounding sidewalks be protected from
shade created by the project as required by Community Design Guideline 4.2.B.3, that
the project height be consistent with surroundings; that the project incorporate historical
character from it surroundings; that staff conduct review for CEQA compliance in
accordance with Public Resource Code provisions relating to historical resources; that
the project be heard by the Cultural Heritage Committee again prior to it being
forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission for approval. Motion failed for lack of
a second.
On motion by Chair Hill, seconded by Committee Member Baer, to provide the following
direction to staff and the applicants:
1. Submit all materials required as part of a complete application and comply with
all standard application submittal items (solar shading, dimensions, callouts,
project phasing etc.) and development standards and regulations applying to
the project.
2. Evaluate potential impacts to cultural resources, including the potential effects
to the historical significance of the Master List Jack House property.
3. Provide a solar/shading study for the overall project and specifically focusing on
the adjacent Jack House Gardens area during at different day times and all
seasons. The Jack House gardens and outdoor areas used for events shall not
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 6
be affected by building shadows during any times the garden areas may be in
use.
4. Provide a study/analysis of any potential impacts from the project and related
construction focused on the redwood trees along the Jack House property and
include evaluation of the California Black Oak (age, condition, preservation
recommendations) and protection measures if applicable.
5. Show on plans the preservation of the Kaetzel monument located within the
Jack House Gardens.
6. Include high quality, long lasting material as part of the project and replace the
wood finish at 570 Higuera to incorporate monumental materials called for in
the Community Design Guidelines for the downtown such as masonry, stone or
smooth plaster exterior finishes.
7. Provide a balcony/deck design which provides residential privacy and which
screens from public view personal belongings which may be stored in these
areas.
8. Evaluate internal site bicycle circulation as well as potential bicycle circulation
in relation to the surrounding roads and access (e.g. most cyclists will access
the site from Higuera or Nipomo Streets).
9. Provide clear setback measurements at all floor levels including dimensions to
awnings or other architectural features.
AYES: Committee Members Baer, Hill, and Kincaid
NOES: Committee Member Papp
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Brajkovich
The motion passed on a 3:1 vote.
There were no further comments from the Committee.
On motion by Chair Wynn, seconded by Commr. Andreen, to continue the meeting past
9:00 p.m. The motion passed on a 10:0 vote.
Architectural Review Commission:
Commr. Root spoke in support of the proposed signage and outdoor seating, and
conducting a shade study; noted concern about the durability of wood siding for large
surface areas and acoustic impacts upon bedrooms facing Nipomo Street; suggested
enhanced color variety and additional articulation creating more shadow lines, the use
of smaller, more vertically-oriented windows, and the reduction of height where possible
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 7
without hindering building function; commented on the importance of encouraging
projects such as this while respecting historical resources.
Commr. Andreen spoke in support of utilizing architectural restraint in order to allow four
stories with reduced visual impact; noted concern about the lack of solar access from
the narrow interior paseo and the impact of the project upon the Jack House gardens;
suggested that the window program be generally simplified and emulate the designs
proposed for 570 Marsh Street.
Commr. Curtis spoke in support of the pedestrian paseo and plaza and the use of brick;
noted concern regarding the use of wood siding downtown and the overall height of the
project; commented that the height effects could be reduced via increased setbacks;
suggested that ground-floor building notches be added to widen and increase solar
access from the paseo and plaza, and that stone be utilized rather than wood;
requested that the project be returned to the CHC prior to being heard by the ARC. Mr.
Curtis spoke in support of utilizing vertically-oriented window designs with greater
transparency at ground level; commented that underground parking may not be
desirable in that it will increase the building’s rental cost; also expressed concern
regarding the narrowness.
Commr. Nemcik spoke in support of mixed uses and high-density, affordable housing;
noted concern about the height of the Higuera Street building; commented that four
stories should be achievable within 50 feet of building height.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie spoke in support of the creation of workforce housing and the
addition of more residential units and improved bicycle amenities; noted concern
regarding overall project height; suggested the addition of landscaping and increased
setbacks to ease the transition between the Jack House property and 570 Marsh Street.
Chair Wynn spoke in support of the evaluation of a shade study including
measurements during the Jack House’s busy season, a view study from the Jack House
gardens, the creation of deed-restricted or otherwise enforced onsite parking, and the
use of long-lasting materials suitable for large buildings; noted concern about extended
horizontal articulation and the narrowness of the paseo; suggested that 570 Marsh
Street be contemporarily styled and reduced to three stories, that the windows of 581
Higuera Street be designed to complement the downtown historic district; noted that a
massing model even as far as nine blocks would be useful for evaluation; inquired as to
whether the roof decks would be a public amenity around the restaurant pad.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Draft ARC-CHC Joint Minutes
July 13, 2015
Page 8
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary