HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-2016 CHC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
Monday, March 28, 2016
5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
ROLL CALL: Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert,
Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
STAFF: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of February 22, 2016.
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. 71 Palomar Place. ARCH-2193-2015; Review of proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse,
and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 41 -unit
San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of March 28, 2016 Page 2
multi-family residential project, and review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact; R-4 Zone; LR Development Group, applicant. (Rachel Cohen).
2. 1516 Broad Street. ARCH-2225-2015; Review of a proposed new two -bedroom dwelling
behind the Renetzky House, a Master List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic
District; Exempt from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing
Facilities); R-2-H Zone; Gary Bagnall, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
3. 1127 George Street. ARCH-2085-2015; Review of proposed addition of three dormers to
the roof of a single-family residence that is a Contributing List Historic Resource; Exempt
from environmental review per CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities); R-2 Zone;
Alan Marten, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. Memo – Update on amendments to Railroad Historic District boardwalk design standard
2. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Date: March 28, 2016
Item Number: 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 41-unit multi-family residential project.
ADDRESS: 71 Palomar Avenue BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2193-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) find the proposed project to be
consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Applicant LR Development Group
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Historic Status Master List
Submittal Date 10/16/2015
Complete Date 12/21/2015
Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential)
General Plan High Density Residential
Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres)
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Pending
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing an adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic
Sandford house as part of a 41-unit multi-family residential project. The project proposal also
includes a repositioning of the Historic Sandford House approximately 40 feet southeast of its
current position and the construction of 41 residential units within four buildings (Attachment 3,
Project plans). The project requires review by the Cultural Heritage Committee pursuant to
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 1 and Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation
of a historic resource and to determine the compatibility of new development around a Master
1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.1.2: The Director shall refer a development project
application for a property located within a historic district or on a property with a listed Historic Resource to the
CHC for review.
CHC1 - 1
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 2
List Historic Property.2 The potential environmental effects of the new project and the proposed
repositioning and rehabilitation on the Historic Sandford House are evaluated in the Cultural
Resources section of the (Attachment 6, Mitigated Negative Declaration) prepared for the
project. Following the CHC review and recommendation, the Architectural Review Commission
will evaluate the project for final design review approval and will consider adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review.
3.0 CHC Purview
The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new project in terms of its consistency with the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards and to
review the Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
4.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located at the corner
of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive just
south of Foothill Boulevard and west of
Broad Street within the R-4 (High Density
Residential) zone (see Attachment 1,
Vicinity Map). The project site is 57,500
square feet (1.32 acres) and contains three
buildings: a main residence, a secondary
residential building, and a remodeled garage
with adjacent carport. The majority of the
site is undeveloped with expansive lawns
and mature trees present throughout the site.
The site is accessed by two driveways along
Luneta Drive and a pedestrian access from
Palomar Avenue (Attachment 3, Project
Plans, Site plan, Sheet A1.0).
In 1983, the Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the
basis of architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of
American architecture (Attachment 4, Historic Resources Inventory). The report notes the
“Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect Colonial Revival
style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway and
neoclassical portico.” The Historic Evaluation Report has identified the period of significance for
the structure as circa 1895-1930.
2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.1.1: Construction in historic districts and on properties that
contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals and policies of the General Plan, the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines, any applicable specific plan or area
plan, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Figure 1: View of the Sandford House from Palomar
Avenue
CHC1 - 2
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 3
The Historic Sandford House was likely
constructed in 1895 (no records have
been found with the exact date of
construction). Reginald Wills-Sandford,
(for whom the house is named), and his
wife Mary Woods Sperry owned the
property from 1895 to 1899.
In 1930 the solarium was added and
integrated into the south side of the
Historic Sandford House (see Figure 2).
Today it can be seen from both Luneta
Drive and Palomar Avenue.
Architectural elements of the solarium
include: evenly spaced pilasters and
side-by-side windows along the first floor of each bay, a centrally set door opening on the south
elevation, wood-frame ribbon windows on the second-floor bays and recessed horizontal and
vertical panels. The addition of the solarium in 1930 is considered to be historically significant as
it contributes to the architectural style and character of the house (Attachment 5, Historic
Evaluation Report, Section 6.2.1).
In the 1950s other additions and accessory structures were added to the property. These non-
historic alterations included: two single-story stucco clad additions to the rear (north side) of the
main structure, a 2-story addition, a detached garage, and a secondary residential building. In
1970 the garage was converted into sleeping quarters and a carport was added (Attachment 5,
Historic Evaluation Report, Sections 5.2 and 6.2.1).
4.2 Project Description
The project proposes a
rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and
repositioning of the Master List
Sandford house as part of a 41-unit
multi-family residential project. The
project includes:
• Removal of the non-historic
additions to the main
structure;
• Removal of the non-historic
garage, carport and the
secondary residential
building;
• Repositioning the house approximately 40 feet southeast of its current location ;
• Rehabilitation of the historic structure and and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s
leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
Figure 3: Birds-eye rendering of the proposed project
Figure 2: West (rear) view of the Sandford House with the
solarium addition to the right
CHC1 - 3
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 4
• Removal of all the existing trees on the site (mostly eucalyptus ranging in size from 51
inches to 10 inches) with the exception of 2 trees, and replanting the site with 21 trees;
• Construction of four apartment buildings (two 2-story structures; one 3-story structure;
and a 4- story structure built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 33 feet) with a
total of 41 residential units (six studios, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom
apartments);
• 90 parking spaces and 86 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the
north apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
• Road improvements to Luneta Drive that includes opening up a currently closed road to
allow two-way traffic and adding raised medians.
The applicant is proposing a residential architectural design that includes materials and
architectural featuressuch as: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, wood
patio and balcony railing, metal window awnings and entry porticos on the two, 2-story
buildings.
Figure 4: East elevation view of the project; Sandford house is located to the left
Figure 5: South elevation view of the project; Sandford house is located to the right
5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
The CHC’s purview is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for Building
Rehabilitation and review of the Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study and to provide
recommendations to Architectural Review Commission.
CHC1 - 4
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 5
5.1 Historic Preservation Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources
and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts. The Guidelines state that
construction in historic districts and on properties that contain listed historic resources shall
conform with the goals and policies of the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines, any applicable specific or area plan, and
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and that Listed
Historic Resources located outside of historic districts shall be subject to the same protection and
regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts.3
As outlined in the Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 5, Section 7.6), Applied Earthworks
finds the proposed project consistent with Section 3.4 City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines,
which describes the parameters of projects that propose changes to Historic Resources. Staff has
provided a summary of the analysis below.
3.4.2 Percent of Historic Resource to Be Preserved
The Guidelines state that alterations to historically listed building shall retain 75% of the
original building framework, roof and exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse
original material as feasible.
Staff Analysis: The proposed project includes the demolition of non-historic additions that were
constructed after the period of significance. The proposed project will retain, rehabilitate, and
reuse the main historic residence by repairing and maintaining the original framework, roof, and
exterior bearing walls and cladding. The project does not propose to structurally alter the historic
house except to remove the non-historic additions, thus retaining 75% of the original building
framework.4
3.4.3 Retention of Character-Defining Features
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that: ”Alterations of historically-listed
buildings shall retain character-defining features.”
Staff Analysis: As discussed in section 7.6.2 of the Applied Earthworks evaluation (Attachment
5), the proposed project will retain, repair or replace with appropriate in-kind replacements,
character-defining features associated with the architectural character, form, scale, and
appearance of the Sandford House such as:
• Two-story massing with a rectangular footprint;
• Pediment side-gable roof;
• Wide boxed eaves and wide cornice;
• Smooth stucco cladding;
3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.1.1 Conformance with design standards and Section 3.2.1
Historic Resources outside Historic Districts. 4 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.4.2 Percent of historic resource to be preserved.
“…Alterations do not include ordinary repair or maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources.”
CHC1 - 5
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 6
• Symmetrically arranged fenestration on the street-facing east façade, including the wood-
framed multi-light sash windows on the second floor;
• Distinctive front portico with Tuscan columns and dentils;
• Centered wood-paneled front door with surrounding fanlight, sidelights, and pilasters;
• Two-story solarium with pediment end, pilasters, recessed panels between first and
second stories, and three-bay arrangement; and
• Projecting flat-roofed north side entrance with grouped multi-light wood casement
windows, a centered 10-light wood door, and 10-light French doors on its east side.
3.4.4 Exterior Building Changes
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state in part: “Exterior changes should not
introduce new or conflicting architectural elements….”
Staff Analysis: The proposed project does not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements
to the exterior of the Sandford House. The project proposes to rehabilitate the historical building
following Secretary of Interior Standards (see below) by removing elements of the existing
structure that are not historically significant or contribute to the character defining features such
as the twin chimneys at the rear (west) elevation, the non-historic additions and accessory
structures. Character-defining features of the building (as identified in the previous paragraph)
will be repaired or replaced with materials similar in size, shape, quality, and appearance (in
kind) on the exterior.
3.4.6 Acquired Historic Appearance
As noted in Section 2.1 above, the solarium was added to the Historic Sandford House during the
period of significance and is proposed to be retained and rehabilitated per SOI standards. Outside
of this addition, the historical research presented in the Historic Evaluation Report, does not
identify any other changes to the building that have acquired historic significance in their own
right.
5.2 Secretary of Interior Standards
The Applied Earthworks Historic Evaluation found that the most appropriate treatment of the
proposed project is best characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards of Treatment
since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the property and proposes
retention and repair of key elements of the building’s historic exterior (Attachment 5, Historic
Evaluation Report, section 7.3). Below is an analysis of some of the key SOI standards that relate
to this project. The Applied Earthworks Evaluation includes a complete analysis of all ten
Rehabilitation Standards (Attachment 5, Section 7.7).
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #2: The historic character of a property will be retained and
preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial
relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
Staff Analysis: The original setting of the site has experienced significant change since
construction of the house in 1895 with the development of Palomar Avenue, Luneta Drive and
the adjacent homes and apartments. The Historic Evaluation Report states “given the broad
CHC1 - 6
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 7
change in its environment and context, historic character of the subject property is expressed
today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel.” The report discusses that the
proposed repositioning of the house on the site will preserve the prominence of the structure on
the site and its historic orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of San Luis
Obispo.
SOI Rehabilitation Standards #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the
new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Staff Analysis: The Historic Evaluation Report notes that the “overall visual character of the
residence, which includes building shape, the principal and secondary entries to the building,
roof and related features, prominent portico projection, two-story solarium, and historic-age
materials such as stucco cladding will remain intact.” The stucco cladding of the Sandford House
will be repaired and painted an appropriate color and reroofed with appropriate composition
shingle material. Prominent architectural elements, such as the distinctive portico with its Tuscan
columns, entablature, original multi-light wood-framed sash windows, and wood paneled front
door with fanlights and sidelights will be maintained. The deteriorated two-story solarium
addition will be repaired and its windows and door replaced. The Applied Earthworks study
recommends that historically appropriate replacements of the same scale and style as the
originals be fitted into the existing openings. Staff has included a recommended conditions of
approval (Attachment 2, Resolution) included in the Applied Earthworks Evaluation to ensure
full compliance with these standards.
SOI Rehabiliation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations or related new
construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work will 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 new apartment buildings on the site are designed to assume a secondary
position to the Master List Structure. The buildings are clearly differentiated from the Master
List Sandford House through their low-profile hipped roofs, subdued neutral colors, and lower
heights. The new apartment buildings share complementary architectural features, such as the
rhythm of their facades and use of stucco finishes and multi-light windows. Per the
recommendation of the historic evaluation, the applicant has included front porticos to Buildings
C and D (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A2.5) “to enhance the relationship between the
historic residence and the new construction” (Attachment 5, Historic Evaluation Report, Section
7.7 #9).
Overall the report found that with incorporation of the outlined recommendations, the proposed
project is consistent with all ten SOI standards for rehabilitation. All recommendations of the
CHC1 - 7
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 8
Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 5, Section 8) are included as conditions of approval
(Attachment 2, Draft Resolution).
5.3 Archaeological Resources
Applied Earthworks conducted an Archeological Resource Inventory (ARI) (Attachment 4,
Historic Evaluation Report, Section 7.7 (#8)), but did not find any evidence of archaeological
materials on the surface. However, historic-period use of the property increases the potential to
encounter buried historic deposits and the new building construction may impact potentially
significant archaeological resources. Therefore, a mitigation measure is included in the Initial
Study and incorporated as a recommended condition of approval 1(a) (Attachment 2, Draft
Resolution) which requires the submittal of a monitoring plan by a qualified subsurface
archaeologist in conformance with the requirements of the City’s Archaeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines. In the event excavation activities encounter historic artifacts,
the construction will stop until a qualified archaeologist has reviewed the materials, assessed
significance, and determined the appropriate course of action in accordance with the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.5
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has prepared a draft Initial Study that will be reviewed by the ARC for final action
(Attachment 5, Draft Initial Study). Pertinent evaluation within the Initial Study for CHC
consideration can be found in the Cultural Resources section (Section 5). The Initial Study
cultural resources evaluation found that with incorporation of mitigation measures (also
incorporated in recommended conditions of approval) the project would have a less than
significant impact on cultural resources since it would be consistent with the Secretary of Interior
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 6 (Attachment 5, Draft Initial Study). The
Initial Study evaluation found less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with
incorporation of monitoring requirements as mitigation measures which will be incorporated into
project conditions of approval.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the Architectural Review Commission that the project is consistent with the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for
Building Rehabilitation and with incorporation of mitigation measures, the project would have a
less than significant impact on cultural resources.
5 City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60 6 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3): Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and
Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less
than a significant impact on the historical resource.
CHC1 - 8
CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue)
Page 9
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards.
2.Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Vicinity Map
2.Draft Resolution
3.Project Plans
4. Historic Resource Inventory
5.Historic Evaluation Report by Applied Earthworks (without Appendix E: Project Plans)
6.Draft Initial Study (Attachments 3 & 4 attached to the staff report)
CHC1 - 9
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
R-1
R-1
R-4
C-C
R-1 R-4-PD
R-4-PD
R-1-PD
R-1
R-4
R-4
R-1
R-1
R-4
R-2
R-4-PD
R-1
R-1
C/OS-20
C-C-SFR-1
RAMONA
FOOTHILL
SERRANO
LUNETA
VE
R
D
E
PA
L
O
M
A
R
B
R
E
S
S
I
PE
N
M
A
N
EL
M
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2193-201571 PALOMAR AVENUE ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC1 - 10
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FIND THE
PROPOSED REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF
THE MASTER LIST SANDFORD HOUSE PROPERTY AS PART OF A 41-UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
(71 PALOMAR AVENUE - ARCH 2193-2015)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on March 28, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #ARCH
2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; 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. As conditioned, the proposed modifications to the Master List Historic Sandford House and
site which includes rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning is consistent with the
Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining
features will be retained, repaired, or replaced in kind.
2. That the proposed construction of the new, 41-unit apartment buildings is consistent with
Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new
construction is subordinate to and compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural
features of the Master List Historic Sandford House.
3. That the proposed removal of the non-historic additions are consistent with the Secretary of
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because they have not acquired historic significant in
their own right.
4. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines since the project will be required to include an excavation monitoring and data
recovery plan to document and preserve any artifacts found during construction.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Cultural Heritage Committee finds that the
Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly
characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources,
CHC1 - 11
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No.XXXX-16
CHC ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 2
and that the incorporated mitigations measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant
impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends the Architectural Review
Commission find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and
Secretary of Interior Standards, subject to the following conditions.
Conditions
1. The project shall be in accordance with the mitigations measures identified in the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration including the following:
a) Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall be
prepared and approved by the City prior to project construction. The plan will need
to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and
approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant
materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human
remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case
significant deposits are exposed during construction (Mitigation Measure CR 1).
b) Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal
of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any
non-repairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly
attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco.
Any historical wood-sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for
reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate (Mitigation Measure CR 2).
c) Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on
the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original
house. The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new
location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house
exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be
maintained (Mitigation Measure CR 3).
d) Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor
solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate
proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the
original multi-light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should
be used to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design
for the solarium cannot be confirmed (Mitigation Measure CR 4).
e) Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint
removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford
House. High-pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or
chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used
unless specifically approved by the City (Mitigation Measure CR 5).
CHC1 - 12
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No.XXXX-16
CHC ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 3
f) Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction.
The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new
construction and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings
shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and
massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention
away from the Sandford House (Mitigation Measure CR 6).
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 28th day of March, 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
CHC1 - 13
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 17
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 18
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 19
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 20
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 21
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 22
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 23
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 24
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 25
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 26
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 27
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 28
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 29
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 30
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 31
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 32
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 33
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 34
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 35
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 36
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 37
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 38
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 39
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 40
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 41
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 42
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 43
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 44
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 45
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 46
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 47
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 48
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 49
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 50
'
'
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 51
'
'
A
s
h
l
e
y
&
V
a
n
c
e
G
,
C
1
4
1
3
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
(
8
0
5
)
5
4
5
-
0
0
1
0
(
3
2
3
)
7
4
4
-
0
0
1
0
w
w
w
.
a
s
h
l
e
y
v
a
n
c
e
.
c
o
m
C
I
V
I
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
0
20
2
0
4
0
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
:
F
E
E
T
N
26
4
.
3
8
F
F
-
P
O
D
I
U
M
D
E
C
K
25
3
.
0
0
'
F
F
-
2
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
D
E
C
K
24
4
.
0
0
'
F
F
-
1
S
T
L
E
V
E
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
D
E
C
K
26
4
.
2
F
S
26
4
.
2
F
S
26
9
.
2
F
F
26
5
.
2
F
F
26
5
.
2
F
F
27
0
.
2
F
F
26
7
.
0
F
F
26
9
.
2
F
G
27
0
.
2
F
G
26
4
.
2
F
G
26
4
.
7
F
G
26
4
.
5
F
G
26
4
.
5
F
G
26
4
.
4
F
G
26
4
.
4
F
G
26
4
.
4
F
G
26
4
.
3
F
S
PALOMA
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
(2
5
9
.
8
E
G
)
(2
5
3
.
0
E
G
)
(2
4
4
.
4
E
G
)
51
,
9
0
0
S
F
A
R
E
A
EA
R
T
H
W
O
R
K
:
16
,
0
0
0
C
Y
C
U
T
0
C
Y
F
I
L
L
20
'
M
A
X
C
U
T
0'
M
A
X
F
I
L
L
LI
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
,
T
I
E
R
2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
U
T
I
L
I
Z
E
S
:
x
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
x
DI
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
x
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
S
W
A
L
E
S
x
OP
E
N
C
E
L
L
B
L
O
C
K
P
A
V
I
N
G
27
3
.
1
T
W
/
F
S
26
4
.
3
T
W
(2
6
4
.
3
E
G
)
26
4
.
3
T
W
(2
5
9
.
6
E
G
)
26
4
.
1
T
W
25
9
.
8
F
G
SI
T
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
LI
M
I
T
S
O
F
P
O
D
I
U
M
D
E
C
K
/
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
R
O
O
F
RE
M
O
V
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
5
'
M
A
X
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
TR
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
TR
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
A
M
P
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
O
W
E
R
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
A
C
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
A
N
D
A
C
D
I
K
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
M
E
D
I
A
N
RE
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
D
R
A
I
N
I
N
L
E
T
.
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
C
3
.
1
F
O
R
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
BI
O
-
F
I
L
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
R
A
I
N
G
A
R
D
E
N
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
U
N
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
N
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
3
4
1
0
.
DR
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
2
1
1
0
,
2
1
2
0
A
N
D
2
1
3
0
.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
R
O
P
I
N
L
E
T
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
20
'
W
I
D
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
R
A
M
P
P
E
R
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
2
1
1
0
A
N
D
2
1
2
0
.
LI
M
I
T
S
O
F
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
R
A
M
P
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
S
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
P
A
D
5
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
11
11
11 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
6'
S/
W
12
'
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
12
'
ME
D
I
A
N
12
'
TR
A
V
E
L
L
A
N
E
6'
EX
I
S
T
S/
W
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
A
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
4
'
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
1"
=
4
'
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
1 ~
13
(2
7
2
.
3
T
C
)
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
(2
7
4
.
3
T
C
)
(2
7
3
.
7
T
C
)
27
1
.
6
T
C
27
0
.
5
T
C
(2
7
1
.
2
T
C
)
26
7
.
6
T
C
(2
6
8
.
3
T
C
)
(2
6
4
.
9
T
C
)
(2
6
3
.
3
T
C
)
MA
T
C
H
E
X
I
S
T
25
1
.
7
B
S
W
25
0
.
3
B
S
W
24
8
.
2
B
S
W
24
6
.
8
B
S
W
24
6
.
2
F
S
@
D
W
Y
24
6
.
2
F
S
@
D
W
Y
25
3
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
25
3
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
4.
0
%
1
1
.
8
%
12
.
1
%
4.8
%
19
19
22.00'
24
4
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
24
4
.
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
20
(
5
.
3
%
)
(
6
.
5
%
)
3
.
5
%
3
.
5
%
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
5
'
M
A
X
RE
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
(C
U
T
W
A
L
L
)
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
5
'
M
A
X
RE
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
(F
I
L
L
W
A
L
L
)
2'
SA
W
C
U
T
(V
A
R
I
E
S
)
(V
A
R
I
E
S
)
VA
R
I
E
S
3
.
5
%
21
22
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 52
'
'
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
D
W
W
W
W
A
s
h
l
e
y
&
V
a
n
c
e
G
,
C
1
4
1
3
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
(
8
0
5
)
5
4
5
-
0
0
1
0
(
3
2
3
)
7
4
4
-
0
0
1
0
w
w
w
.
a
s
h
l
e
y
v
a
n
c
e
.
c
o
m
C
I
V
I
L
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
0
20
2
0
4
0
HO
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
S
C
A
L
E
:
F
E
E
T
N
PALO
M
A
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
RE
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
CH
A
M
B
E
R
S
,
S
I
Z
E
AN
D
T
Y
P
E
T
B
D
TI
E
I
N
T
O
E
X
I
S
T
6"
S
E
W
E
R
(1
)
N
E
W
2
"
D
O
M
E
S
T
I
C
ME
T
E
R
.
S
I
T
E
T
O
B
E
SU
B
M
E
T
E
R
E
D
B
E
Y
O
N
D
TH
I
S
P
O
I
N
T
TI
E
I
N
T
O
E
X
I
S
T
10
"
W
A
T
E
R
8"
S
D
R
3
5
P
V
C
S
E
W
E
R
,
T
Y
P
HD
P
E
S
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
,
T
Y
P
S
I
Z
E
S
V
A
R
Y
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
IN
L
E
T
,
T
Y
P
CL
E
A
N
O
U
T
,
T
Y
P
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
OV
E
R
F
L
O
W
S
T
O
ST
R
E
E
T
V
I
A
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
UN
D
E
R
D
R
A
I
N
4"
F
I
R
E
W
A
T
E
R
,
DD
C
V
A
N
D
F
D
C
AS
S
E
M
B
L
Y
,
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D
(E
X
I
S
T
F
I
R
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
)
~7
5
'
F
R
O
M
P
L
~1
5
0
'
F
R
O
M
P
L
(E
X
I
S
T
F
I
R
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
)
RE
U
S
E
(
1
)
E
X
I
S
T
DO
M
E
S
T
I
C
M
E
T
E
R
,
A
N
D
(1
)
E
X
I
S
T
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
ME
T
E
R
.
NE
W
P
A
D
MO
U
N
T
E
D
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
IN
S
T
A
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
F
O
R
C
I
T
Y
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
IN
S
T
A
L
L
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
A
S
S
E
M
B
L
Y
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
8
5
6
0
IN
S
T
A
L
L
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
R
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
8
5
2
0
,
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
P
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
IR
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
G
&
E
P
O
W
E
R
P
O
L
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
I
R
E
W
A
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
E
W
E
R
M
A
I
N
4"
P
V
C
S
L
E
E
V
E
2
1
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
C
:
\
E
g
n
y
t
e
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
S
u
n
\
A
l
l
J
o
b
s
\
2
0
1
5
A
l
l
J
o
b
s
\
1
5
7
5
3
-
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
-
A
r
r
i
s
\
0
2
_
c
a
d
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
o
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
0
2
_
O
N
S
I
T
E
\
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
S
H
E
E
T
.
d
w
g
,
1
1
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
5
2
:
0
2
:
0
9
P
M
,
R
T
M
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 53
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1 - 54
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
State of California -The Res , \gency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANt.r,. .~EATION
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
HABS
UTM :
IDENTIFICATION
1. Common name : Delta Tau Frate rnity
. No . 0087-05R
HAER__ NR ~ SHL __
A 10/711570/39076:3'6
c D
Loe __
2. Historic name:--------------------------------------------
3. Street or rural address :~--~7....__P~a~l~o~m~a~r------------------------------~
C. San Luis Obispo 93401 San Luis Obispo · Jt v,_ ________ __;;...._ ________ Zip ________ County ______________ _
52-162-07
5. Present Owner : -----------------------~Address : ______________ _
City----------------Zip _____ Ownership is : Publ ic x _____ Private -------
6. Present Use : _F_r_a_t _e_r_n_i_· _t _Y _________ __, ....... Orig inal use : ____ R_e_s _i _d_e_n_c_e ___________ _
DESCRIPTION
7a. Architectural style: Neo-Colonial
7b. Briefly describe the present physical description ot the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its
original condition: Built in the Neo-Clas sical style, this structure is a massive two
story square shaped building resting on a slightly raised concrete foundation.
The main roof is slightly pitched gable roof with gable ends facing the side s .
A second floor porch is now e nclosed in glass. The second story has 8 /8 sa s h
windows. The first floor has two l a rge fixed windows which are probably re-
placements . A prominent feature i s the front door entrance which consists of
a six panel door with 8 light fanlights and an eliptical shaped transom with
mullions (also probably replacements). The portico is defined by two Doric
columns in the front and engaged pilasters which flank the front door entran c e.
Dentils run the entire course of the soffit band. A modest balcony with stee l
railings tops the portico. The first story windows are crowned by a semi-
circular shaped raised molding. Overall, except for window, balcony and railin g
replacements and an addition to the right rear, from the viewer's persp ective ,
the structure remains intact and is reasonably well preserved. The original
porch was probably downstairs and has been enclosed in glass: There are mi s -
cellaneous. outbuildings on the grounds of this property. One small outbuilding
has pilasters and a aentlv ni~rhPn n~h1~~ ~~~~
II
I
8. Construction date:
Estimated 1 890 Factual ----
9. Architect U-;..n_k;;;..n:.;:o;....w_n _______ _
10. Bu ilde r__:U;:..:..:n::..:k:!.n:..::0:::.;\"'"•1n....._ ______ _
11 . Approx . property size (in feet)
Frontage 260' Depth ... 2.us ..... o._• __
or approx . acreage--------
12. Date(s) of enclosed photogr;Jph (s)
April 1983
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC1 - 55
13 . Condition : Excellent __ Good _z_ Fair __ Deteriorated __ No longer in existence
14 . Alterat ions : Addition to left rear, porch enclosed
15 . Surroundings : (Check more than one if necessary) Open land .K__Scattered bui ldings ...K__ Densely built-up __ _
Res idential __ Industr ia l __ Commercial __ Other :
16. Threats to site: None known....L..Pr ivate development __ Zoning __ Vandalism __
Public Works project __ Other :
17 . Is the structure: On its original site? Yes Moved? ___ _ Unknown? ___ _
18. Related f eatures : -----------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANCE
19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates , events, and persons associated with the site.)
20.
This impressive Neo-Colonial house was built between 1880 and 1890,
probably for Q.A. Spangenberg, a court auditor. Located in what was then
the country outside the city limits, this house symbolizes the lifestyle
of the affluent in San Luis Obispo during this era. Ed Elberg, who owned
the San Luis Hardware and Implement Company, resided here between 1915
and 1918. After several other owners, the house became the possession of
Christine Jacobson until the 1950's. She owned Valley Hardware and was
involved in early television and radio in the area.
Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is
checked , number in order of importance.)
Architecture 1 Arts & Leisure --------
Economic/Industrial __ Exploration/Settlement ___ _
Government Mil itary ----------
Religion ------Social/Education------
Locational sketch map (draw and label site and
surrounding streets, roads; and prominent landmarks):
_J
~NORTH
21 . Sources (List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews
and t heir dates).
22 .
Interview with Floyd Cook
(June 1983)
June 30, 1983
Date form prepa red ---------------
By (name) H~ stori c Bes -:;11nze¥ Staff
Organization City of San Luis Obispo
Address : P.O. Box 321
City San Luis Obispo
Phone : (80 5 ) 541-1000
Zip __ 9 _3 4_0_1_
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC1 - 56
USGS San Luis Obispo 7.5-min. quad
1.7 acres
Keywords: Sandford House
Archaeological Resource Inventory,
Significance Evaluation, and Design Review
71 Palomar Avenue
(Assessor’s Parcel No. 052-162-007),
San Luis Obispo, California
James Jenks, Aubrie Morlet, Marc Linder, and Donald Faxon
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Submitted To
LR Development Group
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
October 2015
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 57
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 58
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue iii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
LR Development Group proposes to relocate and rehabilitate the historic Sandford House and
construct a new 41-unit apartment building complex at 71 Palomar Avenue in San Luis Obispo,
California (Assessor’s Parcel No. 052-162-007). The Sandford House is included on the City of
San Luis Obispo (City) Master List of Historic Resources. According to the City of San Luis
Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01), the Master List
includes only “the most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age,
architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important person or events in
the city’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070.” As a City
Master List property, the building qualifies as a historical resource under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The relocation and rehabilitation of the Sandford House and proposed new construction must
comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and must conform to the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines updated in November 2010. These guidelines state that a
project will not have a significant impact on historical resources if it complies with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The city-wide Historic Resources Survey conducted in 1983 found the Sandford House
significant for its architectural merits and age, placing the property on the City’s Master List.
While a State of California Historic Resources Inventory form was minimally completed during
the 1983 survey, no significance evaluation was performed and no period of significance was
established. The significance and associated period of significance must be defined to identify
the character-defining features of the Sandford House correctly and evaluate the proposed project
for consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines.
This document reports the results of archaeological and architectural surveys of the subject
property, evaluates the historical significance of the subject property, and provides a design
review of the proposed rehabilitation of the Sandford House and new construction.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 59
iv Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 60
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue v
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................4
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................4
CULTURAL CONTEXT ..................................................................................................5
2.1 PREHISTORY .........................................................................................................5
2.2 ETHNOGRAPHY....................................................................................................8
2.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...........................................................................................8
STUDY METHODS.........................................................................................................13
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................13
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................13
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................14
3.4 FIELD SURVEY METHODS ...............................................................................14
RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY ..........................15
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ..........................................................................15
4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................15
4.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................15
4.4 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................16
DESCRIPTION OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES ..................................17
5.1 HISTORICAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY ...........................................17
5.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS ...................................................................................21
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................28
6.1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE ........................................................................................................28
6.2 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION .........................................................................30
6.2.1 Period of Significance ................................................................................30
6.2.2 Architectural Criteria .................................................................................31
6.2.3 Historic Criteria .........................................................................................32
6.2.4 Integrity ......................................................................................................33
DESIGN REVIEW...........................................................................................................35
7.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE......................................................35
7.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES .....................................................36
7.3 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS .........................................36
7.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................37
7.4.1 Relocation and Reuse of the Sandford House (Main Residence) ..............37
7.4.2 Demolition of Two Accessory Buildings and Carport ..............................38
7.4.3 Construction of New Apartment Building . Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.5 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY RELOCATION CRITERIA ................................39
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 61
vi Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue
7.6 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROGRAM GUIDELINES ...................................................................................40
7.6.1 Percent of Historic Resource to Be Preserved ...........................................40
7.6.2 Retention of Character-Defining Features .................................................40
7.6.3 Exterior Building Changes .........................................................................41
7.6.4 Interior Building Changes ..........................................................................41
7.6.5 Acquired Historic Appearance ...................................................................41
7.7 CONSISTENCY WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ..........41
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................47
8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................47
8.2 REMOVAL OF NONORIGINAL ADDITIONS ..................................................47
8.3 SANDFORD HOUSE WINDOW REPLACEMENT ...........................................48
8.4 MASSING, LOCATION, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF
THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ........................................................48
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................49
APPENDICES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D Cultural Resource Record Forms
E Design Plans
FIGURES
1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California ..................................................................2
1-2 Aerial overview of subject property and surrounding neighborhood ..................................3
5-1 A 1907 image, looking northwest from Terrace Hill, illustrates the early
character of the subject property landscape .................................................................19
5-2 Aerial image of the subject property in 1937 showing the unaltered
landscape in the immediate area around the 15.8-acre parcel .....................................19
5-3 Aerial image of the subject property in 1969 at the time of purchase by
Delta Tau ......................................................................................................................20
5-4 Rough 1976 aerial image of the subject property showing the multifamily
residential complexes to the west and north as well as Palomar Avenue
and Luneta Drive..........................................................................................................21
5-5 The Sandford House street-facing east façade ...................................................................22
5-6 Two-story solarium on the south (side) façade of the Sandford House .............................23
5-7 West (rear) façade of the Sandford House with a single-story addition on
the northwest corner of the building ............................................................................23
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 62
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue vii
FIGURES (continued)
5-8 North (side) façade of the Sandford House with wood deck and view of
the two-story addition ..................................................................................................24
5-9 North façade of two-story addition to the Sandford House; the single-story
addition is attached to the south ...................................................................................25
5-10 Enclosed garage with attached carport on the north façade ...............................................25
5-11 Secondary residential building southwest of the Sandford House .....................................26
7-1 Two nonoriginal additions to the rear of the Sandford House, looking
west. The proposed project will demolish both additions............................................38
7-2 View to the east demonstrating the north lawn where the east-west wing of
the apartment building is proposed for construction....................................................39
TABLES
4-1 Native Americans Contacted for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project ....................................16
5-1 Property Owners of 71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo ..............................................17
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 63
viii Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 64
INTRODUCTION
LR Development Group proposes to relocate and rehabilitate the historic Sandford House and
construct a new 41 unit apartment building at 71 Palomar Avenue in San Luis Obispo, California
(Assessor’s Parcel No. [APN] 052-162-007). At the request of Mr. Loren Riehl of LR
Development Group, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resources study of the
proposed development between April and October, 2015.
The study area is located in Township 30 South, Range 12 East, in the northwest quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 27, within the municipal boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo
(City) as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey San Luis Obispo 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure
1-1). The 1.17-acre project area is at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Avenue
and Luneta Drive (Figure 1-2). The subject property includes the circa 1895 Colonial Revival–
style Sandford House and two small accessory buildings that date to the mid twentieth century.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will require discretionary permits from the City and therefore must comply with the
City Historic Preservation Ordinance (City Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) and
conform to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City Guidelines; 2010). An important
step in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and standards is the identification of
cultural resources within the project area. To this end, LRD Development retained Æ to perform
a Phase 1 archaeological study and a significance evaluation of the existing historical buildings
at 71 Palomar Avenue. As part of the archaeological study, Æ completed a records search at the
Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), conducted a Phase 1 surface inspection, and initiated
outreach to the local Native American community through contact with the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local groups and tribes. For the built environment, Æ
completed archival research; performed a field survey of the property; developed a property-
specific historic context; and evaluated the historical significance of the buildings on the
property. As the property contains a building included in the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources, the proposed project design is evaluated for consistency with the City Ordinance and
Guidelines.
The proposed project will relocate the existing residence to a lower position southeast of its
current location (Appendix E). The repositioning of the historic residence will, as proposed,
allow construction of a new 41-unit apartment building on the west and north portions of the
parcel. The new buildings will be both two and three stories, will consist of a mix of six studio,
one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom apartments. Parking will be entirely tucked-under the
north side of the complex. Non-original rear additions to the Sandford House will be removed,
and the residence, which currently serves as multifamily student housing, become amenity space
(leasing, study hall, fitness room, etc.) for residents and management.
1
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 65
Figure 1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California.
2
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 66
Figure 1-2 Aerial overview of subject property and surrounding neighborhood.
3
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 67
Æ’s cultural resource study was performed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2, CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5, and PRC Section 5024.1, which establishes the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR). These statutes and guidelines require local agencies to take into account the
effects of projects on historical resources, including archaeological sites. Under the CEQA,
historical resources are defined as properties that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in
any local register and/or the CRHR.
1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
All Æ staff members who participated in this investigation meet the Secretary of Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for their respective roles. Barry A. Price (M.A.), a
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), served as principal investigator for the study. Æ
Senior Archaeologist Erin Enright (M.A., RPA) served as project archaeologist. She oversaw
archaeological fieldwork and reviewed this report. Marc Linder performed background research,
conducted tribal outreach, and prepared the field inventory and archaeological report sections. Æ
Architectural Historian James Jenks (M.A.) completed archival research and evaluated the
significance of the subject property, while Architectural Historian and Historic Preservation
Specialist Donald Faxon (M.A.) performed the design review for consistency with the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards. Æ Architectural Historian Aubrie Morlet (M.A.) provided peer review of
the report. Résumés for these key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documenting the results of Æ’s study of 71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo, was
prepared in accordance with Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended
Contents and Format prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1990).
The document consists of nine chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the
prehistoric and ethnographic cultural setting of the study area and provides the historic context.
Æ’s study methods, including background research, field investigations, and resource
documentation are described in Chapter 3. The findings of the cultural study are presented in
Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 presents the history and description of the built environment. The
significance of the built environment resources is evaluated in Chapter 6. The detailed design
review to assess the consistency of the proposed project with the City Ordinance and Guidelines
in provided in Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 contains recommendations for further project design
consistency. A complete listing of references cited is provided in Chapter 9. Qualifications of Æ
staff are presented in Appendix A. The results of the archaeological records search are included
as Appendix B. Native American communication is documented in Appendix C. The completed
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms for the cultural resources
recorded during this investigation are in Appendix D. Conceptual design drawings are provided
in Appendix E.
4
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 68
CULTURAL CONTEXT
2.1 PREHISTORY
Most of the research into the prehistory of the Central Coast has concentrated on the Santa
Barbara Channel region, where the Barbareño Chumash developed a highly complex social
system during late prehistory. However recent studies regarding the prehistory and archaeology
of San Luis Obispo County have been conducted by Bertrando and Levulett (2004), Farquhar et
al. (2011), Fitzgerald (2000), Jones et al. (1994), Jones and Waugh (1995), and Mikkelsen et al.
(2000). While it is clear that there are many differences between the Chumash groups living
north and south of Point Conception, there are some broad patterns of cultural change applicable
to both regions.
Regional chronology has been a source of debate among scholars, and San Luis Obispo County
still lacks a well-dated sequence. Early attempts at regional cultural chronology by Rogers
(1929) and Olson (1930) divided prehistory into three periods. However, extensive
archaeological studies since then and development of more precise dating methods have allowed
many refinements to the regional chronology. Currently, the most common chronological
sequence—based on work by Erlandson and Colten (1991), Jones and Ferneau (2002), Jones et
al. (2007), and King (1990)—divides Central Coast prehistory into six periods:
• Paleo-Indian (pre-8000 B.C. [11,000–8500 B.P.])
• Early Holocene (8000–3500 B.C. [8500–5500 B.P.])
• Early (3500–600 B.C. [5500–3000 B.P.])
• Middle (600 B.C.–A.D. 1000 [3000–1000 B.P.])
• Middle/Late Transition (A.D. 1000–1250 [1000–700 B.P.])
• Late (A.D. 1250–1769 [700 B.P.–Historic])
The Paleo-Indian Period represents the earliest human occupations in the region, which began
prior to 10,000 years ago. Paleo-Indian sites throughout North America are known by the
representative fluted projectile points, crescents, large bifaces used as tools as well as flake
cores, and a distinctive assemblage of small flake tools. In the project area, however, this
representative Paleo-Indian assemblage has not been discovered; only three fluted points have
been reported from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, and all are isolated occurrences
unassociated with larger assemblages of tools or debris (Erlandson et al. 1987; Gibson 1996;
Mills et al. 2005). Sites on San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands have yielded numerous
radiocarbon dates of Paleo-Indian age but did not produce fluted points or other notable artifacts
(Agenbroad et al. 2005; Erlandson et al. 1996). Nonetheless, these offshore sites provide clear
evidence of watercraft use by California’s earliest colonizers, and also offer tantalizing evidence
of pre-Clovis occupations.
5
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 69
Another likely late Paleo-Indian site with a more robust artifact assemblage is CA-SBA-1547 on
Vandenberg Air Force Base (Lebow et al. 2014). Overall, inhabitants of the Central Coast during
the Paleo-Indian Period are thought to have lived in small groups with a relatively egalitarian
social organization and a forager-type land-use strategy (Erlandson 1994; Glassow 1996;
Greenwood 1972; Moratto 1984). In general, these early sites are characterized by a strong
maritime orientation and an apparent reliance on shellfish. There is a noted lack of ground stone
during this period, suggesting dependence on faunal over floral resources.
More conclusive evidence of human occupation has been found at sites dating to the early
Holocene, between 8000 and 5000 B.C. A growing number of early Holocene components have
been identified, most located in coastal or pericoastal settings. Two such components, at
CA-SLO-2 (Diablo Canyon) and CA-SLO-1797 (the Cross Creek Site), are radiocarbon dated
between 8300 and 6500 B.C., providing the earliest evidence for the widespread California
Milling Stone adaptive pattern (Greenwood 1972; Jones et al. 2009). The most common artifacts
in these assemblages are the eponymous milling slabs and handstones used to grind hard seeds
and process other foodstuffs. Choppers, core tools, and large bifaces also are common, while
side-notched dart points, pitted stones, simple bone awls, bipointed bone gorges, and possible
eccentric crescents occur in lesser frequencies. Population density likely remained low, although
settlements may have been semipermanent. Subsistence activities appeared to be aimed broadly
at a diverse spectrum of terrestrial and marine resources.
During this time, people appear to have subsisted largely on plants, shellfish, and some
vertebrate species using a seemingly simple and limited tool technology. Sites of this age are
notable for the prevalence of handstones and milling slabs and less abundant flaked tools and
projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:135). Archaeological components from central California
show substantial regional variability. Differences in site location, artifact assemblages, and
faunal remains suggest that populations were beginning to establish settlements tethered to the
unique characteristics of the local environment and adopt subsistence practices responsive to
local conditions. Obsidian from several of these components originated on the east side of the
Sierra Nevada, suggesting that long-distance trade networks were also established during this
era. Glassow (1990, 1996) infers that occupants of Vandenberg AFB sites during this time were
sedentary and had begun using a collector-type (i.e., logistically mobile) land-use strategy.
However, others have argued for a broader and less permanent subsistence base as
overexploitation of coastal resources pushed human residents toward the interior (Jones and
Richman 1995).
An important adaptive transition occurred along the Central Coast around 3500 B.C. (Jones et al.
2007; Price et al. 2012). Technological changes marking the transition into the Early Period
(3500–600 B.C.) include an abundance of contracting-stemmed, Rossi square-stemmed, large
side-notched, and other large projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:138). Mortars and pestles were
introduced and gradually replaced manos and milling slabs as the primary plant processing tools,
indicating expansion of the subsistence base to include acorns (Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988).
Shell beads and obsidian materials indicate that trade between regions expanded (Jones et al.
1994). Site occupants appear more settled with more limited mobility, and they increasingly used
sites for resource procurement activities such as hunting, fishing, and plant material processing
(Jones et al. 1994:62; Jones and Waugh 1995:132). Farquhar et al. (2011:14) argue that cultural
changes during this period are the result of population circumscription and economic
6
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 70
intensification. Echoing Rogers (1929), Price et al. (2012:36–37) suggest such constraints might
have been prompted by the arrival of new ancestral populations or adoption of new social norms
in the region.
The Middle Period (600 B.C.–A.D. 1000) is defined by the continued specialization in resource
exploitation and increased technological complexity. Contracting-stemmed points still existed,
while square-stemmed and large side-notched variants disappeared (Rogers 1929). The use of
mortars and pestles also increased. Additionally, expansion of trade is evident in the increased
quantity of obsidian, beads, and sea otter bones (Farquhar et al. 2011:15). Circular shell
fishhooks, which facilitated an increase in exploitation of fishes, appeared for the first time
(Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988). The appearance of small leaf-shaped projectile points toward the
end of the period is evidence for the arrival of bow-and-arrow technology (Jones et al.
2007:139).
The Middle-Late Transitional Period (A.D. 1000–1250) represents a rapid change in artifact
assemblage as well as social and settlement organization (Arnold 1992). Large numbers of arrow
points appeared and most stemmed points disappeared (Jones et al. 2007:139). Hopper mortars
also made their first entry in the archaeological record (Farquhar et al. 2011:16).
At the same time, some evidence points to population decline and interregional trade collapse.
Obsidian is not found in sites dating to this period (Jones et al. 1994). Settlement shifted away
from the coast and people relocated to more interior settings (Jones 1995:215). Marine resources
appear to have been largely dropped from the diet and instead people relied more on terrestrial
resources such as small mammals and acorns (Farquhar et al. 2011:16). These changes may have
been caused by an environmental shift that increased sea and air temperatures, resulting in
decreased precipitation and overexploitation of resources (Arnold 1992; Graumlich 1993;
Kennett et al. 1997; Pisias 1978; Stine 1990).
However, social complexity became more noticeable during the Middle to Late Period transition,
when most archaeologists believe craft specialization and social ranking developed (Arnold
1992). The tomol (plank canoe), which was utilized by the Chumash south of Point Conception
where ocean conditions were more favorable, allowed for a greater reliance on marine resources,
particularly fish, for food. However, these changes are again more noticeable south of Point
Conception and may have been due, in part, to environmental changes occurring at that time.
Populations on the Central Coast expanded in the Late Period (A.D. 1250–1769) (Farquhar et al.
2011:17). More sites were occupied during this period than ever before (Jones et al. 2007:143). It
appears that the inhabitants of the Central Coast did not increase maritime subsistence activities
but instead continued to demonstrate a terrestrial focus, although residents of the interior still
made temporary forays to the coastal zone to procure marine products (Farquhar et al. 2011:17;
Jones et al. 2007:140; Price 2005; Price et al. 1997:4.13–4.14).
Artifact assemblages from the Late Period within San Luis Obispo County contain an abundance
of arrow points, small bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, and a variety of bead types
(Price 2005). More shell and stone beads appeared in the Late Period, and they became a more
standardized and common form of exchange (Jones et al. 2007:140, 145). The use of handstones
and milling slabs continued during this period, but pestles and mortars occurred in greater
proportions (Jones and Waugh 1995:121). There are few records of Spanish encounters with the
7
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 71
Chumash north of Point Conception (Glassow 1990). However, in San Luis Obispo County it
appears that the absence of the tomol and a lower population density contributed to a different
social and political organization than their neighbors to the south. Moreover, the absence of
imported obsidian after A.D. 1000 suggests a change in trade relationships that is likely
associated with the shift in settlement patterns (Jones et al. 1994).
Changes during the period are attributed to a number of factors, including demographics,
increased use of the bow and arrow, European diseases, severe droughts, and/or the emergence
of powerful leaders (Graumlich 1993; Jones et al. 1999; Jones and Ferneau 2002; Jones and
Kennett 1999; Jones et al. 2007:144; Stine 1994).
2.2 ETHNOGRAPHY
San Luis Obispo is within the area historically occupied by the Northern (Obispeño) Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumash people of California (Gibson 1991; Greenwood 1978; Kroeber
1976). The Northern Chumash occupied land from the Pacific coast east to the Coast Ranges and
from the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. Chumash material culture,
social organization, traditions and rituals, and cosmology have been described by many scholars
including Blackburn (1975), Grant (1993), Greenwood (1978), Hudson and Blackburn (1982–
1987), Hudson and Underhay (1978), Hudson et al. (1977), Johnson (1988), King (1990),
Woodman et al. (1991).
Various lines of historical and archaeological evidence indicate that the general population
density in the northern Chumash region was far less at the time of contact than in earlier
prehistoric times, and the Chumash population at Mission San Luis Obispo was never as high as
at the more southerly missions at Santa Barbara, Lompoc, and Santa Ynez (Greenwood 1978).
The Indian population at Mission San Luis Obispo reached its peak of 919 in 1803, as most of
the Northern Chumash left their native villages and moved into the mission or its outposts. By
the time of secularization in 1834, missionization, disease, and destruction of the native
subsistence base had forced the Chumash to give up most of their traditional lifeways. Only 170
Chumash remained at the mission in 1838.
2.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT
Euro-American settlement in the area began with the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo
de Tolosa in 1772. This site was selected for its level lands and “two little arroyos which
contained water with sufficient lands that with little trouble . . . could be irrigated from them”
(Palóu 1926). Father Joseph Caveller quickly constructed a small wooden chapel that also served
as a shelter. In 1774, a more permanent church with adobe foundations and a superstructure of
shaved limbs and tules was erected. In 1776, a fire destroyed most of this structure as well as
many supplies. Two more fires in 1776 and 1781 caused similar destruction. Despite these
setbacks, the mission had recorded 877 baptisms and had regular surpluses of crops and livestock
by 1788 when construction of the current mission began. The friars tended a vineyard and
orchard, located southeast and northwest of mission, respectively. In the 1790s, an auxiliary
rancho with more than 17,000 acres of prime farm land was established at Santa Margarita
(Krieger 1988).
8
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 72
California became a Mexican territory in 1822. Unlike their Spanish predecessors, the Mexican
authorities opened California’s door to foreign trade and immigration. The beneficiaries of this
policy were predominantly the missions, which could legally expanded their hide and tallow
trade to foreign merchants (Hackel 1998). The Colonization Act of 1824 and the Supplemental
Regulations of 1828 afforded private individuals—both Mexican nationals and immigrants—the
right to obtain title to land, although for the time being, mission lands were still not available.
Such immigrant-friendly laws directly contributed to the migration and eventual permanent
presence of Anglo-Americans in California. The Secularization Act of 1833 officially ended the
church’s monopoly of prime California lands and redistributed the mission estates to private
individuals in the form of land grants. During the early and mid-1840s, the former mission lands
of the county were carved up into large ranchos, each totaling several thousand acres (Krieger
1988:41–43). Some of the recipients of these Mexican land grants were Yankee sea captains, like
William Dana and John Wilson, who had established themselves in the San Luis Obispo area in
the previous decades.
San Luis Obispo County was officially established at the time of California statehood in 1850.
That same year, William R. Hutton was authorized by the Court of Sessions to survey and lay
out the town of San Luis Obispo. The main street, Monterey Street, was to be 20 yards wide and
all other streets were to be 15 yards wide. This grid was laid out without respect to most standing
buildings and structures, many of which were adobe residences or decaying mission
outbuildings. The new street grid often left these older buildings at odd angles to the grid, or
worse, in the right-of-way of the surveyed streets. However, a large number of these streets were
not opened until decades after the initial survey, so many of the mission and Mexican period
buildings remained until the 1870s. Many settlers in the town boundaries had occupied or owned
their lands since before the founding of the county, but there was no legal documentation of title.
In March of 1868, an act to settle the title of lands in San Luis Obispo was passed by the
California Legislature, and residents began submitting lot petitions. In 1876, the city was
incorporated.
As with any region, commercial and urban growth in San Luis Obispo County was intimately
intertwined with the development of its transportation network. In 1870 the first county road
connected San Luis Obispo and San Simeon, and a road over Cuesta Pass was constructed by
1877 (Krieger 1988:75–76). In terms of shipping, however, the most important node in county
was Port Harford (later called Port San Luis), and for many years the large-scale import and
export of goods was handled through San Luis Obispo Bay. The bay offered a deep harbor,
where large steamers could unload passengers and freight, and the high promontory of Point San
Luis shielded the port from storms, particularly in the cove just northwest of the point where
John Harford built his 540-foot pier in 1873 (Best 1992:11–13). In 1875–1876, a group of San
Francisco investors, later organized as the Pacific Coast Steamship Company, purchased
Harford’s Wharf and constructed a short railroad line beginning at San Luis Obispo Bay and
terminating in the southwest part of town (Krieger 1988:57). Shortly afterward, a train terminal
was built at the southeast corner of Higuera and South streets.
In 1881 the Pacific Coast Steamship Company set out to extend the railroad southward from San
Luis Obispo into Santa Barbara County (Best 1992:24–41). One year later, the steamship
company was purchased by the Oregon Improvement Company, a Seattle-based lumber and coal
concern that reorganized its newly acquired rail assets into the Pacific Coast Railway Company.
9
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 73
Work continued on the narrow-gauge railway, and by 1883 the track was completed connecting
Port Harford to San Luis Obispo and then to Los Alamos, thus providing a reliable shipping link
to farmers and dairymen along the way. In 1887, the line reached Los Olivos and the fertile
Santa Ynez Valley.
The Oregon Improvement Company’s rail/steamer system facilitated an interregional trade
network that had considerable effect on the county’s economy. Along with incoming coal and
manufactured goods, timber from the northwest arrived in San Luis Obispo, where it was
processed by the lumber mills and stored at the yard near the Pacific Coast Railway station or
distributed to other towns serviced by the railroad. Outgoing grain and dairy products shipped
from points along the Pacific Coast line to San Luis Obispo Bay were loaded on steamers bound
for San Francisco. An entry in the 1889 Tribune (Tognazzini 1989) gives some indication of the
volume and diversity of goods passing through Port Harford in 1888, which included exported
grain, beans, dairy products, livestock, hides, pelts, and wool as well as imported lumber, coal,
general merchandise, and agricultural implements. The article adds that the demand for
bituminous ore, used in the construction of roads, was increasing rapidly and that 57,175
passengers were carried by the Pacific Coast Railway during that year alone.
Despite the brisk pace of business, a large part of the Central Coast was still relatively isolated
from the rest of the state in the early 1890s. Travel between San Luis Obispo and Los Olivos was
made easy and affordable by the Pacific Coast Railway Company; but before 1894, reaching
destinations outside the region meant riding the stagecoach to Templeton or Santa Barbara to
catch the Southern Pacific Railroad or, alternatively, taking a steamer out of Port Harford bound
for San Francisco or one of the other ports of call along the California coast (Best 1992:42;
Tognazzini 1991).
Much of that changed when the Southern Pacific Railroad rolled into San Luis Obispo in 1894.
The Oregon Improvement Company, which was reorganized as the Pacific Coast Company in
1897, now faced competition from the unquestioned leader of the rail industry. By 1901—when
the Southern Pacific reached Santa Barbara, thereby establishing a continuous line between San
Francisco and Los Angeles—passenger traffic out of Port Harford had all but evaporated (Best
1992:51). In terms of freight business and intraregional passenger travel, however, the Southern
Pacific and the Pacific Coast Railway not only coexisted for many years but formed an amicable
relationship. The two railroads coordinated their time tables to facilitate interrail transfers, and a
spur line was built along South Street between the Pacific Coast depot and the Southern Pacific
(or Ramona) depot between Marsh and Higuera on Johnson. The Pacific Coast Railway
Company enjoyed some of its best freight years during the latter part of the 1890s (Tognazzini
1996, 1999).
With the advent of the automobile age and the construction of U.S. Highway 101 through town,
San Luis Obispo became a favorite overnight stop for motorists traveling between the San
Francisco Bay area and southern California. Motels and car-related businesses (e.g., gas stations,
repair shops) sprang up at the southwest and northeast ends of the town. California Polytechnic
State University was established in 1903 also was a great draw for the city. The vocational
school was established on 281 acres approximately 1 mile northeast of the project area. By 1903
the population of San Luis Obispo had grown to 4,500.
10
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 74
The city’s population swelled to 8,500 by 1926, and in the following year the National Guard
founded Camp Merriam on 2,000 acres. This became a U.S. Army infantry and artillery training
camp known as Camp San Luis between 1940 and 1941. Perhaps the most visible growth
occurred toward the end of World War II, when military installations established in response to
the war artificially inflated the local economy. By 1944 the population had reached 16,000
people. Many of those soldiers returned permanently to San Luis Obispo after the war (Krieger
1988:102–104), and the city’s growing population pushed out beyond the borders of town.
11
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 75
12
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 76
STUDY METHODS
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On April 7, 2015, Æ obtained a records search from the Central Coast Information Center
(CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System housed at the University of
California, Santa Barbara (Appendix B). Information Center staff examined site record files,
location maps, and other materials to identify previously recorded resources within 0.25 mile of
the project area. Previous surveys within the project area were also examined. Data sources also
included the Historic Property Data File, the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historical Resources, the listing of California Historical Landmarks, the California
Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historical Interest.
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Æ Architectural Historian James Jenks conducted archival research in several City repositories.
Research focused on historical maps, historical photographs, written histories, previous cultural
resource surveys, and official built environment records of San Luis Obispo County and the City.
The following repositories were consulted for historical data regarding the subject parcel:
• San Luis Obispo County Assessor;
• San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building;
• San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder, San Luis Obispo;
• City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department;
• City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department;
• San Luis Obispo Public Library, Local History Room;
• Special Collections & Archives and the GIS-Data Studio, Kennedy Library,
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (CalPoly);
• Earth Sciences and Map Library, University of California, Berkeley; and
• History Center of San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo.
Aerial images and historical maps were essential to identifying the growth and development of
the property and surrounding landscape. The libraries at CalPoly and University of California,
Berkeley provided aerial photographs of the study vicinity. The USGS website provided
historical maps dating from 1897 to 1965. Jenks also reviewed online records maintained by the
Bureau of Land Management for General Land Office (GLO) patent and survey map data for the
subject parcel. He also examined county plat maps prepared in 1874 and 1913 that were
available at the San Luis Obispo County Library Local History Room. Additionally, Jenks
13
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 77
consulted online historical land and tax information maintained by the San Luis Obispo County
Genealogical Society.
Research at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s office provided building records, sketch
maps, and a partial list of subject property ownership. The County Assessor’s office also
provided city maps which illustrated changes in the size of the parcel and development of
adjacent roads and subdivisions. Records from the City Community Development Department
provided permit history for alterations dating back to the early 1950s, when city boundaries
expanded to include the subject property. The Community Development Department also
provided the file associated with the property’s listing on the City’s Master List. The file
included handwritten notes regarding the chain of ownership and a brief architectural description
of the residence on a State of California Historic Resources Inventory form. City and county
directories on file at the San Luis Obispo County Library and History Center of San Luis Obispo
County provided names and background information for some of the individuals known to reside
at the subject property. U.S. Census records and voter registration books, accessed through
online subscription services, provided additional biographical information on past owners.
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On May 18, 2015, Æ contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
to determine if any sites recorded in the agency’s Sacred Lands File occur in or near the project
area. On June 22, 2015, the NAHC supplied a list of local Native American individuals and/or
groups with interests and knowledge about the area (Appendix C). Æ contacted those included
on the list by letter and telephone to request comments or information about the study area (see
Section 4.2).
3.4 FIELD SURVEY METHODS
On May 28, 2015, Æ Staff Archaeologist Marc Linder conducted an intensive pedestrian survey
of the subject parcel to identify any archaeological or historical resources that may be impacted
by future development. The survey was performed by walking parallel transects spaced 5 meters
apart, paying extra attention to exposed ground not obscured by structures, landscaping, and
other vegetation. Rodent burrows and mechanical cuts were also examined carefully for
archaeological remains.
On May 28, 2015, Æ Architectural Historian James Jenks conducted an architectural field survey
of the subject property. Using a digital camera, Jenks photographed the surrounding
neighborhood, property landscape, main residence and two ancillary buildings. The subject
buildings are recorded on a California DPR Primary Record (523A) and Building, Structure, and
Object Record (523B). The completed forms describe the buildings’ attributes, features, and
condition, and summarize Æ’s evaluation of significance for built environment resources
(Appendix D). Results of both field survey and archival research were used to interpret the
historic context and determine the original physical characteristics of the existing buildings.
14
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 78
RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The CCIC records search revealed that no prior cultural resources investigations have been
conducted within the current project area; however, seven previous investigations were
conducted within 0.25 mile (Appendix B). The search also revealed that no archaeological sites
have been documented within 0.25 mile of the project area.
Two previous cultural resources investigations of note were conducted in proximity to the
project area. In 1997, Thor Conway conducted an archaeological survey followed by Phase 2
testing at 61 Broad Street, just one city block east of the current project area. His study
concluded that the parcel contains no surface or subsurface archaeological materials. Ethan
Bertrando conducted an additional study in 1997 on a parcel of land one city block north of the
current project area. This study included a records search and surface survey. Historic artifacts
were noted; however, no significant cultural materials were recorded.
4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On June 22, 2015, the NAHC responded to Æ’s information request and indicated that a search
of their Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources
in the immediate project area. The lack of information in the NAHC files does not indicate
conclusively that tribal resources are not present, and they recommended contacting local groups
or individuals who might have additional information on the study area (Appendix C).
On June 23, 2015, Æ archaeologist Simone M. Schinsing sent notification letters to each of the
individuals on the NAHC list requesting their comments and providing contact information to
direct any concerns or comments they may have (see Appendix C). Æ received three responses
from local tribal representatives (Table 4-1). Lei Lynn Odom stressed how locations near
downtown can be sensitive. Chairman Mona Olivas Tucker of the yak tityu tityu Northern
Chumash Tribe suggested that sensitivity training be mandatory for all construction personnel as
well as an onsite archaeological monitor during ground disturbance.
4.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Approximately 50 percent of the project area was accessible or not otherwise obscured by
structures or pavement during Æ’s pedestrian survey of 71 Palomar Avenue on May 28, 2015.
The exposed ground surface afforded approximately 50 percent visibility, limited by grass and
other landscaping. No prehistoric or historical deposits were noted in this investigation; however,
a rectangular concrete foundation was observed along the property’s southern edge. This
foundation likely belonged to a water tank or cistern used by past residents. The property
owner’s representative stated that the tank had burned down sometime in the 1970s (Victor
Johnson, personal communication 2015). This foundation, likely dating to construction of the
original residence circa 1895, constitutes a historical feature and required further documentation.
15
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 79
Table 4-1
Native Americans Contacted for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project
Contact Affiliation
Letter
Sent
Phone
Call Results
Mona Olivas Tucker,
yak tityu tityu—Northern
Chumash Tribe
Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Suggested sensitivity training for all construction
personnel, and recommends an archaeological
monitor onsite during ground disturbance.
Matthew Darian Goldman Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 No message machine.
Fred Collins, Northern
Chumash Tribal Council
Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Left a message; no response to date.
Lei Lynn Odom Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Odom stated that anything near downtown San Luis
Obispo can be sensitive.
Peggy Odom Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Lei Lynn spoke for Peggy.
Chief Mark Steven Vigil
San Luis Obispo County
Chumash Council
Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Left a message; no response to date.
PeuYoKo Perez Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Left a message; no response to date.
Fred Segobia Chumash/
Salinan
6/23/15 7/8/15 Segobia requested that John Birch be called for
information relevant to the area. Birch knows of no
archaeological resources within the project area.
The only other anthropogenic materials observed were sparse modern glass, plastic, plaster, and
other scant structural debris; none of this material qualifies as a cultural resource. Features
observed during Æ’s survey of the built environment are described in Chapter 5.
Æ’s archaeologist returned to the property to document the foundation. The feature was mapped
with a handheld Trimble Geo XT Global Positioning System receiver with submeter accuracy
and documented on a DPR Archaeological Site Record form (Appendix D). The feature is near
the southwest corner of the property. The foundation is 16.5 feet long, 6.0 feet wide, and 2.0 feet
high. It is constructed of coarse (up to 5 inch) aggregate concrete. The feature includes a partial
(8.5 inch thick) stem wall with a 32-inch-wide slab on the east side. The southern portion of this
foundation has been removed, presumably after that portion of the property was sold or possibly
during construction of Luneta Drive. Anecdotal evidence indicates the original wooden upper
structure burned down in the 1970s.
4.4 SUMMARY
This study found no evidence of prehistoric cultural deposits within the project area. Due to the
project’s proximity to a creek, there is a slightly elevated sensitivity for buried prehistoric
cultural resources. Additionally, historic-period use of the property increases the potential to
encounter buried historic deposits such as privies, sheet midden, or structural remains. No
additional archaeological testing is needed at this time; however, it is recommended that
construction monitoring occur during initial ground disturbance.
16
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 80
DESCRIPTION OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES
The City’s Master List of Historical Resources identifies the subject property at 71 Palomar
Avenue as the Sandford House. According to the property file located at the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development Department, the Sandford name was applied from an
unidentified historical source, but no additional information was provided. To verify the property
name and identify historical property owners, First American Title performed a title search using
data from the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Based on GLO records,
recorded deeds, and assessor’s data, there have been 13 owners of the property (Table 5-1).
Ownership history and improvements to the subject property are further described below.
Table 5-1
Property Owners of 71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo
Date Owner Reference Source
1870 Encarnacion Bareras GLO patent data
July 1887 William M. Hersman County Clerk-Recorder deed data
September 1892 Reginald W. Sandford County Clerk-Recorder deed data
March 1899 Lottie J. Stewart County Clerk-Recorder deed data
September 1900 Ellen L. Spangenberg County Clerk-Recorder deed data
1903 William H. Schulze County Clerk-Recorder deed data
March 1909 Henry Baehr County Clerk-Recorder deed data
December 1919 Edward L. Elberg County Clerk-Recorder deed data
March 1928 Alexander and Agnes Taylor County Assessor data; County Clerk-Recorder
deed data
June 1951 Christina M. Jacobson County Assessor data; County Clerk-Recorder
deed data
December 1965 Leslie H. Hacker County Assessor data
February 1966 Alexander P. and Carolyn J. Quaglino County Assessor data
April 1969 Delta Chi (Tau) House Corp. County Assessor data
5.1 HISTORICAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
Historical research identified 13 owners of the subject property, although it does not appear that
the first three owners made any improvements to the property. GLO data demonstrates that the
subject property was originally patented in 1870 as part of an 80-acre acquisition by Encarnacion
Bareras (Bureau of Land Management 2015). Background research identified an Encarnacion
Bareras born in Mexico in 1811 who is listed in 1867 voter registration data as a ranchero
residing in San Luis Obispo (Great Register 1872). GLO surveys were undertaken of the subject
property and surrounding township, range, and section in 1867, 1877, 1889, and 1890. No
buildings are illustrated in Section 27 on any of the four survey maps (Bureau of Land
Management 2015). However, the 1897 USGS 15-minute topographical map of the area
illustrates a single building in close proximity to the subject property. The 1942 USGS map
17
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 81
appears to portray the same building, although it is unknown if these maps portray the subject
property.
Early ownership of the subject property is traced to William M. Hersman, a minister. In 1892,
Hersman sold the then 15.8-acre property to Reginald Wills-Sandford. Historical references to
Wills-Sandford indicate his position as a second lieutenant with the 4th Battalion, Gloucester
Regiment, a militia unit of the British Army. He resigned his commission in 1882 and, according
to 1930 U.S. Census data, immigrated to the United States the following year.
In March 1892, Wills-Sandford, then a resident of Arroyo Grande, wed Mary Woods Sperry at
St. Stephens Episcopal Church in San Luis Obispo. Sperry was the widow of Henry A. Sperry, a
prominent local rancher. Mary grew up in San Luis Obispo, the oldest child of the highly
successful Chauncey H. Phillips, one of the principal businessmen of late nineteenth century San
Luis Obispo (Angel 1883). Reginald and Mary resided in San Luis Obispo County until 1899;
the 1900 U.S. Census indicates the family had relocated to Santa Clara, California, where Wills-
Sandford was employed as an orchardist. While no specific information was located confirming
Wills-Sandford as the builder of the residence, the timeframe of Wills-Sandford’s ownership as
well as his affluence make it likely that the residence was constructed circa 1895 during his era
of ownership.
In 1899, Wills-Sandford sold the subject property to Lottie Stewart. No biographical information
was located regarding Stewart. Following her brief period of ownership, the subject property
passed to Ellen Spangenberg. She was the spouse of Ernest A. Spangenberg, originally from
Missouri. As an early businessman in San Luis Obispo, Spangenberg was engaged in the “book
and drugs” trade, and from 1894 to 1906 he served as a court auditor for San Luis Obispo
County (Morrison and Haydon 1917). Spangenberg owned the property for just 3 years, selling
to W. H. Schulze in 1903.
German immigrant William Schulze came to the United States in 1866 (U.S. Census 1900) and
was working as a clothing merchant. Schultze and his large family lived at the subject property
until 1909 (Figure 5-1), when it was sold to Henry Baehr. Baehr was a German immigrant and
bank bookkeeper (U.S. Census 1910) who owned the property for 10 years, the longest tenure of
any titleholder to that point. By the end of World War I, deed records indicate that the property
was owned by Edward Elberg, proprietor of a local hardware store.
In 1928, Alexander Taylor and his sister Agnes began residence on the subject property, which
remained 15.8 acres at the time of purchase. Born in 1881, Taylor was a farmer and dairyman.
He and Agnes were the children of dairy rancher Peter Taylor, described as “one of the most
highly respected citizens of San Luis Obispo County” (Morrison 1917). A Scottish immigrant,
Peter came to the United States in 1851, settling in New York. He arrived in San Luis Obispo
County in 1869 and established a dairy farm near Cambria. After he died, Alexander took over
management of the family ranch. Census data places Alexander in San Simeon, engaged in dairy
ranching (U.S. Census 1920), but by 1928 the Taylor siblings had purchased and were residing at
the subject property (Figure 5-2).
18
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 82
Figure 5-1 A 1907 image, looking northwest from Terrace Hill, illustrates the early character of
the subject property landscape. Although similar in location and appearance, the
prominent residence does not appear to be the Sandford House (courtesy, Special
Collections, Kennedy Library, CalPoly).
Figure 5-2 Aerial image of the subject property in 1937 showing the unaltered
landscape in the immediate area around the 15.8-acre parcel.
19
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 83
In 1951, County Assessor data documents sale of the property to Christina Jacobson. Born in
Colorado in 1904, she resided with her husband in San Luis Obispo where she was employed as
a bookkeeper at Valley Electric Company, a local radio and appliance dealer (U.S. Census 1930).
By 1940, Jacobson was manager of the company, which by that time was also serving as a radio
broadcast facility (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015). Historical references note
Jacobson’s pioneering role in bringing locally produced radio to the Central Coast. In May 1937,
Jacobson secured the first local Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license to begin
broadcasting KVEC-AM, the first local radio station on the Central Coast and the oldest
remaining radio station in San Luis Obispo County. The station’s call letters reflect its
beginnings as part of the Valley Electric Company. Jacobson was also a central figure in
bringing the first television station to the region, founding KVEC-TV in 1953. She sold both the
radio and television operations in 1956. Jacobson died in 1964, while still in residence at the
subject property (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015).
Leslie Hacker, KVEC station manager under Jacobson and later a partner in the enterprise (San
Luis Obispo County History Center 2015), appears to have briefly assumed sole ownership after
Jacobson’s death. Hacker appears to have served as the executor of Jacobson’s estate and may
have resided at the subject property with Jacobson. By 1966, the property was owned by
Alexander P. and Carolyn J. Quaglino. The Quaglino family resided at the property for just 3
years until the Delta Tau House Corporation took ownership in 1969. Fraternity members, who
worked for Alex Quaglino at the time, took out a $5,000 loan to purchase the 1.17-acre property.
Delta Tau has retained the property for 46 years, the longest continuous ownership of the historic
residence (Figures 5-3 and 5-4).
Figure 5-3 Aerial image of the subject property in 1969 at the time of purchase by
Delta Tau. The property retained relative isolation as surrounding
urban density slowly increased. Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive
were not yet constructed.
20
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 84
Figure 5-4 Rough 1976 aerial image of the subject property showing the
multifamily residential complexes to the west and north as well as
Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive.
5.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Æ Architectural Historian Jim Jenks documented the current state of the built environment
resources on the 1.1-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue on May 28, 2015. The Sandford House is
currently prominently situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Avenue and
Luneta Drive. Pedestrian access to the front yard is available from Palomar Avenue by a wood
rail staircase leading to a brick path and the front portico. A retaining wall is adjacent to the
Palomar Avenue sidewalk, and there is a decorative rock wall along the edge of the front lawn.
Secondary brick paths meander through the northeast portion of the property leading to the deck
on the north elevation. Mature trees are present throughout the lot, with a cluster of large
eucalyptus trees at the rear of the residence. Expansive lawns are located in the north and west
portions of the property. Vehicle access to the property is via a gated single-lane driveway
accessed from Luneta Drive, with a secondary vehicle entrance at the southwest corner. The
subject property consists of three buildings: a main residence, a secondary residential building,
and a remodeled garage with adjacent carport.
The two-story stucco-clad main residence rests on a concrete foundation with a rectangular
footprint. The pedimented side-gable roof is covered with composition shingles and the wide
eaves are boxed (Figure 5-5). Half-round wood vents are set into each peak. The street-facing
east façade features symmetrically balanced windows and centered 6-panel wood door flanked
by 8-light sidelights and an 8-light overhead fanlight. The main entryway is accessed from the
prominent flat-roof portico, which features two wood Tuscan columns and entablature. A dentil
course is present along the soffit, and pilasters flank the door. Five concrete steps provide access
to the portico and a concrete walkway wraps around the façade. Modern fixed windows flank
21
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 85
each side of the portico and each is crowned with a half-round molding. The second floor
features two 8/8-light double-hung wood-sash windows. The center window is a fixed-pane
modern replacement of the adjacent original windows.
Figure 5-5 The Sandford House street-facing east façade.
The side (south) elevation features a gabled solarium addition, inset to the principle gable
(Figure 5-6). Evenly spaced pilasters along solarium elevations create bays. Side-by-side
windows are evenly spaced along the first floor of each bay, and a door opening is centrally set
into the middle bay on the south elevation. Wood-frame ribbon windows are present on the
second-floor bays. Recessed horizontal panels are located below the second-story windows, one
per bay. Multiple recessed vertical panels are located above the first-story window, three per bay
on the south façade and four per bay on the east and west façades.
The rear (west) elevation features two exterior stucco-clad chimneys that pierce the west side
roof slope (Figure 5-7). Wood single-pane hopper windows flank each side of the south chimney
on the ground floor, while 8/8-light double-hung wood-sash windows flank each side of the
chimney on the second floor. A hipped roof two-story projection extends from the elevation,
which has a 6-light wood door flanked by a single-pane sidelight on each side is on the ground
floor. A 4/4-light metal sash window is centrally set into the second floor of the projection.
The side (north) elevation features an elevated wood frame deck supported by four utility-style
poles (Figure 5-8). The deck is accessed by a concrete staircase on the east. The deck is adjacent
to a flat roof projection on the first floor, with fenestration that includes grouped multilight wood
casement windows and a 10-light wood door. A 1/2-light window crowned by a half-round
22
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 86
Figure 5-6 Two-story solarium on the south (side) façade of the Sandford House.
Figure 5-7 West (rear) façade of the Sandford House with a single-story addition on the northwest
corner of the building.
23
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 87
Figure 5-8 North (side) façade of the Sandford House with wood deck and view of the two-story
addition.
molding is north of the projection. Second-floor fenestration includes two evenly spaced
8/8-light double-hung wood-sash windows. A smaller 4/4-light double-hung wood-sash window
is present between the two larger windows.
Two single-story sequential additions extend from the north end of the rear (west) elevation. The
first stucco-clad addition is gabled and constructed on a concrete pad (Figure 5-7). The
single-story addition includes modern slider windows on the rear (west) and side (south)
elevations. The second addition is attached to the first addition’s northwest corner. The two-story
stucco-clad addition has a hipped roof and is constructed on a concrete pad (Figure 5-9). A
ground floor door on the rear (west) elevation provides access to the daylight basement. This
elevation also features a centrally set wood 4-light window on the second floor. An entryway to
the residence is located on the side (south) elevation of the addition, accessed by a wood
staircase that extends from grade.
Two accessory buildings, a remodeled garage with an adjacent carport and a secondary
residential building, are present on the subject property. The garage is located south of the main
residence close to Luneta Drive (Figure 5-10). The stucco-clad side-gabled building is roofed
with composition shingles and constructed on a concrete pad. The original garage door opening
on the front (east) elevation has been enclosed and now displays three nonmatching pilasters
evenly spaced across the façade, a metal sliding window, and a flat wood door. The south (side)
elevation features three window openings with one set into the peak. Two openings are boarded
over, while a third opening is covered with transparent plastic. The side (north) elevation
includes two evenly spaced 4/4-light wood casement windows. Two additional aluminum sliding
24
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 88
Figure 5-9 North façade of two-story addition to the Sandford House; the single-story addition is
attached to the south.
Figure 5-10 Enclosed garage with attached carport on the north façade.
25
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 89
windows are set into the gable end, and a covered vent opening is set into the peak. The rear
(west) elevation features a stucco-clad, shed roof addition. The addition’s side (south) and rear
elevations each include a single offset aluminum slider. The side (north) elevation displays a
pedestrian door and single window opening. A covered carport is attached to the north side of the
addition. The flat-roofed building is topped with corrugated plastic panels and sits on a raised
concrete foundation. The carport is open along its east elevation, although a brick patio and low
brick wall is present along a portion of the elevation. Three 4 by 4 foot wood posts, which
support the building’s roof frame, are imbedded in the brick wall. The rear (west) and side
(north) elevations are clad with a mix of corrugated metal panels and wood boards. A flat roof
shed is attached to the rear of the carport. It is clad with corrugated metal panels and constructed
on a concrete foundation. The shed entryway is located on its north elevation.
A second accessory building stands southwest of the main residence. The gable-front stucco-clad
secondary residential building is covered with composition shingles and rests on a concrete slab
(Figure 5-11). Fenestration includes a wood-panel entrance door on the front (east) façade, a
single metal slider window on the side (north) elevation, and two metal sash windows on the side
(south) elevation. A shed roof addition is attached to the rear (west) elevation. The addition is
constructed on a partially raised concrete foundation and is clad/roofed with corrugated metal
panels. Large wood sliding doors occupy the entire south elevation. A wood frame patio and
brick and wood deck are on the north side of the second accessory building. A wood shed roof
shelters a portion of the patio while wood rails surround most of the deck.
Figure 5-11 Secondary residential building southwest of the Sandford House.
The San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office records the estimated date of construction of the
residence as circa 1900. The 1983 Historic Resources Inventory form completed by City of San
26
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 90
Luis Obispo Historic Resource Survey staff estimated the main residence’s construction date as
circa 1890. Assessor’s records estimate the date of construction for the first accessory building
(likely the garage) as circa 1950; the adjacent carport and second accessory building were
constructed circa 1955. Building permit data from the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department notes construction of an “addition and alteration” in 1951, possibly
one of the rear additions to the main residence, and construction of the garage in 1953. The
solarium addition appears to be the earliest addition to the residence, likely constructed before
1940. The modern stucco siding is not original, and it is not known when that modification was
made.
The garage was converted to sleeping quarters circa 1970. The metal-clad rear addition to the
secondary residential building and adjacent rear deck and covered patio were also constructed
circa 1970, as was the wood deck along the residence’s side (north) elevation. The brick patio
area north of the garage was in place prior to the Delta Tau era, indicating that the carport may
have actually served as a covered recreational area. The remains of a water tower foundation are
located south of the garage.
Additionally, visual inspection of the main residence identified a number of alterations. A metal-
railed balcony was once located on top of the portico; balcony rails have been removed and the
original wood-frame, double-hung window located adjacent to the second-floor balcony was
removed and replaced with a modern fixed-pane window, which replicated the original window,
to restrict access to the balcony. This alteration was made by Delta Tau Fraternity. While many
of the main residence’s windows appear original, the east façade first floor windows which flank
the portico are non-original. The original windows were likely wood multilight double-hung
windows or wood French doors, which are both features of the Colonial Revival style. All
fenestration along the first floor of the solarium has been removed and boarded closed. The
interior floor has been removed and the room has been sealed off to everyday access.
27
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 91
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
This section presents the regulatory framework and Æ’s significance evaluation of 71 Palomar
Avenue under the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance.
6.1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No.
1557 (2010 Series) to incorporate the Historic Preservation Ordinance provisions into the
municipal code. The classifications for resources and criteria for evaluating the significance of
properties located in the City of San Luis Obispo are provided in the City Ordinance, and are
excerpted directly below:
Historic Resource Designation (14.01.050)
The following classifications shall be used to designate historic resources and properties.
The primary categories of historic significance are “Master List” and “Contributing”
properties. Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age,
design and appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the
neighborhood or historic district in which they are located.
A. Master List Resources. The most unique and important resources and properties in
terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with
important persons or events in the City’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria
outlined in Section 14.01.070.
B. Contributing List Resources or Properties. Buildings or other resources at least 50
years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character,
and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the
unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole.
They need not be located in a historic district. In some cases, buildings or other
resources that are less than 50 years old, but are nonetheless significant based on
architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described in Section 14.01.070 may be
designated as a Contributing Resource.
C. Non-Contributing. Buildings, properties and other features in historic districts
which are less than 50 years old, have not retained their original architectural
character, or which do not support the prevailing historic character of the district.
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (14.01.070)
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural
Resource, the CHC [Cultural Heritage Committee] and City Council shall consider this
ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be
eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at
least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has
passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following
criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values.
28
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 92
(1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.).
Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although
the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular
social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid
styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of
artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a
particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and
detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g.,
carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building
design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit,
details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-
builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible
for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated
as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work
influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions
to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources,
designed the house at 810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built
between 1927–30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History—Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local,
California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of
the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress
member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally,
regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early,
unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local
affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical
professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History—Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
29
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 93
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city—regardless of
whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g.,
the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities
in early San Luis Obispo history).
(3) History—Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational,
governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be
evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the
historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with
the building (e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building
(e.g., Park Hotel).
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the
reason(s) for its significance.
City Guidelines additionally define integrity as “the ability of a property, structure, site, building,
improvement or natural feature to convey its identity and authenticity, including but not limited
to its original location, period(s) of construction, setting, scale, design, materials, detailing,
workmanship, human values, uses and association” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:74).
6.2 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
In 1983, the city-wide Historic Resources Survey identified the Sandford House as important for
its age and architecture, and the property was placed on the City’s Master List, with a National
Register rating indicating that the property is “not eligible for the National Register but locally
significant.” While a Historic Resources Inventory form was prepared for the Master List
designation, no period of significance was established at that time and no significance evaluation
was completed.
6.2.1 Period of Significance
The period of significance refers to an identified period of time during which significant events
and activities associated with a historic property occurred. For properties that are architecturally
significant, the period of significance is the date of construction and/or the dates of any
significant alterations and additions. To be considered significant, alterations and/or additions
must convey the significance of the architectural style. The character-defining features of the
building are identified as features from the period of significance that retain integrity and allow
the building to convey its significance.
30
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 94
The period of significance for the Sandford House is recommended as circa 1895–1930. While
documentation of the specific date of construction was never located, research indicates that
circa 1895 appears to be the approximate date of construction. This date is consistent with the
general time period associated with the Colonial Revival style and is associated with the
ownership of Reginald Wills-Sandford, likely the first occupant of the residence, and for whom
the building is named. The period of significance ends in 1930 to include the addition of the
solarium that significantly contributes to the architectural style of the property. The period of
significance excludes the two additions to the main building and the garage and secondary
residence located on the parcel. These buildings and additions do not convey the significance of
the property.
6.2.2 Architectural Criteria
For a property to be eligible under the Architectural Criteria of the City Ordinance, the resource
must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
The Sandford House is an example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture.
According to the City Guidelines:
The Colonial Revival style refers to a revival style popular in the early twentieth century
that was inspired by the early houses of the Atlantic seaboard. Compared to the highly
detailed ornamental elements and asymmetry that defined the Victorian styles, Colonial
Revival buildings are symmetrical and relatively austere. Colonial Revival buildings are
based on Georgian, Federal, and Dutch Colonial Styles and are often fused with
Neoclassical decorative elements such as classical porch columns [City of San Luis
Obispo 2010:23].
The City Guidelines briefly list characteristics of the style, which include:
• A hipped or gambrel roof;
• Symmetrical or balanced massing to the street form;
• Raised wood porch with free-standing columns, classical entry surrounds;
• Dormer windows;
• Shuttered double-hung windows; and
• Horizontal painted wood siding or stucco finish.
A well-known and often cited source, A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester and
McAlester 1992), includes a discussion of the history of the Colonial Revival style and its
identifying features; this supplements the City Guidelines overview.
The Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect the Colonial
Revival style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway
and neoclassical portico. However, the building lacks other signature elements of the style, such
31
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 95
as symmetrically arranged dormers across the front roof slope and wood shutters. Further, the
front façade window openings do not appear to have originally adhered to the style, typified by
double-hung windows that appeared in adjacent pairs. While not a highly stylistic example of the
Colonial Revival style, the Sandford House possesses many of the architectural characteristics
associated with the style described in both the City Guidelines and by McAlester and McAlester
(1992). These characteristics allow the resource to meet City of San Luis Obispo Master List
criteria. Accordingly, the property expresses its historical significance under the City’s
Architectural Criteria, as a local residential example of the style.
6.2.3 Historic Criteria
For a property to be eligible under the Historic Criteria of the City Ordinance, the resource must
be: (1) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
(2) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local
or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or (3) associated
with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural,
medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history.
The subject property does not appear significant for any association with the lives of persons
important to local, California, or national history. Ownership of the subject property changed
frequently until the late 1920s, when length of ownership of the Sandford House stabilized.
While Peter Taylor is noted in a one county historical narrative as a potentially significant
individual (Morrison 1917), his children, who owned and resided at the subject property for
approximately 20 years, do not appear to have achieved a similar level of historical significance
within the community. However, Christina Jacobson does appear to have reached a level of local
historical significance as the first individual to introduce locally produced and broadcast radio
and television. While this is an important contribution to the community and Jacobson owned
and resided at the subject property from 1951 until her death in 1964, properties eligible under
this criteria are generally associated with the productive life of the significant individual.
Jacobson did not acquire the subject property until 14 years after founding KVEC-AM in 1937.
While Jacobson began the KVEC television station in 1953, during her era of residence at the
Sandford House, she also divested her interest in all local media holdings just 3 years later. A
more appropriate physical representation of Christina Jacobson’s productive professional
accomplishments and historical contributions to local history would appear to be the KVEC
radio and television studios, constructed during Jacobson’s tenure and located at 467 Hill Street.
Based on this analysis, the Sandford House does not appear to be historically significant under
this component of the Historic Criteria.
The subject property does not appear significant for any association with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage
of California or the United States. Research into the subject property within the context of local,
state or national history did not locate patterns of historical significance. Periods of historic-era
development outside the municipal boundaries of San Luis Obispo were generally associated
with agricultural history. Such development would have occurred on large parcels of land, with
demonstrable impacts to economic expansion or social history. The original 15.8-acre parcel
does not appear to have been a major economic producer in the area and research did not locate
evidence of significant events occurring on the property such as agricultural research,
32
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 96
technological advancements, or experimental plantings. Evidence indicates use of the subject
property as a private residence not associated with specific activities, organizations, or functions
important to the broader community. Further, the subject property does not appear to be
associated with a specific event important in the history of the community or California.
Accordingly, the Sandford House does not appear to be historically significant under this
component of the Historic Criteria.
Research into patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational,
governmental, military, industrial or religious history potentially associated with the subject
property did not yield connections with any of the listed historic themes. As such, Sandford
House does not appear to be historically significant under this component of the Historic
Criteria.
6.2.4 Integrity
To be considered eligible for listing, a historic property must retain integrity in order to convey
its historical significance. Further, a property that is important architecturally must retain the
physical features that defines its particular style, particularly in terms of massing, fenestration
patterns, retention of materials, and ornamentation. The majority of the building’s structural
system and its materials should date from the period of significance and its key character-
defining features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details, such as
dormers and porches, ornamental features, fenestration, and materials as well as the overall mass
and form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building to be recognized as a product
of its time.
The Sandford House period of significance is identified as circa 1895–1930. An assessment of
each aspect of integrity for the Sandford House is provided below.
• Location: The Sandford House is located where it was historically established,
outside the boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo until incorporation into city
limits in the 1950s. The property retains integrity of location.
• Design: The Sandford House generally retains its original form, floor plan, and
structural system. The solarium was constructed within the period of significance.
The residence retains integrity of fenestration patterns, mass, and ornamental
detailing. Original side-gabled roof orientation is also intact. The large majority of
window and door types and accompanying spatial organization remain intact as does
the prominent portico, an important neoclassical characteristic of the style. Taken
together, design elements reflect the Colonial Revival style, which remain clearly
recognizable. The property retains integrity of design.
• Setting: The setting for the Sandford House retains some but not all of its original
integrity. The immediate area around the residence remains open space, providing a
semblance of the historic setting associated with the property. The building maintains
its historic orientation atop a small slope facing east over the town of San Luis
Obispo. While there is no known formal garden or landscaping plan associated with
the property, expansive lawns remain around the residence to the east, west, and
south. More broadly, the setting has experience significant urbanization. Since the
33
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 97
1960s, urbanization has slowly enclosed the property with 1970s-era apartment
buildings to the north and west and modern single-family residences to the east and
south. The size of the property itself has also been altered from 15.80 acres to today’s
1.17 acres. The integrity of setting is significantly diminished.
• Materials: The Sandford House retains much of its historic materials. The foundation
remains intact as do many of the original multilight wood frame sash windows and
prominent wood front door and surrounding wood portico. While the building
currently features stucco siding, a departure from original wood siding, this alteration
may have occurred within the period of significance. The floor plan has experienced
some modification since the period of significance, with alterations to a portion of the
first floor, but generally remains recognizable. The property retains integrity of
materials.
• Workmanship: The building’s structural system remains unaltered and fenestration
patterns remain unaltered. The property retains integrity of workmanship.
• Feeling: This is an intangible quality, which depends to some extent on integrity of
design, setting, and materials that express architectural significance. The Sandford
House continues to evoke a historic sense of the property’s use. The building’s
prominence within its modern neighborhood remains distinct and a durable reminder
of its rural past. The open space around the residence is unique and conveys a sense
of the property’s significance and historic residential use. The property retains
integrity of feeling.
• Association: Integrity of association refers to the degree to which a property has a
direct link to an event, person, or development for which the property is significant.
The subject property remains in its original location and retains its Colonial Revival
style. The property retains integrity of association.
The Sandford House appears to retain good integrity of location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Although integrity of setting has been significantly
diminished, the overall integrity of the property is sufficient to convey the significance of the
property. As such, the Sandford House appears to be eligible and appropriately listed on the City
Master List of Historic Resources.
34
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 98
DESIGN REVIEW
The City of San Luis Obispo (2010:1 3) Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state:
Alterations to listed historic resources shall be approved only upon finding that the
proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, any required historic preservation report, General Plan
policies, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and these Guidelines.”
7.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
As the proposed project will relocate the Sandford House within the same parcel, the project
must meet the criteria for relocation identified in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Relocation of Historic Resources (14.01.110)
Relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource and
is discouraged. Relocation applications shall be evaluated as follows:
A. Review. The CHC and ARCH [Architectural Review Commission] shall review
applications to relocate structures listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources.
B. Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of
Historic Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the [Community
Development] Director to be potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation
method and shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with goals and
policies of the General Plan, and applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, and:
(1) The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and
(2) Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the
historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource is
located or at its proposed location, and
(3) The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through
ownership, long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing
relocation, to the Director’s approval, and
(4) The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource’s historic significance;
and; OR
(5) The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the
site and no other measure for correcting the condition are feasible, OR
(6) The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section 14.01.100(J)
for the demolition of a historic resources [Economic Hardship provision].
35
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 99
The ordinance further describes relocation timing, historical and architectural documentation,
and relocation plans and procedures not addressed within this study as they involve decisions
made by the Cultural Heritage Committee and City Community Development Department.
7.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
According to the City Guidelines, proposed projects must meet the following conditions to alter
a listed historic resource:
Percent of historic resource to be preserved. Alterations of historically listed buildings
shall retain at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior
bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible. Proposed
alterations of greater than 25 percent of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior walls will be subject to the review process for demolitions. Alterations do not
include ordinary repair or maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Resources.
Retention of character-defining features. 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.
Exterior building changes. 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. Additions to historic buildings shall
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent
with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character-
defining features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape,
quality and appearance. However, original materials are not required.
Interior building changes. Interior changes to publicly accessible listed historic
buildings whose architectural or historic significance is wholly or partially based on
interior architectural characters or features shall preserve and restore significant interior
architectural features.
Acquired historic significance. Changes to listed historic resources that the Director or
the CHC determines to have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be
retained and preserved [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:13–14].
7.3 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
The City Guidelines further stipulate that proposed projects that will alter any listed historical
resources must adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (Secretary’s Standards). To effectively evaluate consistency of the proposed project
with the Secretary’s Standards, it is important to appropriately define the specific category of
treatment that is being proposed. The following definitions are cited from “Introduction to
Standards and Guidelines” provided by the National Park Service (2015a):
36
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 100
The four treatment approaches are preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction, outlined below in hierarchical order and explained:
The first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic
fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum
over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that
are made.
Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic
materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property
is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus
attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial
relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.)
Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most
significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from
other periods.
Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-
surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials.
The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House, retain and repair as much as possible of the
historic character-defining features of the building, and remove two non-historic additions.
Following the relocation of the Sandford House towards the south end of the site, the project will
construct multiple new apartment buildings on the parcel. As such, the proposed work does not
appear to be consistent with a preservation or restoration treatment as defined under the Secretary’s
Standards. The proposed treatment of the subject property is, therefore, best characterized as
rehabilitation under the Secretary’s Standards as it proposes continuation of a compatible use for
the property and proposes retention and repair of key elements of the building’s historic exterior.
7.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Arris Studio Architects in San Luis Obispo prepared the conceptual design plans that illustrate
the proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the Sandford House and construction of new
multiple-family residential buildings (see Appendix E). The following summary of planned
modifications is derived from the conceptual design plans and meetings with the project
development team.
7.4.1 Relocation and Reuse of the Sandford House (Main Residence)
The proposed project calls for the relocation of the Sandford House to a re-graded and slightly
lower point on site approximately 40 feet southeast of its historic location. The historic
orientation will remain intact, facing Palomar Avenue from the crest of a small slope, but the
overall property height will be lowered slightly across the slope. The two-story residence will be
rehabilitated, including a new foundation, exterior paint, and roofing materials. The four-
bedroom residence will be converted into common spaces for residents. Two small sequential
additions to the rear of the residence will be demolished (Figure 7-1). The solarium addition will
remain and will be rehabilitated.
37
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 101
Figure 7-1 Two non-original additions to the rear of the Sandford House, looking west. The
proposed project will demolish both additions.
7.4.2 Demolition of Two Accessory Buildings and Carport
Two small accessory buildings, a garage with attached carport and a secondary residential unit
with attached storage, will be demolished to allow construction of new apartment buildings. A
projecting porch element on the north side to which one addition was attached will remain and be
preserved.
7.4.3 Construction of New Apartment Complex
A new 41 unit apartment complex will be constructed on the subject property. The multiple
buildings will occupy currently open space on the west and north areas of the parcel (Figure 7-2).
As previously noted, two existing accessory buildings (a garage and secondary residential unit)
will be demolished to allow construction of the new buildings.
The apartment buildings will consist of six studio, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom units.
Conceptual drawings illustrate multiple buildings will contain the apartments to the north and
west sides of the Sandford House. The west complex will be a full two stories, while the natural
slope along the far north side of the property will allow for construction of a two story complex.
A proposed sub-basement level at the northern end of the site will contain all 75 parking spaces.
38
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 102
Figure 7-2 View to the east demonstrating the north lawn where the east-west wing of the
apartment building is proposed for construction.
Existing vehicle circulation routes will be revised. Two new driveways and garage openings will
allow access to the new apartment building’s north wing parking areas from Palomar Avenue.
7.5 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY RELOCATION CRITERIA
The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House within the subject parcel to make space
for new construction. The following section evaluates the proposed project for consistency with
the City Ordinance relocation criteria.
1. The proposed relocation does not appear to “significantly change, destroy, or
adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource.” The
Sandford House will remain within its historically associated property. Importantly,
the historic orientation of the building will remain intact, on a slight rise facing west
toward Palomar Avenue. Accordingly, the relocation will not adversely impact the
historic character of the residence or its ability to convey its significance.
2. The proposed relocation does not appear to “have a significant adverse effect on the
character of the historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the
resource is located or at its proposed location.” The Sandford House is not located in
a historic district, and the minor relocation of the building will not adversely affect
nearby properties.
39
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 103
3. The original site and the proposed receiving site are the same site, providing stable
control of ownership.
4. As the building will not leave its historically associated parcel, the proposed receiving
site is relevant to the historic significant of the resource. The physical relocation of
the building is approximately 40 feet southeast of its historic location.
Criteria 5 and 6 address issues that should be determined by the City Community Development
Department. Based on this review of the first four criteria, the proposed relocation of the
Sandford House appears to meet the required criteria to appropriately relocate a historic resource.
7.6 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
As the proposed project will alter the Sandford House, the following section evaluates the
proposed project for consistency with the City Guidelines for alterations to a historic resource
located outside of a historic district.
7.6.1 Percent of Historic Resource to Be Preserved
The City Guidelines require that alterations to historically listed building must ensure retention
of at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and
cladding. The proposed project includes the demolition of two non-original additions that were
constructed after the period of significance. However, the proposed project would retain,
rehabilitate, and reuse the main historic residence that will include more than 75 percent of the
original framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding. As such, the proposed project
appears to be consistent with this criterion.
7.6.2 Retention of Character-Defining Features
Primary character-defining features include:
• Two-story massing with a rectangular footprint;
• Pediment side-gable roof;
• Wide boxed eaves and wide cornice;
• Smooth stucco cladding;
• Symmetrically arranged fenestration on the street-facing east façade, including the
wood-framed multi-light sash windows on the second floor;
• Distinctive front portico with Tuscan columns and dentils;
• Centered wood-paneled front door with surrounding fanlight, sidelights, and pilasters;
• Two-story solarium with pediment end, pilasters, recessed panels between first and
second stories, and three-bay arrangement;
40
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 104
• Projecting flat-roofed north side entrance with grouped multi-light wood casement
windows, a centered 10-light wood door, and 10-light French doors on its east side.
The proposed project will retain and repair character-defining features associated with the
architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the Sandford House. The proposed project
appears to be consistent with this criterion.
7.6.3 Exterior Building Changes
The proposed project will not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements to the exterior
of the Sandford House. The project proposes to rehabilitate the historical building following the
Secretary’s Standards. As such, all character-defining features of the building will be repaired or
replaced with materials similar in size, shape, quality, and appearance (in kind) on the exterior.
The only change to the house will be the elimination of the twin chimneys at the rear (west)
elevation, which are already largely invisible from the street. A compatible patio off of the north
elevation will be placed on grade and screened on the east Palomar Street elevation by a row of
hedges. New construction will occur on the parcel that will change the contextual setting of the
parcel itself, although the majority of the surrounding neighborhood is already infilled with
multiple-family residential buildings. The proposed repair of the Sandford House appears to be
consistent with this criterion.
7.6.4 Interior Building Changes
As the Sandford House is and will remain privately owned property, this criterion does not
apply.
7.6.5 Acquired Historic Appearance
Based on the historical research presented in the significance evaluation, the Sandford House
does not possess any changes to the building that have acquired historic significance in their own
right. The proposed project appears to be consistent with this criterion.
7.7 CONSISTENCY WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
The proposed alterations to the Sandford House as communicated in the conceptual drawings by
Arris Studio Architects are generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 68.3), although recommendations
are included regarding additional architectural elements that could enhance the compatibility of the
proposed new apartment building. Discussion of each of the standards and assessment of the
proposed alterations for consistency is presented in this section.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
The circa 1895 Sandford House was a single-family residence until conversion to multifamily
housing following its 1969 purchase by the Delta Tau House Corporation and subsequent use as
a fraternity house. The proposed project will rehabilitate the residence into residential amenity
spaces, such as conference rooms and a gymnasium, and incorporate a leasing office. The
41
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 105
continued use of the historic Sandford House as public space could eventually require additional
alterations to interior spaces, but those spaces have already experienced alteration during the Delta
Tau era of ownership. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with Standard 1.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
The setting of the subject property has experienced significant change since construction of the
residence in circa 1895. Originally located outside the city boundaries of San Luis Obispo in a
pastoral landscape, the property’s setting has been increasingly urbanized since annexation by
the City in the early 1950s. Alteration of the landscape continued into the 1970s with the
construction of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive and the construction of adjacent homes and
apartments that ended the property’s relative isolation. Given the broad change in its
environment and context, historic character of the subject property is expressed today in the
prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. While the proposed project calls for the
relocation and slight reduction in elevation of the residence, it will remain on site and in a
prominent location on the parcel, serving as the architectural anchor of the site. Its historic
orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of San Luis Obispo will be minimally
modified by the proposed project. The client has been advised to maintain the elevation of the
Sandford House as closely as possible to the historic siting of that building. The reconstructed
foundation and platform porch of the Sandford House will retain a similar exposure and profile
to the original, which serves as the pedestal for the building. The height of the portico and its
stairway also contribute to its monumentality and will be maintained as closely as the flattened
site will allow.
New construction will be subordinate to the historic residence, located to the rear and north side
of the historic residence. While spatial relationships will be altered, the distinctiveness of the
Sandford House will remain intact.
The overall visual character of the residence, which includes building shape, the principal and
secondary entries to the building, roof and related features, prominent portico projection,
two-story solarium, and historic-age materials such as stucco cladding will remain intact. Only
the elimination of the twin chimneys at the rear (west) elevation will occur, but they are largely
invisible from the street. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with Standard 2.
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..
There are no proposed changes to the Sandford House that would create a false sense of
historical development. Proposed alterations, which will rehabilitate the historic residence, do
not include changes to the building which alter its architectural style and create an unauthentic
sense of historical development. Further, new construction is sufficiently modern and
differentiated from the historic building to allow clear distinction between the historic and
modern built environment. As such, the proposed project complies with Standard 3.
42
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 106
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
The period of significance for the Sandford House is circa 1895–1930. Added prior to 1930, the
solarium addition to the side (north) elevation of the subject property will be rehabilitated and
integrated into the Sandford House’s proposed new use for residents. The two accessory
buildings, a secondary residential building and garage with attached carport, were constructed
after the period of significance, as were the two additions constructed to the rear of the Sandford
House Based on historical research, the accessory buildings and additions do not appear to have
acquired historical significance in their own right and will be removed as part of the proposed
project. The proposed project complies with Standard 4.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The proposed project will rehabilitate and reuse the subject property’s historic building, the
Sandford House. However, care must be taken to preserve original materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques while removing the additions to the main residence. The two rear
additions must be removed with the minimum amount of impact to original construction and it is
unknown if removal of the first addition will reveal a stucco or wood-clad exterior wall. General
recommendations are provided in the next section regarding how best to address this concern;
adherence to the recommendations will result in compliance with Standard 5.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old
in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will
be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
The stucco cladding of the Sandford House will be repaired and painted in an appropriate color.
The Sandford House will be reroofed with suitable composition shingle material. Prominent
architectural elements, such as the distinctive portico with its Tuscan columns, entablature,
original multi-light wood-framed sash windows, and wood paneled front door with fanlights and
sidelights will be maintained. The deteriorated two-story solarium addition will be repaired and
its windows replaced with appropriate historic type.
Windows and a door located on the first floor of the solarium are covered over and the original
materials are unknown. Modern replacements for first-floor solarium windows should consist of
replacements of the same scale as the originals that fit the existing openings.. Adherence to the
recommendations will result in compliance with Standard 6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
The conceptual plans do not indicate any planned chemical or physical treatments. As long as
none will be undertaken that could cause damage to historic materials, the proposed project
complies with Standard 7.
43
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 107
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
As part of the permitting process, Æ conducted an Archaeological Resource Inventory [ARI] that
located the foundation of a historic-age water tank. The City Archaeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines note that:
Construction monitoring may still be required by the Director, if, after completion of an
ARI, SARE [Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation] or ADRE [Archaeological
Data Recovery Excavation], the Director determines there is still a possibility that
significant or potentially significant archaeological resources are present in the impact
zone and that it is not reasonable to conduct additional physical investigations prior to
construction [City of San Luis Obispo 2009:18].
Historic-period use of the property increases the potential to encounter buried historic deposits.
Due to the necessity for trenching for the new foundations for the Sandford House and
excavation for the new apartment building and associated utility infrastructure, Æ recommends
construction monitoring as a means of complying with Standard 8 (see Section 8.1).
9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
will 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.
The goals of Standard 9 are compatible with objectives included in the City Guidelines that state
“listed Historic Resources located outside of historic districts shall be subject to the same
protection and regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts” (City of San
Luis Obispo 2010:12). While the Sandford House is not located within an identified historic
district, it is a Master List historic resource and associated new construction must follow
guidelines that direct general architectural compatibility of new construction to historic
resources. The City Guidelines state:
New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with
the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale,
massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting, and street
yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures. . . . New structures are not required to
copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is
historic [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:7].
Regarding architectural compatibility, the City Guidelines state:
New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public view of, or
visually detract from, the history architectural character of historically designated
structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing
historic architectural character of the historic district” [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:8].
As noted, the subject property is not located within a historic neighborhood. The subject property
itself forms a transitional space in the neighborhood, serving as an informal margin between
44
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 108
large, high-density 1970s–1980s era apartment buildings to the north and west, and single-family
residences to the south that are not of historic age. Within the transitional space, the Sandford
House is unique, surrounded by open space on a parcel that is over an acre in size.
The proposed construction of the apartment building will alter the spatial relationships and
building locations historically present at the subject property. However, the relocation of the
Sandford House will allow the historic residence to maintain a prominent position on the parcel.
To enhance the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence,
the architects have proposed multiple new apartment buildings that have been placed to maintain
reasonable dominance of the Sandford House on the property despite a slightly reduced grade
height. Proposed new construction elements at the 71 Palomar apartment complex will assume a
secondary position, and their siting somewhat suggests that they are on their own parcels,
especially to the north side of the historic residence. A transitional hierarchy that the architects
have sought to create can be viewed in the Palomar Street site elevation, moving from the long
block of lower apartments to the north towards the Sandford House and residential single-family
homes to the south, as demonstrated in the plans (Appendix E). Other new apartment buildings
behind (to the west) of the Sandford House will be approximately the same height as the lowered
historic building, but less obvious from Palomar Street due to the elevated nature of the site.
Additionally, they will be screened by trees and the Sandford House itself.
While Standard 9 states that new construction should be clearly differentiated from the historic,
National Park Service recommendations for new construction within the boundaries of historic
properties also note that: “As with new additions, the massing, size, scale and architectural
features of new construction on the site of an historic building must be compatible with those of
the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new
construction must be subordinate to these buildings” (National Park Service 2015b).
The new apartment building immediately adjacent to the Sandford House, and the two buildings
on the south along Luneta Drive, are subordinated through their low-profile hipped roofs;
subdued neutral colors, and lower heights, yet they also relate to the historic building in the
rhythm of their facades and use of stucco finishes and multi-light windows. The proposed
hipped-roof design of the new construction differs from the Sandford House’s Colonial Revival
style side-gabled roof and from surrounding apartment buildings and single-family residences,
most of which feature gabled roofs. The Secretary’s Standards note that new construction should
be differentiated from the existing historic built environment. Use of a hipped-roof for the new
construction does not appear to weaken or diminish the historic character of the Sandford House,
which will retain its primary role as the architectural anchor of the property.
A patio area is proposed for the north side of the Sandford House to help create a sense of place
in that area. It is designed to sit on grade and will be screened by a hedge on the prominent east,
Palomar Street, side.
To enhance the relationship between the historic residence and the new construction, we
recommended that porticos be added to the front façades (those facing the Sandford House) of
the proposed apartment building. The neoclassical portico is a primary component of the historic
residence, and while the portico’s associated with the new construction should not mirror the
historic feature, an appropriate rendition of the portico on the new construction could serve to
45
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 109
unite the proposed new apartment building with the historic residence. Similarly, we recommend
that new windows intended for the apartment building should feature mult-ilight fixed or sash
combinations that reflect the multi-light windows extant on the Sandford House.
Adoption of the recommendations, with added guidance from the CHC, will allow compliance
with Standard 9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall 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.
The proposed project will reposition the Sandford House in an area adjacent to its current
historic location and the historic orientation of the building will be retained, although the grade
will be lowered slightly. New construction is proposed in areas of the parcel where there is
generally open space. If in the future the new apartment buildings are removed, the essential
form and integrity of the Sandford House would be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with Standard 10.
46
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 110
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on historical research, the Sandford House at 71 Palomar Avenue is significant as a good
example of the Colonial Revival architectural style and is appropriately listed on the City Master
List of Historic Resources. The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House within the
parcel and will construct a new multiple-story apartment building on the parcel. The proposed
project appears to be consistent with the City Ordinance relocation criteria, City Guidelines, and
the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The following recommendations are designed to
guide the rehabilitation and reuse of the Sandford House and construction of the new multifamily
residential building.
8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
While the current study found no evidence of archaeological materials on the surface, the project
area has a heightened sensitivity for buried prehistoric and historic period materials. New
building construction at the subject property may impact potentially significant archaeological
resources. Therefore, a monitoring program should be developed for this project. A formal
monitoring plan should be prepared and approved by the City prior to construction. This plan
will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and
approach to monitoring, description of expected materials (both prehistoric and historical),
description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of
human remains, staff requirements, and a basic data recovery plan to be implemented in case
significant deposits are exposed during construction.
8.2 REMOVAL OF NONORIGINAL ADDITIONS
Extreme care should be taken during the removal of the nonoriginal additions to avoid damaging
the original building walls. Any nonrepairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the
addition directly attached to the Sandford House should be replaced in-kind to match existing
stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during demolition should be preserved for
reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.
8.3 RELOCATION OF THE SANDFORD HOUSE
In addition to its general location on the site, it is important that the elevation of the Sandford
House be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of that building. Since the site
will be cut and flattened slightly in the area of relocation, reducing the elevation of the Sandford
house slightly, it is especially important that the reconstructed foundation and platform porch
retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing foundation does, since it serves in
effect as a pedestal for the architecture on display above. The height of the portico contributes to
this monumentality; therefore, a stair height similar to that which currently exists also should be
maintained.
47
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 111
8.4 SANDFORD HOUSE WINDOW REPLACEMENT
Fenestration located on the first floor of the solarium is covered over and the original materials
are currently unknown. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows should
minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original
openings; multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located
throughout other areas of the residence could be employed, however no evidence has been found
thus far that documents the original window design for the solarium.
8.5 LOW IMPACT CLEANING AND PAINT REMOVAL
Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or
around the Sandford House itself. High-pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material
blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals should be avoided
unless specifically approved by the City.
8.6 MASSING, LOCATION, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
To enhance the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence,
the architects have designed will new apartment buildings that have been placed so as to respect
the dominance of the Sandford House on the property. Their scale and massing contributes
toward that goal, and they have not been over-detailed or designed to draw attention from the
Sandford House. Efforts to maintain this compatibility will make this a successful project.
48
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 112
REFERENCES
Agenbroad, Larry D., John R. Johnson, Don Morris, and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.
2005 Mammoths and Humans as Late Pleistocene Contemporaries on Santa Rosa Island. In
Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium, pp. 3–7. Institute for Wildlife
Studies, Arcata, California.
Angel, Myron
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland,
California.
Arnold, Jeanne
1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and
Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57:60–84.
Bertrando, Ethan B., and Valerie A. Levulett (editors)
2004 Evidence and Models for Late Pleistocene Chronology and Settlement along
California’s Central Coast. In Emerging from the Ice Age: Early Holocene
Occupations on the California Central Coast, edited by Ethan Bertrando and Valerie
A. Levulett, pp. 93–105. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional
Papers No. 17.
Best, Gerald
1992 The Pacific Coast Company. Signature Press, Wilton, California.
Blackburn, Thomas C.
1975 December’s Child: A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Bureau of Land Management
2015 Land Survey Map Search, 1867, 1877, 1889, 1890. General Land Office records,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx, accessed June 2015.
City of San Luis Obispo
2009 Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Community
Development Department. City of San Luis Obispo, California.
2010 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Community Development Department.
City of San Luis Obispo, California.
Colonies and India, The
1892 Society News. 12 March:22. London, United Kingdom. Newspapers.com, accessed
by subscription June 2015.
Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum, New York.
49
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 113
Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten
1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore G. Cooley, and Richard Carrico
1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology
and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
9:120–128.
Erlandson, Jon M., Douglas J. Kennett, B. Lynn Ingram, Daniel A. Guthrie, Don P. Morris, Mark
A. Tveskov, G. James West, and Phillip L. Walker
1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261),
San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38(2):355–373.
Farquhar, Jennifer, Ryan Brady, Tom Garlinghouse, and John Ellison
2011 Archaeological Investigations for the Nacimiento Water Project, San Luis Obispo
County, California, Albion Environmental Inc., Santa Cruz, California. Prepared for
County of San Luis Obispo.
Fitzgerald, Richard T.
2000 Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project,
Coast Branch Series Paper No. 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society,
San Luis Obispo, California.
Gibson, Robert O.
1991 The Chumash. Indians of North America, Frank W. Porter III, general editor. Chelsea
House, New York.
1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring for Unocal Soil Testing Program along
Pipelines near Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo County, California. Gibson’s
Archaeological Consulting, Paso Robles, California. Submitted to UNOCAL CERT,
San Luis Obispo, California.
Glassow, Michael A.
1990 Archaeological Investigations on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Connection with the
Development of Space Transportation System Facilities, with contributions by Jeanne
E. Arnold, G. A. Batchelder, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Brian K. Glenn, D. A. Guthrie,
Donald L. Johnson, and Phillip L. Walker. Department of Anthropology, University
of California, Santa Barbara. Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Western Region Interagency Archeological Services Branch, San
Francisco, Contract No. CX-8099-2-0004.
1996 Purisimeño Chumash Prehistory: Maritime Adaptations along the Southern
California Coast. Case Studies in Archaeology. Jeffrey Quilter, series editor. Harcourt
Brace College Publishers, San Diego.
50
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 114
Glassow, Michael A., and Larry R. Wilcoxon
1988 Coastal Adaptations near Point Conception, California, with Particular Regard to
Shellfish Exploitation. American Antiquity 53:36–51.
Graumlich, Lisa J.
1993 A 1000-year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada.
Quaternary Research 39:249–255.
Great Register
1872 Great Register of San Luis Obispo County. On file, History Center of San Luis
Obispo County, San Luis Obispo.
Greenwood, Roberta S.
1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San
Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 7.
1978 Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer,
pp. 520–523. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Hackel, Steven W.
1998 Land, Labor and Production. In Contested Eden: California before the Gold Rush,
edited by Ramon A. Gutierrez and Richard J. Orsi, pp. 111–146. University of
California Press, in association with the California Historical Society, Sacramento.
Hudson, Travis, and Thomas C. Blackburn
1982–1987 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere. 5 vols. Ballena Press,
Los Altos/Menlo Park, California, and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, California.
Hudson, Travis, Thomas C. Blackburn, Rosario Curletti, and Janice Timbrook (editors)
1977 The Eye of the Flute: Chumash Traditional History and Ritual, as told by Fernando
Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, California.
Hudson, Travis, and Ernest Underhay
1978 Crystals in the Sky: An Intellectual Odyssey Involving Chumash Astronomy,
Cosmology, and Rock Art. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 10. Socorro, New
Mexico.
Johnson, John R.
1988 Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Jones, Terry L.
1995 Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization along
California’s Big Sur Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Davis. UMI Publication No. AAT 9543922.
51
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 115
Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding,
Douglas J. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker
1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North
America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137–170.
Jones, Terry L., Kathleen Davis, Glenn Farris, Steven D. Grantham, Teresa W. Fung, and Betty
Rivers
1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the
Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to
California Department of Transportation, Environmental Branch, San Luis Obispo.
Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau
2002 Deintensification along the Central Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene
Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones,
pp. 205–232. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jones, Terry L., Sebastian C. Garza, Judith Porcasi, and Jereme W. Gaeta
2009 Another Trans-Holocene Sequence from Diablo Canyon: New Faunal and
Radiocarbon Findings from CA-SLO-585, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 29(1):19–31.
Jones, Terry L., and Douglas J. Kennett
1999 Late Holocene Sea Temperatures along the Central California Coast. Quaternary
Research 51:74–82.
Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer R. Richman
1995 On Mussels: Mytilus californianus as a Prehistoric Resource. North American
Archaeologist 16:33–58.
Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G.
Hylkema
2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 125–146.
AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Jones, Terry L., and Georgie Waugh
1995 Central California Coastal Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in
California Archaeology, Vol. 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Kennett, Douglas J., B. Lynn Ingram, Jon M. Erlandson, and Phillip Walker
1997 Evidence for Temporal Fluctuations in Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Ages in the
Santa Barbara Channel, Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science
24:1051–1059.
52
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 116
King, Chester D.
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social
System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. The
Evolution of North American Indians, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Garland, New
York.
Krieger, Daniel E.
1988 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom: San Luis Obispo County. Windsor
Publications, Northridge, California.
Lebow, Clayton G., Douglas R. Harro, Rebecca L. McKim, Charles M. Hodges, Ann M. Munns,
Erin A. Enright, and Leeann G. Haslouer
2014 The Sudden Flats Site: A 10,910–10,600-Year-Old Coastal Shell Midden on
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Submitted to 30th Civil Engineer Squadron,
Installation Management Flight, Environmental Section, Environmental Assets
(30 CES/CEIEA), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester
1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Mikkelsen Patricia, William Hildebrandt, and Deborah Jones
2000 Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: Excavations at Site
CA-SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological
Society Occasional Paper No. 14.
Mills, Wayne W., Michael F. Rondeau, and Terry L. Jones
2005 A Fluted Projectile Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal
of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25(2):68–74. Electronic document,
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~tljones/jcgba_mills.pdf, accessed 23 October 2012.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando and London.
Morrison, Annie L., and John H. Haydon
1917 A History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, with Biographical Sketches of the
Leading Men and Women of the County and Environs Who Have Been Identified with
the Growth and Development of the Section from the Early Days to the Present.
Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.
National Park Service
2015a Introduction to Standards and Guidelines: Choosing an Appropriate Treatment for the
Historic Building, http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/standguide/
overview/choose_treat.htm. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Technical Preservation Services, accessed June 2015.
2015b New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties, http://www.nps.gov/
tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-construction.htm. U.S.
53
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 117
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services,
accessed June 2015.
Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Olson, Ronald L.
1930 Chumash Prehistory. University of California Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology 28(1):1–22.
Palóu, Francisco
1926 Historical Memoirs of New California, by Fray Francisco Palou, O.F.M. 4 vols.
Translated into English from the Archives of Mexico, edited by Herbert E. Bolton.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Pisias, Nicklas G.
1978 Paleoceanography of the Santa Barbara Basin during the Last 8000 Years. Quaternary
Research 10:366–384.
Price, Barry A.
2005 Fashionably Late: Chronological and Cultural Definitions of the Late Period on the
Central California Coast. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society
for California Archaeology, Sacramento.
Price, Barry A., Sandra S. Flint, and Kham N. Slater
1997 Cultural Resource Monitoring and Emergency Archaeological Excavations for
Segment 2 of the Chorro Valley Water Transmission Pipeline Project. Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles.
Price, Barry A., Ann M. Munns, Georgeanna Hawley, Terry L. Joslin, Douglas R. Harro, and
Rebecca L. McKim
2012 A Slice of Time at Diablo Canyon: Archaeological Sampling at CA-SLO-61, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., San Luis Obispo, California.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sacramento, California.
Rogers, David Banks
1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast, California. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History Special Publications No. 1. Santa Barbara, California.
San Luis Obispo County History Center
2015 KVEC Collection. Various documents donated by Dave Congalton on file, reviewed
June 2015.
Stine, Scott
1990 Late Holocene Fluctuations of Mono Lake, Eastern California. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 78:333–381.
54
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 118
1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time.
Nature 369:546–549.
Thompson and West
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California, with Illustrations and Biographical
Sketches of its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Oakland, California. Electronic
document, https://archive.org/stream/historyofsanluis00ange#page/n5/mode/2up,
accessed June 2014.
Tognazzini, Wilmar N. (compiler)
1989 Statistics of the Port. January 15 through January 21. In 100 Years Ago, 1889:
Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune and the Daily Republic, p. 8.
W. N. Tognazzini, San Luis Obispo, California.
1991 February 11 through February 18. In 100 Years Ago, 1891: Excerpts from the San
Luis Obispo Morning Tribune., p. 17. W. N. Tognazzini. San Luis Obispo, California.
1996 Grain Shipping. An Average Here of a Thousand Sacks since July First. July 26
through August 1. In 100 Years Ago, 1896: Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo
Morning Tribune and Breeze, pp 72–73. W. N. Tognazzini. San Luis Obispo,
California.
1999 Pacific Coast Railway Notes. August 13 through August 19. 100 Years Ago, 1899.
On-line edition, http://wntog.tripod.com/99.html, accessed October 2006.
Wilmar N. Tognazzini, Morro Bay, California.
U.S. Census
1900 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
1910 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
1920 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
1930 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
Woodman, Craig F., James L. Rudolph, and Teresa P. Rudolph (editors)
1991 Western Chumash Prehistory: Resource Use and Settlement in the Santa Ynez River
Valley. Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California.
Prepared for Unocal Corporation. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los
Angeles District.
55
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 119
APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
56
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 120
57
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 121
58
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 122
59
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 123
60
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 124
61
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 125
APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
62
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 126
63
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 127
64
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 128
APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach
65
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 129
66
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 130
67
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 131
68
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 132
69
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 133
APPENDIX D
Cultural Resource Record Forms
70
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 134
71
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 135
72
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 136
73
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 137
74
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 138
75
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 139
76
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 140
77
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 141
78
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 142
79
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 143
80
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC1 - 144
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ARCH-2193-2015
March 18, 2016
1. Project Title:
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 71 PALOMAR AVENUE
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
805-781-7574
Prepared By:
Jeff Oliveira, Principal Environmental Planner
Oliveira Environmental Consulting LLC
4. Project Location:
71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052-161-007)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
LR Development Group, LLC
400 Continental Boulevard, 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Project Representative Name and Address:
Arris Studio Architects
1306 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
1
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 145
6. General Plan Designation:
Residential
7. Zoning:
R-4 (High Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project is located at 71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052‐162‐007), in the City of San
Luis Obispo, CA. The project parcel is 1.32 acres in size and is zoned “R‐4” (High Density
Residential). Please refer to Figure 1(Attachment 1), Site Vicinity/Site Location, for a detailed
depiction of the project location. The applicant is proposing the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse,
and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 41-unit multi-
family residential project.
The project includes:
• Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;
• Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;
• Repositioning the house approximately 40 feet southeast of its current location ;
• Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s
leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
• Removal of all the existing trees on the site (mostly eucalyptus ranging in size from 51
inches to 10 inches) with the exception of 2 trees and replanting the site with 21 trees;
• Construction of four apartment buildings (two, 2-story structures; one 3-story structure;
and a 4- story structure built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 33 feet) with a
total of 41 residential units (six studios, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom
apartments);
• 90 parking spaces and 86 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the
north apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
• Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.
Please refer to Figure 2 (Attachment 2), First Floor Site Plan/Aerial Overview, for a detailed
depiction of the project development footprint.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The subject property is located at the corner of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive just south of
Foothill Boulevard and west of Broad Street. The project site contains three buildings: a main
residence, a secondary residential building, and a remodeled garage with adjacent carport,
expansive lawns, and mature trees are present throughout the site. The site is accessed by two
driveways along Luneta Drive and a pedestrian access from Palomar Avenue.
2
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 146
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West: Developed with multi-family residential uses (Valencia Apartments), zoned R-4-PD, High
Density Residential.
North: Developed with multi-family residential uses (Valencia Apartments), zoned R-4-PD,
High Density Residential.
East (across Palomar Avenue): Developed with multi-family residences/senior housing, zoned
R-4-PD.
South: (across Luneta Drive): Developed with single-family residential homes, zoned R-1-PD,
Low Density Residential.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.): None
3
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 147
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 Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
X
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning X
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
X
Utilities / Service Systems
X
Geology / Soils
Noise X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
4
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 148
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
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, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
March 18, 2016
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron
Print Name Community Development Director
5
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 149
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 parentheses following each question. 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.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, 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)). 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 the 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
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
6
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 150
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
24, 31
--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?
5, 11,
31
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
17, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: the Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains to the south-southwest
into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the city and its surroundings is
generally defined by several low hills and ridges such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also known as
Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits
of the area and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a hard urban edge
where development has remained in the lower elevations.
The project site vicinity within the residential neighborhoods south of Foothill Boulevard exhibit a more suburban character
than those in the downtown core. The street pattern is a rectilinear grid, providing a degree of formality and long visual
sightlines along some streets. As elsewhere in the City, these neighborhoods enjoy the benefits of mature street trees and the
unique visual backdrop provided by Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop Peak. Please refer to the project site plans for
elevations showing views of the project development from public vantage points along neighboring streets.
a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City on a site that has generally flat topography, sloping gradually
toward the north and east. Although the project site exhibits a fairly open lot configuration dominated by the Sandford House
and associated outbuildings, the project site is surrounded by similar higher density residential development (with the
exception of the single-family neighborhood to the south) and does not contain unique visual features that would distinguish
the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista. The proposed project would have a less than
significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to existing conditions regarding scenic vistas or scenic
resources. The proposed project does not include any components that would change the overall character of the project site,
block significant views from or in the vicinity of the project site, or change the nature of scenic resources.
b) Located approximately 0.33 miles to the east, Highway 1 is the closest state-designated scenic highway to the project site.
The project site is not visible from the highway or on/off ramps. There are no state scenic highways in the project area from
which the project is visible. Impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Visual resources in the vicinity of the site are discussed above and include views of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop
Peak. The City of San Luis Obispo regulates aesthetics of buildings and public spaces through implementation of adopted
policies and programs. The City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update, Conservation and Open
Space Element, as well as the implementing statutes of the Municipal Code/Zoning Code and Community Design Guidelines
are the core of this mechanism.
The applicant proposes development of a multi-family residential apartment complex on a site with a Master List Historic
House and accessory structures (discussion of impacts on the Historic Resource are discussed in Section 8 below). Adjacent
parcels to the site are developed with multi-family development to the north, east and west and single-family units to the
south. Residential structures range in height between one and two-stories. The site is zoned for high-density residential
development and was previously disturbed with buildings and site development associated with the Historic Sandford House.
The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Design Guidelines and code which address compatibility of proposed development on the site and in
relation to surroundings. Based on the existing development surrounding the site, previous development on the subject site
and the design review requirements, the project is not expected to degrade the existing visual character of the site. Impacts
7
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 151
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
are considered less than significant.
e) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as
well as light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed project would result in a general increase in
residential density and development within the subject site. The project is required to conform to the City’s Night Sky
Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) and General Plan Policy 9.2.3 which sets operational standards
and requirements for lighting installations, including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing. As
such, impacts resulting from creating new sources of light will be less than significant.
Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
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?
1, 19,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
31
--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?
18
--X--
Evaluation
The city is located in the heart of San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast Region, both of which are important key
agricultural centers within the State of California. The region’s agricultural industry is an important part of the local
economy. It provides employment and income directly for those in agriculture, and it helps drive growth in the tourism
industry, which in turn generates further economic activity and consumer spending.
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for
Residential uses in the General Plan and is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The project site is surrounded by
developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--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 quantitative
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
8
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 152
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
Evaluation
Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e.,
the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), although the physical features that divide them provide only
limited barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one‐hour California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The County
is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality from the
monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions.
a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently
designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well
as the state standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are
subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from
motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air
pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality
Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead
agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under
CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to
cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
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.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities. As such, impacts are considered significant but mitigable.
The project will include extensive grading and demolition, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
older structures as well as underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition can
have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the
9
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 153
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos
NESHAP). Impacts related to the proposed demolition of existing structures on the subject site are considered to be
significant but mitigable.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, impacts related to
fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction activities are considered significant but mitigable.
Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, and may be subject to California Air
Resources Board or APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other
equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Truck trips associated with the
16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) that will be cut from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to
APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are considered
significant but mitigable.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of an apartment building (low rise) with less
than 109 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT
CO2e). The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed
project (maximum size for exemption stated at 94 dwelling units). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts are
considered less than significant.
e) The project includes the development of a multi-family residential apartment complex, as anticipated in the R-4 High
Density Residential zone, and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce
objectionable odors in the area.
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic
evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption
request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines
shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which
include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the
APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal
requirements of identified ACM.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify
practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased
watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
10
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 154
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by
contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct
the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California
based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel
idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and
number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
11
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 155
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--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, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--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
native wildlife nursery sites?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: the Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and the San Luis Valley which drains to the south‐
southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Prefumo, and
Brizzolara Creeks, and numerous tributary channels pass through the city, providing important riparian habitat and migration
corridors connecting urbanized areas to less‐developed habitats in the larger area surrounding the City.
Much of area outside the city limits consist of open rangeland grazed year round, along with agricultural lands dominated by
annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present within the
City, and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species, some of
which are considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and native
habitats are located in the larger and less developed areas outside the city limits.
The following discussion, as outlined in the LUCE Update EIR, provides a general overview of the habitat type found on the
project site:
Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the property, the site exhibits the
characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed” habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the
developed portions of the City, and in discrete areas adjacent to Highway 1 and Broad Street/Highway 227. These areas
typically provide low potential to support native plant or animal species occurrences. Within the City limits, occurrences of
sensitive natural habitats are present in low‐lying areas (riparian and wetland areas), and on undeveloped hills and steep
slopes above the Urban Reserve or development limit lines (coastal scrub, chaparral, woodlands, and grasslands). Wildlife
occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist primarily of urban‐ adapted avian species such as house sparrow
(Passer domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the abundant tree canopy and concentrated
food sources, common animal species adapted to human presence such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
12
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 156
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and aquatic, semi‐aquatic, and terrestrial species resident in or utilizing
riparian areas.
(a-d) The project site was visited by Oliveira Environmental Consulting (February 10, 2016) and observations indicated that
the site does not support riparian or wetland areas, undeveloped hills or steep slopes associated with a higher potential for the
presence of native plant or animal species. The project site is void of undisturbed native habitat and open spaces across the
site are dominated by fairly mature landscaping including trees, shrubs and lawns, including a stand of mature eucalyptus
trees near the existing Sandford House. The mature landscaping present at the project site provides the tree and shrub
habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species discussed above.
It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the
project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
(e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. Multiple small to fully
mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed as part of the proposed project development. This includes
mulberry trees/shrubs, pine trees, olive trees, decorative palms, larch or spruce trees, eucalyptus and redwood trees. The
proposed project includes a conceptual landscape plan showing the removal of all of the existing vegetation with the
exception of a 28-inch diameter eucalyptus tree at the southwest corner of the site and a 74-inch palm tree midway along the
east property boundary. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme that includes evergreen shade trees, landscape
median trees (Luneta Drive median), deciduous flowering shade trees, hedges, shrubs, lawns and ground cover species.
Please refer to the project Conceptual Landscape Plan for a detailed list of proposed landscaping scheme and planting palate.
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction
activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September), unless a City-approved and applicant
funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird activities would be adversely
impacted. If any evidence of nesting activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur
during the nesting period and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with possible
recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests.
Conclusion: With the recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5, 23,
24,26,
31
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
24,
26, 31
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 26,
31
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 24,
31
--X--
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native
American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years, and that Native
American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C., demonstrating
that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. The City of San Luis Obispo
is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of
California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Grande area, and from
the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes
from archaeological sites along the coast.
13
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 157
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Historic Resource Setting: The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with
the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
established. By the 1870’s (after the earliest arrivals of Chinese immigrants in 1869), a Chinatown district had been
established in the downtown area near Palm and Morro Street. By 1875, 2,500 residents were documented in a 4-square mile
area around what is now the City of San Luis Obispo. By 1901, the City was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and
mainline Southern Pacific, and in 1903 the California Polytechnic State University was established. The last era of growth
generally lasted from 1945 to the present. Many of the residential subdivisions in the Foothill and Laguna Lake area were
developed between 1945 and 1970 and the city’s population increased by 53% during this time.
According to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, the subject property at 71 Palomar Drive is referred to as the
historic Sandford House. A cultural resources evaluation was provided by Applied Earthworks (October 2015). Historical
research identified that the subject property was originally patented in 1870.
a) The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Historic
Sandford House, located at 71 Palomar, was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the basis of architectural
significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture. A historic and archaeological
evaluation identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930 (Applied Earthworks, Inc., October 2015,
Attachment 4). The applicant is proposing an adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford house as
part of a 41-unit multi-family residential project. The project proposal includes repositioning of the Historic Sandford House
to a slightly lower position, 40 feet southeast of its current location, removing non-original rear additions and accessory
structures and construction of new structures around the Historic Sandford House. The proposed project will be reviewed by
the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee for compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance (city
Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 14.01), the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The Applied Earthworks Evaluation (Attachment 4) reviewed the proposed project under the Rehabilitation treatment of the
Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI) for the Treatment of Historic Properties and under local City of San Luis Obispo
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. As discussed below, with incorporation of recommended actions included herein
as mitigation measures, the project was found in conformance with SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Therefore, impacts are considered to be mitigated to a less than a significant level under CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)).
Repositioning
The original setting of the site has experienced significant change since construction of the house in 1895 with the
development of Palomar Avenue, Luneta Drive and the adjacent homes and apartments. The historic character of the subject
property is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. The Applied Earthworks evaluation
found that the proposed repositioning of the house on the site will preserve the prominence of the structure on the site and its
historic orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of San Luis Obispo. The Sandford House will retain the ability
to convey its historical significance and repositioning of the Sandford House will not materially alter the physical
characteristics or immediate surroundings such that its historic significance would be materially impaired.
Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse
The overall visual character of the residence, and historically significant features, which includes building shape, the
principal and secondary entries to the building, roof and related features, prominent portico projection, two-story solarium,
and historic-age materials such as stucco cladding will remain intact. The stucco cladding of the Sandford House will be
repaired and painted an appropriate color and reroofed with appropriate composition shingle material. Prominent architectural
elements, such as the distinctive portico with its Tuscan columns, entablature, original multi-light wood-framed sash
windows, and wood paneled front door with fanlights and sidelights will be maintained. The deteriorated two-story solarium
addition will be repaired and its windows and door replaced with appropriate in kind materials. With incorporation of
recommendations of the Applied Earthworks Evaluation (Mitigation Measures CR1-6) the proposed rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse will not result in adverse impacts to the historical significance of the Sandford House.
New Development
As noted above, the setting surrounding of the Historic Sandford House has experienced significant urbanization with the
development apartment buildings and modern single-family residences all around the property. The new apartment buildings
on the site are designed to assume a secondary position to the Master List Structure. The buildings are clearly differentiated
14
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 158
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
from the Master List Sandford House through their low-profile hipped roofs, subdued neutral colors, and lower heights. The
new apartment buildings share similar architectural features, such as the rhythm of their facades and use of stucco finishes
and multi-light windows. The new buildings would not overwhelm the scale of the Sandford House and would not obscure
views of the primary elevations of the structure. As discussed in the Applied Earthworks Report while spatial relationships
would be altered, the distinctiveness of the Historic Sandford House would remain intact and would continue to convey its
historic significance.
b-d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained
resource maps, but is considered an archaeologically and historically sensitive area. A cultural resources inventory prepared
for the project included a Phase I archaeological survey of the subject property to determine the presence or likelihood of
archaeological historical resources. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological
materials. The Phase 1 archaeological survey found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could
be impacted during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall be prepared and
approved by the City prior to project construction. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected
ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant
materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery
plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.
Mitigation Measure CR 2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non-
original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable or missing materials revealed upon
removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any
historical wood-sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where
appropriate.
Mitigation Measure CR 3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site
shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and
platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house
exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained.
Mitigation Measure CR 4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium
windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-
light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used
to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Mitigation Measure CR 5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and
stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High-pressure water blasting; sand or other
hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless
specifically approved by the City.
Mitigation Measure CR 6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The
applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and the design for
the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing.
New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
15
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 159
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
14,
29, 31
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on 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? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4,10,
14,27,
29, 31
--X--
IV. Landslides? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
4,10,
14,29,
31
--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?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic
Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends from Oregon to
northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex, and is comprised of sub‐parallel
northwest‐southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and
greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive
and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation
are also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary
aged volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay.
Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all comprised of these volcanic plugs.
Faulting and Seismic Activity: The predominant northwest‐southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are
related to the San Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. Other faults in the San Luis Obispo area that are considered active or
potentially active include the San Juan Fault, the East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Oceano Fault,
the Oceanic Fault, Cambria Fault, the Edna Fault, the Hosgri Fault, and the Los Osos Fault. The East and West Huasna
Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Cambria Fault, and the Edna Fault have not yet been officially classified by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone) is an area within 500 feet from a
known active fault trace that has been designated by the State Geologist. Per the Alquist‐Priolo legislation, no structure for
16
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 160
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
human occupancy is permitted on the trace of an active fault. The portion of the fault zone closest to the city is located near
the southern flank of the Los Osos Valley, northwest of Laguna Lake, but lies just outside of the city limits.
Seismically Induced Ground Acceleration: Seismically induced ground acceleration is the shaking motion that is produced by
an earthquake. Probabilistic modeling is done to predict future ground accelerations, taking into consideration design basis
earthquake ground motion, applicable to residential or commercial, or upper‐bound earthquake ground motion, applied to
public use facilities like schools or hospitals.
Landslides: Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a
slope failure. Ground shaking and landslide hazards are mapped by the City and are shown in the General Plan. Much of the
development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. However, the city contains
extensive hillsides. Several are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope
instability. The actual risk of slope instability is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling,
by qualified professionals. The building code requires site‐specific investigations and design proposals by qualified
professionals in areas that are susceptible to slope instability and landslides.
Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buried
structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefaction include
lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with the
depth of groundwater below the site and the types of sediments underlying an area.
The soils in the San Luis Obispo area that are most susceptible to ground shaking, and which contain shallow ground water,
are the ones most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction. The actual risk of settlement or liquefaction is
identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. Previous investigations
have found that the risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site
preparation and proper foundation design, and that the actual risk of liquefaction is low.
Differential Settlement: Differential settlement is the downward movement of the land surface resulting from the
compression of void space in underlying soils. This compression can occur naturally with the accumulation of sediments over
porous alluvial soils within river valleys. Settlement can also result from human activities including improperly placed
artificial fill, and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This phenomenon can alter
local drainage patterns and result in structural damage. Portions of the City have been identified as possibly being underlain
by soft organic soils, resulting in a high potential for settlement (General Plan Safety Element).
Subsidence: Ground subsidence occurs where underlying geologic materials (typically loosely consolidated surficial silt,
sand, and gravel) undergo a change from looser to tighter compaction. As a result, the ground surface subsides (lowers).
Where compaction increases (either naturally, or due to construction), the geologic materials become more dense. As a result,
the ground surface overlying the compacting subsurface materials subsides as the underlying geologic materials settle.
Ground subsidence can occur under several different conditions, including:
• Ground‐water withdrawal (water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to
settle)
• Tectonic subsidence (ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding);
and
• Earthquake‐induced shaking causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground‐surface subsidence.
Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are soils that are generally clayey, swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Wetting can
occur in a number of ways (i.e., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or
sewer lines, etc.). Soil expansion can cause subtle damage that can reduce structural integrity. Portions of the city are known
to exhibit the soil types (refer to General Plan Safety Element) identified as having a moderate to high potential for
expansion.
a, c, d) Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High
Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
17
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 161
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the
California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for
most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Incorporation of required California Building Code, City Codes,
and development in accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less
than significant levels.
b) This is a previously developed infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. The most significant source of potential
erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. The project
applicant has prepared a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., October 12, 2015) and a Conceptual
Landscape Plan. Development in accordance with the Stormwater Control Plan will address stormwater flow across the site,
and landscaping planting will help ensure the natural retention of stormwater and help address potential erosion. Erosion
impacts are considered less than significant.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Conclusion: With proposed development in accordance with applicable CBC and local Building Code requirements, and
implementation of the project Stormwater Control Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan, impacts are considered less than
significant.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,13,
20,21,
31
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1,13,
20,21,
31
X
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, prominent GHG emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are
responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known
as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both
stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation,
high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities.
The major sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy
consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community‐wide activities in
the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative effect of
global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur despite
local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will result in
a number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and increased
frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms.
Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
of 2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97
18
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 162
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate
change effects in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Review
Handbook, as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies
within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012a, 2012b). The City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a
GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and includes specific measures and implementing
actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions. The CAP also includes measures and actions to help the city build
resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change.
a, b) The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment
centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and
Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will result
in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions.
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions; see Air
Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2 emissions are primarily from building
heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands.
Short Term Construction-Related GHG Emissions: Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use
of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Mitigation Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and
equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source
emissions, such as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enforced with new
construction. Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of an apartment building (low
rise) with less than 109 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line
threshold (MT CO2e). The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded
by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 94 dwelling units). Therefore, operational phase air quality
impacts are considered less than significant.
Conclusion: With the incorporation of required mitigation measures (see Air Quality impact analysis), Title 24 regulations
and CAP consistency requirements, impacts are considered less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4, 31
--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?
4, 31
--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?
12
--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?
30, 31
--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?
1, 4
--X--
19
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 163
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
1, 4
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 17
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 17,
31
--X--
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the analysis of hazards and hazardous material impacts relates to hazards
regarding safety risks posed by airport flight patterns, impeding of adopted emergency response/evacuation plans, and
wildland fires where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas; and hazardous materials or substances regarding routine
transport or disposal of substances, explosion or release of substances, and emissions or handling of substances within one‐
quarter mile of an existing or planned school. The following is a brief outline of the primary identified hazards:
Fire Hazards: Fires have the potential to cause significant losses to life, property, and the environment. Urban fire hazards
result from the materials that make up the built environment, the size and organization of structures, and spacing of buildings.
Additional factors that can accelerate fire hazards are availability of emergency access, available water volume and pressure
for fire suppression, and response time for fire fighters. Fire hazard severity in rural areas, including areas on the edge
between urban and rural land (commonly called the wildland interface), are highly influenced by the slope of the landscape
and site vegetation and climate. This risk is somewhat amplified by the native, Mediterranean vegetation common to the rural
setting in which the City is located that has evolved to rely on wildfires for its ecological sustainability. Where wildland fires
may be a threat, plant fuels are often managed by replacement planting, grazing, plowing, or mechanical clearing.
Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. This includes, for example,
chemical materials such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated
chemical materials. Additionally, hazards include known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of release
of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk
associated with disturbing the historical release area. The potential for risks associated with hazardous materials are varied
regionally. The primary risk concerns identified by the city, as stipulated in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, include
radiation hazards and the transportation of hazardous materials in and around the city. Most of these incidents are related to
the increasing frequency of transport of chemicals over roadways, railways or through industrial accidents. Highway 101 and
a rail corridor are major transportation corridors through the San Luis Obispo area.
Airport Hazards: The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation service to the area.
The primary hazard associated with land uses near the airport is the risk of aircraft incidents on approach and take‐off.
Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the airport and rules of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The County manages activities on the airport property through the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
As the means of fulfilling these basic obligations, the ALUC, must prepare and adopt Airport Land Use Plans for each airport
within their jurisdiction. The policies in the ALUP are intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards while providing for the orderly expansion of airports (Public Utility Code Section 21670(a)(2). The ALUC has
developed an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that was first adopted in
1973, was updated in May 2005 and is currently being updated. The ALUP has identified safety zones with associated land
use density and intensity restrictions. The ALUP defines these as:
• Runway Protection Zones – Areas immediately adjacent to the ends of each active runway, within which the level of
aviation safety risk is very high and in which, consequently, structures are prohibited and human activities are
restricted to those which require only very low levels of occupancy.
• Safety Areas S‐1 a through c– The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of
reduced visibility at altitudes less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
20
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 164
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Safety Area S‐2 – The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of reduced
visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1000 feet above ground level (AGL). Because aircraft in Area S‐2 are at
greater altitude and are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the overall
level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S‐1 or the Runway Protection Zones.
a) The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with
applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction
and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline
and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in
addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so
the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
With respect to operation of the project, apartment buildings do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and
only a minimal amount of routine “household” chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a
significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or
emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety
Element would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of
the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations
establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where
transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of
regulations.
The project also includes demolition of existing structures on the property including portions of the Historic Sandford House,
which, given the age of the structures, could contain asbestos and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was
used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be
found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation,
wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non-
friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos-Containing
Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the
primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will
release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and
encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample
contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead -based paint.
In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million
[ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06
percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are
particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and
organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are
determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project
21
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 165
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct
the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be
disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk
assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement
have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include
Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead-based paint abatement must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with
existing regulation would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant.
c) The proposed project is a multi-family residential apartment development with parking and associated amenities, and is
approximately 1/3 of a mile south of Pacheco Elementary School. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a
multi-family apartment use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any
hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing
school.
d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 795 Foothill Boulevard, a leaking underground storage
tank cleanup site at the Unocal Station, approximately ¼ mile from the subject property. That site is listed on the Cortese
State Water Resources Control Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of permitted underground storage tanks.
Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing
hazardous materials site.
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip.
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area.
g) The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans.
Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan are considered less than significant.
h) The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The
surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of
people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
g), h) The project site is an infill site and plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who determined that as designed the
project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The site is not directly adjacent to any
wildlands.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
22
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 166
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--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?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--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?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 27,
31
--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?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
5, 27,
31
--X--
i) 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?
4, 5,
27, 31
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 31 --X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic
Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west of the Coastal
Range. The Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the Monterey County
line and includes numerous individual stream systems. Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed drains approximately 84 square miles.
The City of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low‐lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis
Obispo Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner Creek,
Prefumo Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also
present flood hazards. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks are
relatively small, but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast moving flood events in the city.
According to the RWQCB, water quality in the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage system is generally considered to be good.
However, the water quality fluctuates along with seasonal changes in flow rates. In summer months, when the flows decrease
and dilution is reduced, water quality decreases. According to the RWQCB Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project for
San Luis Obispo Creek, the creek has been reported to exceed nutrient and pathogen levels.
Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo Valley Sub‐basin flows toward the south‐southwest, following the general gradient
of surface topography. Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for agricultural water supply,
municipal and domestic supply, and industrial use.
In order to evaluate the specific nature of the hydrology and water quality issues for the subject property, the project
proponents have initiated a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., October 12, 2015). The intent of
this report is to address the stormwater requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
a, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post
Construction Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥ 22,000 SF
23
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 167
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
and in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and
Runoff Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO City/WWMP
drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that
there will be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property, 2) Use of Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to
reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and
Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010, “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to
implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality.
The proposed project will include the construction of residential units and associated hardscape and landscape. The
performance requirements discussed above will be met by using underground chambers which will retain stormwater and
infiltrate in back onsite, and as a result contain pollutants onsite as well. These chambers will retain the 95th percentile storm
and allow that volume of water to receive filtration as it percolates back into native ground. Additionally these chambers will
provide adequate volume of storage to reduce the peak runoff rates to pre development rates. The site will continue to slope
to the North and East where runoff will be discharged offsite and ultimately outlet to Stenner Creek.
Water Quality Analysis
The proposed project creates and replaces over 34,000 square feet of impervious area and thus is required to
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements of the Central Coast. The site was analyzed using HydroCAD and the
Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method.
Performance Requirement 1-Site Design and Runoff Reduction
This site minimizes the amount of pervious surface to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff will be directed to
underground chambers prior to discharging offsite, which will allow for filtration and percolation.
Performance requirement 2-Water Quality Treatment
Based on the hydroCAD analysis of the Post Construction condition, this site is required to provide treatment for 6,300 cubic
feet of water. This will be accomplished by using underground infiltration chambers. These chambers will contain the 95th
percentile storm and infiltrate it back into native ground. The pollutants within the stormwater will filtered out of the
stormwater as it percolates into native ground. The outlet for the chambers will be set above the water surface elevation that
holds the 95th percentile storm.
Performance requirement 3-Runoff Retention
Based on the hydroCAD analysis of the Post Construction conditions, this site is required to provide infiltration for 6,300
cubic feet of water. This will be accomplished by using underground infiltration chambers. These chambers will contain the
95th percentile storm and infiltrate it back into native ground.
Performance requirement 4-Peak Management
The underground chambers will be sized so as to detain stormwater from the site and release it at pre development rate for all
design storms. The following table summarizes the pre and post construction runoff rates and shows that the runoff rate has
been reduced for all design storms. Full calculations from HydroCAD for the underground system are included with the
project stormwater control plan.
95th 2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr
Pre-Construction (cfs) 0.60 0.60 1.42 2.01 2.32 2.94 3.26
Post Construction (cfs) 0 0 0.44 0.67 0.79 1.09 1.21
Percent Reduction 100 100 69 67 66 63 63
Site activities and identification of potential sources of pollutants
The proposed project will include the construction of residential units and associated hardscape and landscape. Potential
sources of pollutants include chemicals and fertilizers to maintain the landscaping, fuels, oils and other chemicals from
vehicles, trash, dust and debris from roofs and flatwork. The following table provides the project pollutant and source control
information.
24
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 168
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Potential Source of Runoff
Pollutants
Permanent Source Control
BMPs
Operational Source Control
BMPs
Landscape/ Outdoor Pesticide
Use/Building and Grounds
Maintenance
Design Landscaping to minimize irrigation
and runoff, to promote surface infiltration
and to minimize the use of fertilizers and
pesticides that can contribute to stormwater
pollution Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.
Where landscaped areas are used to retain
or detain stormwater, specify plants that
are tolerant of saturated soil conditions
Maintain landscaping using minimum or
no pesticides.
See applicable operational BMPs in Fact
Sheet CS-41 "Building and Grounds
Maintenance" in the CASQA Stormwater
Quality Handbook
Provide IPM information to
new owners, lessees and operators
Plazas, Sidewalks and
Parking Lots
Sweep Plazas, sidewalks and parking lots
regularly to prevent accumulation of litter
and debris. Collect debris from pressure
washing to prevent entry into the storm
drain system. Collect washwater
containing any cleaning agent or degreaser
and discharge to the sanitary sewer not to a
storm drain.
Refuse Areas Dumpster will be covered. Sign will be
posted on or near the dumpster with the
words "Do not dump hazardous material
here"
Receptacles will be inspected and repaired
if a leak is observed. Receptacles to be
covered. Inspect and pick up litter daily
and clean up spills immediately. Keep spill
control materials on site.
Catch Basins Remove trash, debris or other materials
that may be covering the grates. Inspect
basin to ensure there is no sediment in the
box or blocking the outlet pipe. Remove
grates and clean out sediment and other
debris as needed.
Based on the analysis discussed above, and implementation of the BMPs identified in the project Stormwater Control Plan,
water quality impacts will be reduced to the extent feasible. With the required incorporation of these measures, and
adherence to the stormwater facilities operations and maintenance recommendations provided in the Stormwater Control
Plan, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
c, d, e, i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the
City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and LID stormwater treatment requires that site development be
designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. The proposed project
creates and replaces over 34,000 square feet of impervious area and thus is required to treat the 95th percentile storm per
performance requirement 4 of the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements of the Central Coast. Based on
the analysis in the Stormwater Control Plan, and with the required implementation of the stormwater retention and water
quality recommendations the proposed project retains the amount of stormwater to reduce discharge to pre development rates,
and provides treatment and infiltration for the volume of water required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
impacts would be considered reduced to less than significant levels.
g), h) The proposed project ultimately drains to Stenner Creek, however, the project is not within an identified 100-year flood
zone and is not subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm event per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters.
25
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 169
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not
generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project includes design features,
recommended BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality
via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall become required
components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to implement these design features and
recommendation as set forth.
Conclusion: With the implementation of the project Stormwater Control Plan designs and recommendations, impacts are
considered less than significant.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
25, 31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
5, 12,
31
--X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the development anticipated for the project site under the
General Plan and zoning designation since the site is designated for High Density Residential land uses and is designed to fit
among existing multi-family and single family residential development surrounding it and will not physically divide an
established community. The project is also consistent with neighborhood circulation plans in the General Plan and is
discussed below in Section 16. Impacts are considered less than significant.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with the City’s High Density Residential General
Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, regulations and development standards.
c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5, 31
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5, 31
--X--
Evaluation
a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: No impact
26
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 170
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 3,
9, 10,
31
--X--
12, 31 --X--
Evaluation
As analyzed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise‐sensitive land uses are present within the City, including
various types of residential, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and transient lodging, and
place of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the City, major sources of noise
include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights.
a) Residences are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB
are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. Exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when
attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into account. As discussed above, the project location has not
been identified as an area subject to noise sources above the City’s thresholds. In addition, interior noise levels of less than
45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques.
b) Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be residential uses, which would not involve
the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in
groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-
related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of heavy equipment, such as forklifts,
concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed
by City ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code), impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be
less than significant.
c) As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves residential use, which is consistent with existing uses in
the project vicinity. Residential uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Operation of
the project would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial
changes to the existing noise environment. Other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity include other neighboring residential
developments. These uses will be shielded from noise generated by residential uses by distance and by the structures
themselves.
d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed multi-family residential
project. Noise levels during construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction.
Although there would be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts
would be less than significant because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels
allowed by City ordinance.
27
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 171
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private
airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with
aircraft operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 31 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 31 --X--
1, 31 --X--
Evaluation:
a) The proposed project includes construction of a multi-family residential development, which would have the potential to
add to the population of the City. However, it is important to note that Land Use Element policy 1.10.2 (Residential Growth
Rate) indicates that the City shall manage its housing supply so that it does not exceed a growth rate of one percent per year,
on average, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very low or low incomes as defined by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for the City and County of San Luis Obispo and reflected in the City’s
Housing Element. The project site is designated for multi-family residential development under the General Plan, and is
zoned R-4 (high density residential). The proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the
site and in accordance with the housing needs identified for the City under anticipated community development under the
recently updated Land Use Element.
New employment generated by the proposed project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is
currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would
not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. The proposed project would not involve any other
components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan envisioned under the current site
zoning designation. Impacts are considered less than significant.
b) There is an existing single family residence, and associated outbuilding converted to living quarters, on the project site that
would be demolished as part of the project. The house has been used as a Fraternity house in recent years. Removal of the
additions and accessory residential structures would not be considered a substantial loss of housing since new housing is
proposed for development. Impacts are considered less than significant.
c) There is an existing single-family residential structure and associated outbuildings that have been converted to living
quarters on the project site, which as noted above, will be replaced by higher density multi-family residential development.
Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental 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:
a) Fire protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
c) Schools? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
28
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 172
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Parks? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
Evaluation
Fire Protection: The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of San
Luis Obispo. The Fire Department is organized into five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention and Life Safety,
Training and Equipment, Administrative, and Support Services. In addition to providing fire and emergency services to the
city, SLOFD maintains an Emergency Services Contract with Cal Poly. Under the current contract, SLOFD provides fire and
emergency services to the university in return for a set annual fee.
Police Protection: The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection services within the city
limits. SLOPD is responsible for responding to calls for service, investigating crimes and arresting offenders, enforcing
traffic and other laws, and promoting community safety through crime prevention and school‐safety patrols. The Police
Department consists of two bureaus, Administration and Operations, each of which has four divisions. The Police
Department operates out of one main facility located at 1042 Walnut Street and a small additional office at 1016 Walnut
Street.
Public Schools: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) serves an area between the coast and the Los
Padres National Forest, and from Morro Bay to the north and Arroyo Grande to the south. In total, the District operates ten
elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation high school, and an adult education facility. In
addition to the K‐12 educational program, the SLCUSD offers a variety of additional educational programs, including:
cooperative preschool, preschool early education, and parent participation. Within the San Luis Obispo LUCE Planning
Subarea, the District operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation high school.
a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services
over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already
served by the City for fire protection. Although the project would have the potential to alter the number of housing units or
population in the City, the development of the site is consistent with the anticipated land use for the site and proposed
development would be consistent with the high density residential zoning for the site and consistent with the neighboring
residential uses. As stated in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, adherence to the Safety Element Policy 3.0 (Adequate Fire
Services) will reduce impacts related to increased fire protection needs.
b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The subject
property is currently developed with residential uses and redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased
patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts
related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c) Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be
directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities.
Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the
proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
d) Because the proposed project would result in a minor increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to
the City’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented
public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. In addition, the project includes outdoor common space for
residents, including the use of the remodeled Sandford House as amenity space for residents. The proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on parks.
e) As noted above, because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in
29
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 173
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
users relative to the City’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation
infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project 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?
1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 10,
31
--X--
Evaluation:
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, there are 26 parks in the city, consisting of eight community parks, 10
neighborhood parks, and eight mini parks. There are also six joint use facilities, and several recreation centers and special
facilities (e.g., Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the SLO Swim Center). There is currently approximately 151.65 acres of
parkland in the City, of which 33.53 acres are neighborhood parks. In addition to developed parks, the City owns or manages
over 6,970 acres of open space within and adjacent to San Luis Obispo, some of which provide trails that accommodate
hiking and mountain biking.
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, no significant
recreational impacts are expected to occur with redevelopment of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid
to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy.
Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreational facilities. Impacts are considered
less than significant.
b) The project includes outdoor recreational common areas, including the use of the remodeled Sandford House for amenity
space for residents. Because of its central location, future residents will have convenient access to recreational activities in
the City, and to points of interest accessed from Highway 1.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
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?
2,12,
21,31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2,
4, 31
--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?
12, 31
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2, 21,
28, 31
--X--
30
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 174
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 31 --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?
2,31
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the City is accessed primarily by roadways including US 101, State Route
(SR) 1 and SR 227. Routes of regional significance providing access include Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Road, Broad
Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local roadway system is
characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts of the City.
Although federal transportation regulations mandate the use of a federal classification system, local jurisdictions, such as City
of San Luis Obispo, also develop classification systems to define their own roadways. A total of 75 roadway segments in the
local, county, and state roadway system were studied under the LUCE Update EIR using the City’s AADT LOS thresholds.
The City of San Luis Obispo considers roadways operating at LOS D or better to be acceptable, excepting segments
downtown where LOS is allowed to drop to E. The only segment noted to be deficient under existing conditions is Broad
Street south of Buckley Road, which is under State of California and County jurisdiction.
a,b) Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 1, located east of the project site, and Highway 101, located
southeast of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Palomar Avenue. All roadways in the immediate
project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking.
According to the City’s traffic model, the project is estimated to generate 276 daily trips and 27 pm peak hour trips. These
vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service the project location makes it a prime candidate to take
advantage of public transportation services located along Ramona Drive and Broad Street. It is important to note that the
proposed project trip generation represents a relatively worst-case scenario since the existing single-family house (i.e.,
Sandford House) is a Fraternity house and supports more residents than a typical single-family dwelling and the proposed
project would likely offset these existing vehicle trips.
Table 1. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards (City of San Luis Obispo General Plan)
Descriptions of Street Types Maximum ADT/LOS Desired Maximum Speeds
Local Residential Streets directly serve residential
development that front them and channel traffic to
residential collector streets. 1,500 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets collect traffic from
residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 25 mph
In addition, the project proposes to include completing the Luneta Drive connection per code requirement and as prescribed
by the General Plan. This component of the project will cause a redistribution of traffic within the neighborhood. Currently
Ramona Drive (a Residential Collector) exceeds the general plan residential street threshold shown in the table above by
1,000 daily trips and the addition of project traffic alone would further exacerbate the deficient condition on Ramona Drive.
However, as stated above, the project proposes to complete the Luneta Drive connection to Palomar Avenue. With the Luneta
Drive (a Residential Local) connection completed as part of the proposed project, traffic volumes are expected to balance to
levels consistent with general policy. Luneta would subsequently have approximately 1,300 daily trips and Ramona Drive
would have approximately 3,000 daily trips, resulting in a balance of traffic conditions to adopted policy levels. With
implementation of the proposed Luneta Drive improvements, impacts related to the addition of vehicle trips to local streets
are considered less than significant. It is important to note that the project will also contribute to overall impact mitigation
for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program, further reducing impact
levels.
The project includes some traffic calming measures in the form of proposed landscaped medians in Luneta Drive, as the
proposed Luneta Drive connection will have the potential to create the opportunity for through-traffic resulting in potential
31
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 175
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
traffic speeds in excess of the General Plan policy shown in the table above. As such, the project will result in significant but
mitigable impacts related to the likelihood of increased traffic speeds.
c) The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan.
d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, with the exception of the addition of a landscaped
median in the portion of the Luneta Drive fronting the subject parcel for traffic calming and aesthetic purposes. The project
driveways would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve the project.
Because the project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses.
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As
proposed, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase
traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access.
f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s urban
center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. Ramona Street is served by RTA, the regional transit agency. San
Luis Obispo City bus lines are located within walking distance (Ramona and Broad Streets) that allows public transportation
services to the Downtown and Cal Poly campus. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage. The proposed
project includes 82 long term bicycle parking spaces and 4 short term bicycle parking spaces, consistent with City policy.
Mitigation Measure T-1: The project shall install a series of traffic calming measures on Luneta Drive designed to maintain
residential speeds at or below 25 mph.
Conclusion: Transportation/circulation impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,16,
31
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
7,16,
27,
31,
32, 33
--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?
7,16,
27, 31
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
7,16,
31
--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?
5,
7,16,
31,
32, 33
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
5, 8,
31
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
5, 8,
31
--X--
Evaluation
Water: As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department provides potable and
recycled water to the community and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City
is the sole water provider within the city limits and most of the City’s water is supplied from multiple surface water sources.
However, the City also uses groundwater to supplement surface water supplies and recycled water is used to supplement
32
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 176
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
irrigation demand. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater Element 2010, the City Council reaffirmed the policy
for a multi‐source water supply. Consistent with the multi‐source water supply concept, the City obtains water from five
sources:
• Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 6,940 AF/year
• Nacimiento Reservoir: 3,380 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit
• Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 165 AF/year
Wastewater: The wastewater system for the City includes facilities for wastewater collection and treatment. The City’s
collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to properties
within the city limits, with the exception of a few residential properties located just outside of the city limits, Cal Poly San
Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 14,400 service connections.
The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) processes wastewater in accordance with the standards set by the
State’s RWQCB. The WRRF removes solids, reduces the amount of nutrients, and eliminates bacteria in the treated
wastewater, which is then discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. The WRRF is designed for an average dry weather flow
capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. In 2015, average flows to
the WRRF were approximately 3.5 MGD.
Solid Waste: The City’s Utilities Department is responsible for administering an exclusive franchise agreement with San
Luis Garbage Company to collect and dispose solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and industrial customers in
San Luis Obispo. This agreement also includes curbside recycling, and green waste service. There are three solid waste
disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County. Most solid waste collected in the city is disposed of at the Cold Canyon
Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2012) permitted to receive up to 1,620 tons of solid waste per day, with an
estimated remaining capacity of 1,830,000 cubic yards (16.8 percent remaining capacity). In 2010, the Cold Canyon Landfill
operator estimated the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2018.
a), b), c) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project
site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities
which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated under the recent
General Plan Update. As analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s
General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City’s
Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
e) The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater
Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016. The WCSIRS identified capacity deficiencies
during peak wet weather downstream of the project and have been identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor condition will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection
system and peak flow rates. With the required incorporation of the mitigation measure, impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to
ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The location and
size of trash enclosures proposed for the project have been reviewed by the City and have been determined that they are
sufficient in size to handle the demands of the proposed project.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of
materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The proposed project is required to reduce the waste stream
generated by development consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste
33
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 177
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at
http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf). A solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded
construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste
stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private lateral repair/
replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system (Basin B)
to offset the project’s base wastewater flow increase. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will
be approved by the Utilities Director.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
--X--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the
potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and hydrology and water quality will be
less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures.
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--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and
hydrology and water quality.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
19. 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. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for review at the City Community
Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following web site:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
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.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area
34
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 178
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
discussion. Where project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not addressed in the LUCE
Update EIR, original analysis has been provided and mitigation has been recommended to reduce impact levels as needed.
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.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. 2013 California Building Code
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
17. Site Visit
18. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
23. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
24. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
25. Ordinance No.1130 (1989 Series)
26. Archeological Resource Inventory, Applied Earthworks, Inc. October 2015
27. Stormwater Control Plan. Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015
28. Project Plans
29. Applicant project statement/description
30. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm
31. San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. June 13, 2014.
32. 2012 Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study
33. 2016 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon
request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
Attachments:
1. Site Vicinity/Project Location Map (Figure 1)
2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay (Figure 2)
3. Project Plans
4. Historic Evaluation Report by Applied Earthworks
35
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 179
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the
Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not
exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall
be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days
of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties
shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25
m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
36
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 180
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork
or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD
permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific
information regarding permitting requirements.
37
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 181
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the
following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific
standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of
38
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 182
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting
birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September),
unless a City-approved and applicant funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and
determined that no nesting bird activities would be adversely impacted. If any evidence of nesting
activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the nesting
period and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with
possible recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Migratory bird mitigation shall be reviewed by
the City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall
be prepared and approved by the City prior to project construction. The plan will need to include a
summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring,
description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage
of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be
implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.
Monitoring Plan, CR 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the
removal of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable
or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall
be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during
demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.
Monitoring Plan, CR 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford
House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house.
The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount
39
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 183
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently
exists shall also be maintained.
Monitoring Plan, CR 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-
floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to
fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows
located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the
event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Monitoring Plan, CR 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of
paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High-
pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that
damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.
Monitoring Plan, CR 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New
Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction
and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the
Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed
or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Monitoring Plan, CR 6: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc.
October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommended BMPs for
water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via
the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall
become required components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to
implement these design features and recommendation as set forth.
40
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 184
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH -2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Monitoring Plan, HWQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the Stormwater Control Plan
as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction
permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Transportation
Mitigation Measure T-1: The project shall install a series of traffic calming measures on Luneta Dr.
designed to maintain residential speeds at or below 25 mph.
Monitoring Plan, T 1: A plan dictating traffic calming measures shall be developed in cooperation
with City Staff and Luneta Dr. Residents via a series of meetings and approved by the Public Works
director or their designee. Those approved traffic calming measures shall be shown on the public
improvement plans and reviewed by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit application
package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically monitor
traffic conditions on Luneta and Ramona to ensure compliance.
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private
lateral repair/ replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s
wastewater collection system (Basin B) to offset the project’s base wastewater flow increase. The final
selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director.
Monitoring Plan, USS1: A sewer rehabilitation plan shall be developed in cooperation with Utilities
Staff. The rehabilitation plan shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by
Utilities staff as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measure.
41
DR
A
F
T
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC1 - 185
Site Location
Site Location
1 in = 1,500,000 ft
Figure 1
Site Vicintiy/Site Location1 in = 8,000 ft City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Multi Family Residential Development
E
N
T
1
D
R
A
F
T
C
H
C
1
-
1
8
6
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
6
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Luneta Drive
AdjacentMulti-Family
AdjacentMulti-Family
Adjacent Residential
Slide House Forward (25' West & 45' South)
New Landscaped Medians with Cutouts for Access to existing Driveways
Parking Easement for Adjacent Housing
New Curbs and Gutters to Connect Existing
Existing Sanford House
Adjacent ParcelNot Part of Easement
Figure 2
First Floor Site Plans/Aerial Overview1 in = 55 ft City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Multi-Family Residential Development
Street Boundary
New Sandford House Location
Multi-Family Appartments
Parcel Boundary
Walkway
E
N
T
2
D
R
A
F
T
C
H
C
1
-
1
8
7
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
6
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Meeting Date: March 28, 2018
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Construction of a new two-bedroom dwelling behind the Renetzky House, a
Master List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic District
ADDRESS: 1516 Broad St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #: ARCH-2225-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the Community Development
Director find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2.0 SITE DATA
Applicant Gary Bagnall
Representative Jon McAlpin, Omni Design
Submittal Date 10/22/2015
Complete Date 11/20/2015
Zoning R-2-H (Medium- Density
Residential with Historic
Overlay)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 7,675 square feet
Historic Status Master List Resource
(Old Town Historic District)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15303:
New Construction of Small
Structures)
3.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted an application for architectural review of the construction of a new
two-bedroom dwelling at the rear of the project site, behind the historic Renetzky House, a
Master List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic District. The Committee considered this
application on January 25, 2016, and provided direction to the applicant about modifications
necessary to achieve better consistency and compatibility with nearby historic structures, and
continued consideration of the project to a future date. The applicant has modified the project
design in response to this direction.
CHC2 - 1
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 2
4.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
on the application of historic preservation standards and guidelines to this project.1
5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
For convenience, site and project information are summarized in this report. More detailed
information is provided in the Agenda Report that was prepared for the Committee’s January
25th, 2015 hearing (Attachment 5a).
5.1 Site Information
The site is located on the east side of Broad Street, about 100 feet south of Buchon Street in a
Medium Density Residential and Historical Preservation Zone (R-2-H). It is within the Old
Town Historic District and surrounded by single-family residences that are Master List Historic
Resources. It is developed with a two-story house in a Queen Anne style estimated to have been
built at, or moved to, its current location, between 1904 and 1908. But, given its style, it is
possible that it was constructed in the 1880’s or 1890’s.2 The property is designated as a Master
List Historic Resource as the Renetzky House, the home of the Renetzky family, local shoe
merchants, in the early 1900’s.
5.2 Project Description
The project involves demolition of the existing garage (built in 1982) behind the primary
residence, and construction of a two-story building containing a two-bedroom apartment (680 sq.
ft. in floor area) above a two-car garage.
1 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030(B)(4) and (B)(5))
2 Description from “Historic Property File” for 1516 Broad, in Community Development Department records
Figure 1: Renetzky House (1516 Broad)
CHC2 - 2
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 3
6.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On January 25, 2015 the Committee reviewed the original project design. Concerns were raised
about whether the new dwelling was subordinate in character to the primary residence, given its
apparent scale and massing, with its tall roof peak and cantilevered building forms. The position
of the building on the lot, with the access stairway and building entry against the side and rear
property line, was also identified as a potential impact to neighboring historic properties. The
Commission provided the direction to address these concerns, and the applicant has modified the
project in response (see Attachment 5b, meeting minutes, and Attachment 3, applicant response):
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.
6.1 Scale, massing, and height
The Committee noted that height of the roof, as originally designed, in concert with the
unbalanced appearance of the cantilevered building forms, resulted in an apparent mass and scale
that was not perceived as subordinate the primary. As reflected in the CHC’s direction, this
raised concerns that the combination of the existing Master List historic residence, and additional
dwelling was not consistent with the historical development pattern of the Old Town Historic
District. In response to CHC direction, the roof form was modified, removing the tall peak and
Figure 2: North and South Elevations, Original (left); and Modified (right) designs
CHC2 - 3
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 4
replacing it with a shorter flat ridge. The overall height was reduced by 3 ½ feet. The massing of
the building form was also modified by removing the second floor cantilever to provide a more
balanced building symmetry.
Staff analysis: Removing the original tall roof peak lowered the actual height of the building, and
also reduced its apparent scale. Elimination of the cantilevered forms has provided more pleasing
and balanced symmetry and removed any leaning, looming effects of the original design, further
reducing the building’s apparent scale. It now “reads” as a structure that is more clearly
subordinate or accessory to the main residence, in keeping with the scale of the mixture of one-
and two-story accessory buildings common in the surrounding neighborhood and elsewhere in
the Old Town Historic District.
6.2 Lot positioning (impacts)
The access stairway and building entry were removed from the southeast edges of the building,
and relocated to the north side of the building.
Staff analysis. The access stairway and building entry have been relocated away from
neighboring property, and are now oriented internally to the project site, minimizing impacts to
adjacent neighbors. Exposure at the boundaries with neighboring property is limited to a single
small kitchen window at the extreme southeast corner of the building.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The project consists of the construction of a small structure, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures). This exemption is applicable to up
to three single-family residences on a parcel in urbanized areas.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity map
3. Applicant response to Committee Direction
4. Project plans – Current design; March 4, 2016
5. Meeting materials from January 25, 2016 CHC review
a. CHC Agenda Report (including original plans)
b. Draft meeting minutes
CHC2 - 4
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIND
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-BEDROOM DWELLING BEHIND
THE RENETZKY HOUSE AT 1516 BROAD, A MASTER LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE
IN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
(ARCH-2225-2015)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary Bagnall, filed an application on October 22, 2015, for
review of a new two-bedroom dwelling at the rear of the lot at 1516 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 25, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed two-bedroom
dwelling at the rear of the lot at 1516 Broad, and continued consideration of the project to a
future date, providing direction about modifications necessary to achieve better consistency and
compatibility with nearby historic structures; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on March 28, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed two-bedroom dwelling
at the rear of the lot at 1516 Broad, as revised in response to the Committee’s direction to
achieve better consistency and compatibility with nearby historic structures; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the
City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee
makes the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and in
particular § 3.1 and § 3.2 regarding construction in historic districts and on property
with historic resources. The project is architecturally compatible with the historic
character of the Old Town Historic District area, does not sharply contrast with, block
public views of, or visually detract from the historic architectural character of
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC2 - 5
Resolution No.XXXX-16
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 2
historically designated structures, and retains and preserves character-defining
features of historically listed buildings.
2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment
of Historic Properties. The property continues to be used for its historical use, and the
project retains and preserves the distinctive materials, features, and finishes that
define the property’s historical character. As recommended by Standard #9 for
rehabilitation of historic properties, the new construction does not destroy any historic
materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property, is
differentiated from the primary residence, compatible with its historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing, protecting the integrity of the
property and its environment.
3. The project is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan’s Conservation
and Open Space Policies, and in particular Policies 3.3.1, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5, regarding
the preservation of historical and architectural resources. The new structure reflects
the form and spacing typical for historic residences and second dwellings in the
neighborhood and Old Town Historic District, and the project has been reviewed for
compatibility with the historical character of the neighborhood, in order to protect the
neighborhood character.
Section 2. Environmental Review. This project is Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in §15303 of the CEQA Guidelines
(New Construction of Small Structures). The project consists of the construction of a single-
family dwelling in a residential zone.
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend that the
Community Development Director find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
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 28th day of March, 2016.
_________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC2 - 6
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H
B
R
O
A
D
ISLAY
BUCH
O
N
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2225-20151516 Broad St ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2 - 7
Omni Design Group, Incorporated, Established 1982
711 Tank Farm Road, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 544-9700
Architecture | Civil Engineering | Surveying | Telecommunications
March 4, 2016
Mr. Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: ARCH 2225-2015 1516 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
The following revisions to the proposed design have been made in
response to the recommendations and direction given by the Cultural
Heritage Committee during their consideration of the project at the
January 25, 2016 meeting.
1. The maximum height of the structure has been reduced by 3 feet 6
inches from 29’-2” to 25’-8”.
2. The primary entrance to the upstairs dwelling unit has been
relocated from the side and rear yard areas to the interior of the lot.
As a result, the allowable projections into the setback areas have
been eliminated. The structure meets or exceeds the stepped
setback requirements in the zoning ordinance for structures over 12
feet in height. (17.16.020 C. 2.)
3. The cantilevered portions of the upper floor have been eliminated.
This has improved the apparent massing of the structure, and
several elements on the front facade have been aligned to present
a more balanced composition.
4. The decorative architectural ornaments (i.e. sunburst in gable)
featured in the main residence have been eliminated. The
architectural detailing has been simplified to be similar to the
existing main residence, but not identical.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2 - 8
Omni Design Group, Incorporated, Established 1982
711 Tank Farm Road, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 544-9700
Architecture | Civil Engineering | Surveying | Telecommunications
It is our contention that the proposed structure is compatible with the
surrounding uses and development for the following reasons:
1. The design as proposed does not present any primary access,
windows, or exterior lighting oriented to the neighboring properties
that would compromise privacy.
2. The structures orientation and location on the site, by exceeding
the required side yard setbacks set forth in the ordinance, will allow
for natural light into neighboring properties and will not adversely
shade surrounding structures. The height of the adjacent single-
family residence to the south measures 23’- 6”, and the height of
the multi-family structure to the northeast measures 24’-6”.
3. The project as proposed satisfies all applicable ordinance
requirements for allowable lot coverage, height, parking, and
setbacks. The density requirement has been met by restricting the
main residence to two bedrooms, allowing for a two bedroom
additional dwelling unit. The proposed use complies with the
allowable uses as zoned R-2-H, Medium Density Residential with
Historic Overlay.
The plans dated March 4, 2016 have been revised to incorporate the
above described information.
Please contact me at this office (805) 544-9700, or by email
(jmcalpin@odgslo.com) if any further information is required.
Sincerely,
Jonathan B. McAlpin, Architect
C-23402
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2 - 9
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
C
H
C
2
-
1
0
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
C
H
C
2
-
1
1
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
C
H
C
2
-
1
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
C
H
C
2
-
1
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
C
H
C
2
-
1
4
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Construction of a new two-bedroom dwelling behind the Renetzky House, a
Master List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic District
ADDRESS: 1516 Broad St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail:woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #: ARCH-2225-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the
Director grant final approval of the project, based on findings.
SITE DATA
Applicant Gary Bagnall
Representative Jon McAlpin, Omni Design
Submittal Date 10/22/2015
Complete Date 11/20/2015
Zoning R-2-H (Medium- Density
Residential with Historic
Overlay)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 7,675 square feet
Historic Status Master List Resource
(Old Town Historic District)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15303:
New Construction of Small
Structures)
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted an application for architectural review of the construction of a new
2-bedroom dwelling at the rear of the project site, behind the historic Renetzky House, a Master
List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic District.
1.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
on the application of historic preservation standards and guidelines.1
1 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030(B)(4) and (B)(5))
Meeting Date: January 25, 2016
Item Number: 4
ATTACHMENT 5a
CHC2 - 15
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information
The site is located on the east side of Broad Street, about 100 feet south of Buchon Street in a
Medium- Density Residential and Historical Preservation Zone (R-2-H). It is within the Old
Town Historic District and surrounded by single-family residences that are Master List Historic
Resources.
Table 1: Site Information
Access Buchon Street (entry and exit)
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 7,675 square feet; Width: 55 feet; Depth: 140 feet
Street Frontage: 55 feet (Broad)
Topography Slope: Flat
Natural Features: Trees and shrubs on northerly edge of site
Present Use &
Development
Single-family residence; Garage/workspace
Surrounding Use /
Zoning
Single-family dwellings
Medium- Density Residential and Historical Preservation Zone (R-2-H)
Buildings on site: The primary residence on the site is a two-story house in a Queen Anne style
sheathed in wood shiplap siding. It estimated to have built, or moved to its current location,
between 1904 and 1908, though given its style it is probable that it was constructed in the 1880’s
or 1890’s. Its distinctive architectural elements include multiple asymmetrical rooflines, slanted
bays, and a witch’s hat turret. The property was designated a Master List Historic Resource in
1983 as the Renetzky House, the home of the Renetzky family, local shoe merchants, in the early
1900’s. Behind the house is a garage and workshop constructed in 1982. As a later addition to
the property, this structure is not related to the historic significance of the property and will be
demolished to make room for the proposed new dwelling.
ATTACHMENT 5a
CHC2 - 16
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 3
2.2 Project Description
The project involves demolition of the 1982 garage behind the primary residence, and
construction of a two-story structure with a two-car garage at the ground level and a 2-bedroom
apartment (680 sq. ft.) above. The building is designed in a style that echoes the Victorian
character of the primary residence. It incorporates multiple steeply sloping rooflines, gables, and
sunburst decoration. Lap siding, wood trim, double-hung windows, and a color scheme of
browns and reds reinforce the relationship between the buildings.
3.0 EVALUATION
This project is located in the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest residential
neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the 20th Century. Common site features
and architectural characteristics within the district are summarized in Table 22
Table 2: Old Town Historic District
Site Features and Characteristics Predominant Architectural Features
Prominent street yard setbacks of 20 ft. or more
Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear yard
Finish floors raised 2’ – 3’ above finish grade
Front building facades oriented parallel to
street
Front entries oriented toward street, with
prominent walk, stairs and porch
Two- and rarely three-story houses
Mostly gable and hip roof types
Highly ornamented roof features, including prominent fascias,
bargeboards, gable end treatments, decorative shingles,
prominent pediments or cornices
Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood sash
windows, divided light windows, ornamental front doors, wood
screen doors
Painted wood surface material, including siding and decorative
moldings
Projects involving new construction in historic districts should be architecturally compatible with
the historical character of the district; should not detract from historically designated structures
adjacent to the property; and, accessory structures and additions on properties with historic
resources should complement the primary structure’s historic character. Applicable Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards applicable to the project are
discussed below.
Staff Analysis: The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines require that new structures be
designed to be architecturally compatible with the prevailing historic character of the historic
district “as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural
elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures”
(§ 3.2.1) and architecturally compatible with nearby historic resources:
New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public
views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of
historically designated structures… (HPPG § 3.2.2)
2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 5.2.1
ATTACHMENT 5a
CHC2 - 17
ARCH-2225-2015 (1516 Broad)
Page 4
New accessory structures should complement the primary structure’s historic
character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials.
(HPPG § 3.4.1(c))
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties also provide
guidance for designing new construction adjacent to historic buildings:
…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. (Standards for Rehabilitation, #9)
Staff Analysis: As a two-story residential structure, the new dwelling’s form and scale is in
keeping with that of the primary residence and of residences adjacent to the property, also two
stories in height. The new dwelling is recessed into the rear yard with its mass concentrated in
the center of the lot, behind the primary residence. Its peaked roof forms and front gable echo the
patterns of the main residence and adjacent houses. Wood lap siding, clad wood windows, wood
trim, and composition shingle roofing are used to match the materials of the primary residence.
Both the primary residence and the new dwelling exhibit simple detailing. Among the details that
tie the structures together are double-hung windows, carved wood porch posts and deck
balustrades, and a decorative sunburst feature in the roof gables. Overall, the materials and
architectural details used on the new dwelling are compatible with the primary residence and as a
separate structure the dwelling is differentiated from historic primary residence.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). It consists of the construction of a small structure, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures). This exemption is applicable to up
to three single-family residences on a parcel, and this project will result in two dwellings on this
parcel.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Historic
Preservation Ordinance, or Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity map
3. Project plans (reduced size)
ATTACHMENT 5a
CHC2 - 18
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 were
approved 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)
ATTACHMENT 5b
CHC2 - 19
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 5
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 5b
CHC2 - 20
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 6
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. Mr. McAlpin 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. He 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
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast of anticipated CHC agenda
items for the February 22, 2016 meeting.
ATTACHMENT 5b
CHC2 - 21
Draft CHC Minutes
01-25-16
Page 7
2. Committee
The Committee discussed the desire to have an agenda item to discuss CEQA as
it relates to historic resources. The committee 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
ATTACHMENT 5b
CHC2 - 22
Meeting Date: March 28, 2018
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Addition of three dormers to the roof of a Contributing List Historic Resource
ADDRESS: 1127 George St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE #: ARCH-2085-2015 Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the Director find the project
consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2.0 SITE DATA
Applicant Alan Marten
Representative Richard Breska,
Breska & Associates
Submittal Date 9/29/2015
Complete Date 1/27/2016
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Med. Density Residential (R-2)
Site Area 7,500 square feet
Historic Status Contributing List Resource
(not within an historic district)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
CEQA Guidelines §15301:
Existing Facilities
3.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted an application for architectural review of an alteration to a
Contributing List Historic Resource. The proposed modification includes the addition of dormer
windows to the roof of the single story structure.
4.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
on the application of historic preservation standards and guidelines.1
1 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030(B)(4) and (B)(5))
CHC3 - 1
ARCH-2085-2015 (1127 George)
Page 2
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 Site and Setting
The site is a residential lot on the south side of George Street, between Henry and Ruth Streets,
in a Medium- Density Residential (R-2) Zone within the East Railroad neighborhood. Though
not within any historical district, the surrounding area includes several listed historical resources,
including many examples of early 20th-Century residences. The property is developed with a
single-family residence and a smaller dwelling built in 1970 behind the primary dwelling.
Table 1: Site Information
Access George Street
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 7,500 square feet; Width: 50 feet; Depth: 150 feet
Street Frontage: 50 feet (George)
Topography Slope: Flat
Natural Features: Several trees; ± 600’ SW of Fixlini Creek
Present Use &
Development
Two single-family dwellings
Surrounding Use /
Zoning
Single-family dwellings
Medium-High Density Residential and Historical Preservation Zone (R-2)
The residence is a single-story Neo-Classical Cottage estimated to have been built in 1910.2 It is
sheathed in wood shiplap siding and has a steeply-pitched hipped roof of composition shingles.
The façade includes a recessed porch with turned wood posts and decorative brackets. Double-
hung wood windows set the window pattern,
including a distinctive bay window on the
front façade. The property was designated as
a Contributing List Historic Resource in
February, 2007.3
5.2 Project Description
The project involves the addition of dormer
windows to the roof in order to make floor
space in the attic area under the roof more
useable. Three dormers are proposed: one on
the front elevation, facing the street, and one on each side of the roof (left and right). Each
dormer extends four feet above the roof line, following the same slope as the main roof. They are
topped by small hipped roof elements of composition shingle, and include an open eave
treatment similar to that of the larger roof. The dormer windows and their trim are wood and
proposed to be similar in appearance and proportion to the windows and trim on the house.
2 Community Development Department, Land Use Database information
3 City Council Resolution No. 9875 (2007 Series), adopted February 27, 2007
Figure 1: Façade of 1127 George
CHC3 - 2
ARCH-2085-2015 (1127 George)
Page 3
6.0 EVALUATION
Alterations to listed historic resources must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties4 and the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines.5 This evaluation considers those Standards and Guidelines that are relevant to the
project.
6.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for the protection of
listed historic resources located outside of historic districts. The guidelines call for the
preservation of character-defining features:
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. (§ 3.4.3)
Further guidance is provided for exterior building changes:
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. (§ 3.4.4)
The proposed dormers are new elements that alter the appearance of the original roof of the
house and are visible from the public right-of-way. However, they are designed and detailed in a
manner consistent with the building’s architectural style. They are small elements in relation to
the scale of the roof, follow the roof’s sloped and hipped form, and use the same composition
4 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (Washington DC, 1995).
5 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (f)
Figure 2: Rendering of principal elevations depicting proposed dormer additions.
CHC3 - 3
ARCH-2085-2015 (1127 George)
Page 4
shingles, wood trim, and open eave detailing. This attention to form and detailing results in
architectural compatibility that preserves the original character, form, and scale of the roof. The
square plan, wood shiplap siding, recessed porch and entry decoration, double-hung window
pattern, bay window, and open eaves are all retained.
6.2 Secretary of Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI
Standards) are used to provide guidance for rehabilitation of historic buildings. The roof of a
building is identified as an important design element of historic buildings.6 Rehabilitation is a
treatment described in the SOI Standards that acknowledges that “some alterations to a historic
building are generally needed to assure its continued use […].” In this case, the applicant wishes
to add dormers to the roof in order to increase the usability of space in the upper level of the
house. Several Standards for Rehabilitation are relevant to this project: 7
The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal
of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships
that characterize a property will be avoided. (Standard 2)
Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples
of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. (Standard 5)
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will 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. (Standard 9)
Specific guidelines are provided in the form of recommendations to follow in the rehabilitation
of historic buildings to achieve consistency with these Standards, along with actions that are not
recommended:
Recommended: Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs--and their functional
and decorative features--that are important in defining the overall historic
character of the building. Not Recommended: Radically changing, damaging, or
destroying roofs which are important in defining the overall historic character of
the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished; Changing the
configuration of a roof by adding new features such as dormer windows, vents, or
skylights so that the historic character is diminished. (pg. 78)
Recommended: Designing additions to roofs such as residential, office, or storage
spaces; elevator housing; decks and terraces; or dormers or skylights when
required by the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-
way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features. Not
recommended: Radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging
6 SOI Standards, pg. 6
7 SOI Standards, pp. 62-66.
CHC3 - 4
ARCH-2085-2015 (1127 George)
Page 5
or destroying character-defining roofing material as a result of incompatible
design or improper installation techniques.
The proposed dormers are designed in a manner consistent with the building’s architectural style
and historic character. They represent a new element of the roof form, but the overall form of the
roof, its height, pitch, hipped form, and distinctive open, flared eaves are all retained and
preserved. Compatibility between the new dormers and the original roof is achieved by using the
roof’s same shape, hipped form, composition shingle material, wood trim, and open eave detail
for the dormers, and appropriately scaling and proportioning them in order to blend the new
features into the roof form such that they are not conspicuous to the observer.
The proposed dormer design appears compatible with the existing roof form and historic
character and would not result in damage destruction, radical changes to the roof, consistent with
the Secretary’s Standards. A condition of approval is recommended (Condition #1) in the draft
resolution to ensure that construction plans will include the information necessary to enable staff
to verify the consistency of the dormers with the approved design and with the character of the
historic residence, prior to issuance of construction permits for the project.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, as described in CEQA Guidelines
§ 15301 (e) (2) (Existing Facilities). Public services and facilities are available, and the project is
not located within an environmentally sensitive area. The project will not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent
issues.
2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings of inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project plans (reduced size)
4. Character Rendering
CHC3 - 5
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIND THE
PROPOSED DORMER ADDITIONS AT 1127 GEORGE STREET CONSISTENT WITH
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
(ARCH-2085-2015)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Alan Marten, filed an application on September 29, 2015, for
review of the proposed addition of new dormer windows to the roof of a residence at
1127 George Street, a Contributing Historic Residence; and,
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on March 28, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the addition of dormers to the roof
of the residence at 1127 George Street; and,
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the
City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee
makes the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and in
particular § 3.1, § 3.3, and § 3.4 regarding changes to historic resources outside of
historic districts. The proposed dormer windows do not sharply contrast with, block
public views of, or visually detract from the historic architectural character of the
residence. The square plan, wood shiplap siding, recessed porch and entry decoration,
double-hung window pattern, bay window, and open eaves that define the building’s
historic character are retained and preserved. The dormers are designed and detailed
in a manner consistent with the building’s architectural style; well-proportioned to the
scale of the roof, following its sloped and hipped form, and using the same
composition shingles, wood trim, and open eave detailing.
2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. The property continues to be used for its historical use, and its
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC3 - 6
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2085-2015 (1127 George)
Page 2
historic character is preserved. Distinctive materials, features, and finishes defining the
property’s historical character, including roofing material, wood trim, shiplap siding, and
open eave details, will be retained and preserved. As recommended by Standard #9 for
rehabilitation of historic properties, the new construction does not destroy any historic
materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property, is compatible
with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing, of the
historic residence, and protects the integrity of the property and its environment.
3. The project conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Conservation and
Open Space Policies, and in particular Policies 3.3.1, 3.3.4, and 3.3.5, regarding the
preservation of historical and architectural resources. The new dormers are sensitively
designed in a manner consistent with the building’s architectural style and historic
character, using the roof’s same shape, hipped form, composition shingle material, wood
trim, and open eave detail. They are appropriately scaled and proportioned to blend into
the roof form so that they are not conspicuous to the observer. The design of the dormers
protects the historical character of the property, and follows the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Section 2. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in CEQA Guidelines §15301
(Existing Facilities). It involves minor alteration of an existing structure and will not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend that the
Community Development Director find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, subject to incorporation of the following condition into any approval granted to the
application:
Conditions:
1. Architectural Details: Plans submitted for construction permits shall clearly depict
materials, colors, and dimensions of the new dormer window elements, including
siding, window frames and mullions, lintels, sills, recesses, trim, eaves, roofing
material and other related features. Architectural details will be designed and
arranged in a manner consistent with the character of the historic residence and with
historic structures of similar architectural style, as represented in the project plans, to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC3 - 7
Resolution No. XXXX-16
ARCH-2085-2015 (1127 George)
Page 3
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 28th day of March, 2016.
________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC3 - 8
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2-S R-2
C/OS-40
ELLA
GEOR
G
E
H
E
N
R
Y
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2085-20151127 George St ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC3 - 9
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
C
H
C
3
-
1
0
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
C
H
C
3
-
1
1
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
C
H
C
3
-
1
2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
C
H
C
3
-
1
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
4
C
H
C
3
-
1
4
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
March 28, 2016
TO: Cultural Heritage Committee
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Railroad Historic District boardwalk design standard
Discussion:
Please see the attached follow up memo from the Public Works Department which
provides background on the CHC’s previous discussion on the boardwalk style
sidewalks, and outlines the basis for recommendations to move forward with brick
pavers as an appropriate replacement for the existing wood boardwalk standard.
Provided the CHC is supportive of the recommended alternative, once City Council
approves a modification of the engineering standard replacing the wood boardwalk
specifications with the brick pavers, the architectural guidelines and recommended
transportation improvements which call for the wood boardwalk style sidewalks will
be amended.
Attachments:
Public Works Memorandum, March 1, 2016
Public Works Memorandum, May 29, 2015
CHC-RDP 1
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401‐3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
March 1, 2016
TO: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
FROM: Jennifer Lawrence, Engineering Technician III
SUBJECT: Supplement No. 2 to the Planning Application to establish additional Railroad District
sidewalk options.
Discussion:
As discussed in the previous Supplement to the Planning Application (Attachment 1), the current
standard walkway required in the historic area is a wood deck‐style boardwalk. As this style does
not stand up well over time and presents significant maintenance and accessibility issues, the Public
Works Department is proposing a new sidewalk standard for the Railroad District.
On August 24, 2015, staff met with the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and presented a number
of options including a matrix comparing the benefits and disadvantages of each. The use of
concrete stamped to maintain the appearance developed with the Railroad District Plan was
recommended to the CHC. However, the CHC recommended that staff investigate the use of pavers
rather than stamped concrete. In addition, the CHC requested that staff meet with the San Luis
Obispo Railroad Museum (Museum Board) group to gather input on the proposed substitute
design.
Public Works staff met with the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum Board (Museum Board) on
December 8, 2015, to discuss the various options previously outlined for the CHC. The Museum
Board was not in favor of stamped concrete of a solution as it was perceived as too artificial for the
historic district. Unanimous support was given for providing an option that includes using brick
pavers which would emulate the color and feel of the surrounding buildings.
Recommendation:
Considering the relative ease of maintenance, the flexibility in design options, the ability to provide
ADA compliance and the visual integration with the historic district architecture, the use of brick
pavers set onto a suitable underlayment is recommended to replace the existing boardwalk
standard. A simple layout pattern for aesthetic appeal and ease of maintenance shall be used and
the curb/gutter will be set tinted with a color complementary to the brick. See Figures 1 through 3
as follows for examples of common paver patterns. Note: Examples shown do not indicate final
sidewalk design or color choices.
Memorandum
CHC-RDP 2
“Running Bond”
“Herringbone”
“Diagonal
Herringbone”
CHC-RDP 3
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401‐3218, 805.781.7200, slocity.org
May 29, 2015
TO: Phil Dunsmore, Planner
FROM: Jennifer Lawrence
SUBJECT: Supplement to the Planning Application to establish additional Railroad District
sidewalk options.
Discussion:
The current standard walkway required in the historic area, in accordance with the Railroad District
Plan adopted in 1998, is a deck‐style boardwalk (Attachment 1). The Railroad District (Attachment
2) is readily identifiable by these boardwalks which are used as a way to honor the historic and
cultural roots that San Luis Obispo has with the railway. This supplemental memo outlines
challenges with the current standard and provides recommendations to improve the current
standard with the goal of improving accessibility, safety, and maintainability.
As shown below, the standard boardwalk does not stand up well over time. While the boardwalk is
aesthetically pleasing when newly installed (Figure 1), boardwalk maintenance has proven to be a
challenge since it is labor intensive and expensive. Boardwalk maintenance challenges include loose
screws (Figure 2) warped and splintered boards (Figure 3), rotting boards (Figure 4), and wide gaps
between the boards caused by shrinkage, all of which result in a rough walkway and trip hazards. In
addition, the current standard does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements because of the gap and trip hazard issues. This poses a challenge for the City, since it
is committed, as well as required, to provide accessible sidewalks and walkways.
Figure 1 ‐ Boardwalk installation at the Railroad
Transportation Center
Figure 2 – Loose Screws
Memorandum
CHC-RDP 4
Railroad District Sidewalk Problems
Figure 5 – Stamped Concrete Installation
Figure 3 – Warped Board Figure 4 ‐ Rotted Wood
Goal:
Improve or replace the current standard for the Historic
Railroad District to improve accessibility, safety, and
maintainability.
Alternatives
1. Alternative Materials
1.A. Poured concrete walks such as those throughout
the City would provide the most cost‐effective and low
maintenance solution. Concrete requires less overall
maintenance than wood and large sections of concrete
are not required to be removed in order to replace small
failures. However, it would need to be dyed and /or
stamped to create a design to complement the historic
nature of the Railroad District.
Replacing the boardwalks with stamped concrete
walkways (Figure 5) that mimics the color and texture of
wood will provide a long lasting surface without built‐in
gaps, screws, warping or board failure issues. Color
retention will be an issue in the long term, with a dark
brown fading to a paler color. When the concrete is
patched, as occurs in the downtown Mission Sidewalk
district, the new color will not match for a period of time
until it fades. Morro Bay is installing some colored
concrete as part of a walkway project, but does not as
yet have much experience with it (Figure 5).
1.B. Composite materials are being substituted for many
applications where wood has historically been used.
Materials such as “Trex” or “DuraLife” (Figure 6) can
provide a durable surface. Composite deck material Figure 6 –Composite Decking Material
Image from www.Trex.com
CHC-RDP 5
Railroad District Sidewalk Problems
Figure 7 – Painted Wood
would maintain the overall appearance of the existing walkway, although it would be apparent the
material was not genuine wood.
Morro Bay has experimented with this material and has areas where it has worked well, and areas
where the material has warped. Mold growth and heat are known issues for composites. Also,
materials are often difficult to obtain because of long lead times and products discontinued.
Using boards made of a composite material such as “Trex” or plastic such as “Azek” offer a solution
requiring less maintenance than wood. An alternate to real wood, patterns and colors available can
serve to simulate the look of the boardwalks currently installed in the district. However, it is
primarily plastic and some users may object to the artificial look of the boards compared to the
restored and historic facilities in the area. Depending on the quality of the product, it may be cost‐
prohibitive and although less maintenance is required on this material, it is still subject to molding,
can be slippery when wet, can get overly hot in warm climates and is not as strong as real wood.
Additionally, although most brands are considered “green” and use a very high percentage of
recycled materials, boards will need to be replaced
rather than restored when damaged and its
sustainability is questionable as the discarded
material is not bio‐degradable or recyclable.
1.C. Wood, the current standard, is aesthetically
pleasing and creates a feel of the bygone “Old West”
era. A much more expensive hardwood such as Ipe
could be used; however it is anticipated similar
problems would occur. Finding wood from
responsibly managed and sustainable sources may
prove difficult and maintenance will still be needed
more frequently than resources allow.
1.D. Painting or staining the existing boards (Figure 7), or using a higher quality wood may reduce
the weathering and increase longevity of the boardwalk, but a high level of maintenance would still
be required to keep the boardwalk from failing. Board gaps and loose screws can expect to
continue to occur.
2. Alternative Designs
A complete change from the current adopted board style walk was explored to provide other
alternatives for consideration. Public Works reached out to local designers and Cal Poly to provide
concept drawings of alternative sidewalk options. Designers were asked to take into account
constructability and maintainability as well as incorporate the historic, cultural and aesthetic values
of the Railroad District. Additionally, the designers were to provide enough detailing to show
compliance with accessibility requirements, a six‐foot walkway with room for street trees, and a
four‐foot clear path of travel.
A decision to make a more dramatic change to the adopted standard for the District will take
additional steps and public involvement, but is worth considering if the change is going to be for an
improved appearance and accessibility for the area.
CHC-RDP 6
Railroad District Sidewalk Problems
Figure 8 – Track Theme with Concrete and Brick Pavers
Design Concepts:
Public Works received submissions from three design firms. Concept materials included using
pavers, stamped and/or stained concrete, exposed aggregate and Corten steel. Interestingly, nearly
all of the submissions included the common theme of train tracks running the length of the walk; a
very different approach than emulating the boardwalk‐style walkway currently in use. Each concept
submitted provides an intriguing connection to the historic nature of the Railroad District. The
various suggested materials complement the architectural style of the neighborhood as well as
imply a longevity befitting of the district. Figures 8 through 13 illustrate the concepts submitted.
The designs propose use of a concrete or brick pavers, both of which are relatively easy to install,
are strong and durable and weather resistant. They are available in a large variety of colors, shapes,
size and patterns which allows for a great deal of flexibility in walkway design reflective of the
Railroad District. However, if not properly installed or maintained, pavers are subject to shifting
making for a rough wheelchair ride or tripping hazard. Weeds can grow in joints unless properly
sealed creating an unsightly walkway. One of the strong points of pavers is that most pavers can be
salvaged where an area of walkway needs to be removed, and reused after the work is complete.
This reduces waste and increases color compatibility at the repair.
CHC-RDP 7
Railroad District Sidewalk Problems
Figure 9 ‐ Brick Track Theme
New walkway with brick
pavers in a 90 degree
Herringbone pattern and a
dark running bond pattern
“railroad track”. Tree wells
are galvanized pan lids that
accept the brick pavers.
Typical concrete paving with saw‐
cut and stained “railroad track”.
Figure 10 ‐Concrete Track Theme
Figure 7 ‐ Brick Track Theme
CHC-RDP 8
Railroad District Sidewalk Problems
Concrete surface stained and stamped to emulate the appeal of the existing deck‐style walkway.
Figure 11 ‐ Stamped Concrete Boardwalk Theme
Smooth concrete with exposed aggregate areas provides the illusion of the sidewalk being
ripped away to expose a faux railroad track (Corten steel) beneath the surface.
Figure 12 ‐ Track Theme in Stamped Concrete
CHC-RDP 9
Railroad District Sidewalk Problems
A more elegant approach to a similar theme using acid‐etched concrete and black paver insets.
Figure 13 – Concrete and Pavers Track Theme
Recommendation:
The alternative materials as well as the ideas of the concept submittals each have their own set of
advantages and disadvantages (Attachment 3). Considering the costs, maintenance issues, the
flexibility in design options and ADA compliance, replacing wood with stamped concrete is the
recommended solution to maintain the appearance developed with the Railroad District Plan.
If an alternative appearance is preferred, any of the concrete and paver options provided can be
pursued as alternatives. Staff will proceed with review of a change to the District plan, and return
to the Commission with recommendations.
CHC-RDP 10
CHC-RDP 11
C
H
C
-
R
D
P
1
2
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
Gr
i
d
of
Bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
Ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
Di
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
AD
A
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
Co
s
t
*
Wood
(Current standard)
Na
t
u
r
a
l
be
a
u
t
y
;
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
he
r
i
t
a
g
e
an
d
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pl
a
n
Ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
ca
n
be
al
t
e
r
e
d
wi
t
h
pa
i
n
t
or
st
a
i
n
;
Go
u
g
e
s
ca
n
be
sa
n
d
e
d
ou
t
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
‐tr
e
a
t
e
d
wo
o
d
s
st
a
n
d
up
to
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
us
e
wh
e
n
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
a ve
r
y
hi
g
h
de
g
r
e
e
of
re
g
u
l
a
r
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
se
a
l
i
n
g
to
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
an
d
us
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Su
b
j
e
c
t
to
se
v
e
r
e
wa
r
p
i
n
g
,
ro
t
t
i
n
g
an
d
sp
l
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
Ca
r
e
mu
s
t
be
ta
k
e
n
to
se
l
e
c
t
th
e
mo
s
t
ec
o
‐fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
,
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
wo
o
d
s
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
If
no
t
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
,
wa
r
p
i
n
g
ca
n
ca
u
s
e
tr
i
p
p
i
n
g
ha
z
a
r
d
s
Wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
$8
‐
$1
5
Wood‐Plastic Composite (WPC)
( “Trex”, “DuraLife”…)
Mo
s
t
si
m
i
l
a
r
in
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
wo
o
d
bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
s
;
Mi
n
o
r
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
to
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pl
a
n
Ea
s
e
of
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
y
co
l
o
r
s
,
gr
a
i
n
an
d
pa
t
t
e
r
n
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Lo
w
e
r
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
;
Li
t
t
l
e
or
no
ne
e
d
to
st
a
i
n
,
pa
i
n
t
or
se
a
l
“H
i
d
d
e
n
”
fa
s
t
e
n
e
r
sy
s
t
e
m
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Ma
d
e
fr
o
m
re
c
y
c
l
e
d
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Ca
n
fa
d
e
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
if
no
t
UV
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
De
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
on
gr
a
d
e
,
ea
s
i
l
y
go
u
g
e
d
Le
s
s
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
st
r
e
n
g
t
h
th
a
n
pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
‐
tr
e
a
t
e
d
wo
o
d
If
da
m
a
g
e
d
,
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
mu
s
t
be
re
p
l
a
c
e
d
ra
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
re
n
e
w
e
d
Cl
e
a
n
e
r
s
ca
n
le
a
v
e
“p
o
w
d
e
r
y
”
re
s
i
d
u
e
Un
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
a
b
l
e
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
in
he
a
t
/
c
o
l
d
Ma
y
be
su
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
l
e
to
mo
l
d
Ma
y
be
sl
i
p
p
e
r
y
in
we
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
WP
C
is
no
t
re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
or
bi
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
a
b
l
e
“D
u
r
a
L
i
f
e
”
de
c
k
i
n
g
pr
o
d
u
c
t
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
fo
r
ra
m
p
s
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
If
no
t
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
,
wa
r
p
i
n
g
ca
n
ca
u
s
e
tr
i
p
p
i
n
g
ha
z
a
r
d
s
Wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
$1
4
‐
$1
9
Polyvinylchloride
(PVC) Plastic
( “Azek”, “Wolf”…)
Re
s
e
m
b
l
e
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
wo
o
d
bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
s
;
Mi
n
o
r
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
to
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pl
a
n
Ea
s
e
of
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Re
t
a
i
n
s
co
l
o
r
be
t
t
e
r
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
Lo
w
e
r
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
pe
r
i
o
d
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
on
l
y
Le
s
s
su
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
l
e
to
wa
t
e
r
da
m
a
g
e
th
a
n
wo
o
d
or
WP
C
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
,
la
c
k
s
“f
e
e
l
”
of
re
a
l
wo
o
d
Pr
o
n
e
to
hi
g
h
e
r
ex
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
/
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
wh
i
c
h
ca
n
le
a
d
to
lo
o
s
e
n
i
n
g
of
jo
i
n
t
s
,
in
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
de
c
k
Ca
n
ge
t
ve
r
y
ho
t
in
wa
r
m
e
r
cl
i
m
a
t
e
s
Si
m
i
l
a
r
di
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
to
WP
C
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
If
no
t
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
,
wa
r
p
i
n
g
ca
n
ca
u
s
e
tr
i
p
p
i
n
g
ha
z
a
r
d
s
Wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
$1
7
‐
$2
3
Poured Concrete
(Plain)
Ea
s
e
of
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Lo
w
in
i
t
i
a
l
co
s
t
Ve
r
y
du
r
a
b
l
e
A se
a
l
e
r
is
ad
d
e
d
to
pr
e
v
e
n
t
st
a
i
n
i
n
g
Le
a
s
t
ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
ar
e
a
an
d
do
e
s
no
t
co
m
p
l
y
wi
t
h
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pl
a
n
Su
b
j
e
c
t
to
cr
a
c
k
i
n
g
;
Co
n
t
r
o
l
jo
i
n
t
s
an
d
sa
w
cu
t
s
ar
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
he
l
p
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
cr
a
c
k
i
n
g
Ea
s
i
e
s
t
to
co
m
p
l
y
wi
t
h
AD
A
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
Sh
i
f
t
i
n
g
or
cr
a
c
k
i
n
g
ca
n
ca
u
s
e
tr
i
p
p
i
n
g
ha
z
a
r
d
s
Le
a
s
t
im
p
a
c
t
on
wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
us
e
r
s
.
$5
‐
$6
Table 1
CHC-RDP 13
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
Ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
Di
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
s
AD
A
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
Co
s
t
*
Stamped/Stained Concrete
A wi
d
e
va
r
i
e
t
y
of
pa
t
t
e
r
n
s
an
d
co
l
o
r
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Ve
r
y
du
r
a
b
l
e
A se
a
l
e
r
is
ad
d
e
d
to
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
co
l
o
r
an
d
pr
e
v
e
n
t
st
a
i
n
i
n
g
In
i
t
i
a
l
co
s
t
an
d
co
s
t
of
re
p
a
i
r
s
an
d
on
g
o
i
n
g
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Su
b
j
e
c
t
to
cr
a
c
k
i
n
g
;
Co
n
t
r
o
l
jo
i
n
t
s
an
d
sa
w
cu
t
s
ar
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
he
l
p
co
n
t
r
o
l
Re
p
a
i
r
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
pa
t
c
h
i
n
g
‐
co
l
o
r
ma
t
c
h
i
n
g
of
th
e
ne
w
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
to
th
e
ol
d
is
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
Th
e
se
a
l
e
r
ne
e
d
s
to
be
re
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
ev
e
r
y
2 ‐
3 ye
a
r
s
Co
l
o
r
s
ma
y
fa
d
e
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
Ca
n
be
ma
d
e
to
AD
A
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
;
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
st
a
m
p
e
d
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
ar
e
ve
r
y
di
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
to
pr
o
d
u
c
e
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
Ca
n
ca
u
s
e
wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
$1
3
‐
$1
8
Concrete Pavers
Ea
s
e
of
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
re
p
a
i
r
s
Le
s
s
su
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
l
e
to
cr
a
c
k
i
n
g
th
a
n
po
u
r
e
d
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
wh
e
n
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
Va
r
i
o
u
s
co
l
o
r
s
,
sh
a
p
e
s
,
si
z
e
an
d
pa
t
t
e
r
n
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
st
r
e
n
g
t
h
,
du
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Go
o
d
ma
t
c
h
i
n
g
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
d
wa
s
t
e
fr
o
m
re
p
a
i
r
s
du
e
to
re
u
s
e
of
pa
v
e
r
s
We
a
t
h
e
r
re
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
Lo
n
g
li
f
e
ex
p
e
c
t
a
n
c
y
Tr
i
p
ha
z
a
r
d
cr
e
a
t
e
d
wh
e
n
pa
v
e
r
s
sh
i
f
t
or
si
n
k
Jo
i
n
t
sa
n
d
ne
e
d
s
to
be
"t
o
p
p
e
d
of
f
"
ev
e
r
y
co
u
p
l
e
of
ye
a
r
s
un
l
e
s
s
a po
l
y
m
e
r
sa
n
d
is
us
e
d
We
e
d
s
ca
n
gr
o
w
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pa
v
e
r
s
un
l
e
s
s
a po
l
y
m
e
r
sa
n
d
is
us
e
d
Co
l
o
r
s
ca
n
fa
d
e
ov
e
r
ti
m
e
Sh
o
r
t
e
r
li
f
e
sp
a
n
th
a
n
br
i
c
k
pa
v
e
r
s
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
Pa
v
e
r
s
mu
s
t
be
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
an
d
le
v
e
l
to
av
o
i
d
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
sh
i
f
t
s
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
tr
i
p
ha
z
a
r
d
s
Ca
n
ca
u
s
e
wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
$6
‐
$1
0
Brick Pavers
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
of
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
;
Ti
m
e
l
e
s
s
st
y
l
e
Ea
s
e
of
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
re
p
a
i
r
s
Le
s
s
su
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
l
e
to
cr
a
c
k
i
n
g
th
a
n
po
u
r
e
d
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
wh
e
n
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
So
m
e
co
l
o
r
s
,
sh
a
p
e
s
,
si
z
e
an
d
pa
t
t
e
r
n
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Fa
d
e
re
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
;
Cr
a
c
k
s
an
d
ch
i
p
s
le
s
s
no
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
e
Ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
st
r
e
n
g
t
h
,
du
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ea
s
y
,
lo
w
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Ve
r
y
lo
n
g
li
f
e
ex
p
e
c
t
a
n
c
y
Ec
o
‐fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
Tr
i
p
ha
z
a
r
d
cr
e
a
t
e
d
wh
e
n
pa
v
e
r
s
sh
i
f
t
or
si
n
k
Jo
i
n
t
sa
n
d
ne
e
d
s
to
be
"t
o
p
p
e
d
of
f
"
ev
e
r
y
co
u
p
l
e
of
ye
a
r
s
un
l
e
s
s
a po
l
y
m
e
r
sa
n
d
is
us
e
d
We
e
d
s
ca
n
gr
o
w
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pa
v
e
r
s
un
l
e
s
s
a po
l
y
m
e
r
sa
n
d
is
us
e
d
Li
m
i
t
e
d
co
l
o
r
ch
o
i
c
e
s
Mo
r
e
br
e
a
k
a
b
l
e
th
a
n
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
pa
v
e
r
s
AD
A
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
wa
r
n
i
n
g
pa
v
e
r
s
ar
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
ar
e
a
s
su
c
h
as
ha
n
d
i
c
a
p
ra
m
p
s
Pa
v
e
r
s
mu
s
t
be
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
an
d
le
v
e
l
to
av
o
i
d
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
sh
i
f
t
s
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
tr
i
p
ha
z
a
r
d
s
Ca
n
ca
u
s
e
wh
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
$9
‐
$1
3
*C
o
s
t
pe
r
sq
u
a
r
e
fo
o
t
,
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
on
l
y
,
ba
s
e
d
on
in
f
o
r
m
a
l
in
t
e
r
n
e
t
se
a
r
c
h
e
s
.
Table 1 (cont’d)
CHC-RDP 14
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
February 22, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to
order on Monday, February 22nd, 2016 at 5:32 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, James Papp, Leah
Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: Committee Member Sandy Baer
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, and Recording
Secretary Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the Public.
MINUTES
MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
PAPP, CARRIED 6-0, to approve the Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee
meeting of January 25, 2016 and the Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission &
Cultural Heritage Committee’s joint meetings of July 13, 2015 and December 7, 2015 as
amended:
1.) January 25, 2016, added Committee Member Sandy Baer to present under
Roll Call
2.) July 13, 2015, Page 4, final paragraph, added “and sunlight” after “views
from”
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 847 Monterey Street. ARCH-2300-2015; 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.
Draft CHC Minutes
02-22-16
Page 2
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided basis for Staff’s recommendation and introduced
Assistant Planner Kyle Bell to provide project overview.
Assistant Planner Kyle Bell stipulated that Committee’s review of proposed exterior
modifications was per the evaluation criteria of City’s Historic P reservation Guidelines
and Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation; displayed PowerPoint slide
of Sinsheimer Building and presented the contents of the report.
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiry, Assistant Planner Bell reporte d that
because the proposal of the fully enclosed trash element would affect views of the
building, staff decided to include it in the overall review of project.
Project Architect Duffy, Ten Over Studio, Inc., representing Applicant, introduced
owners Giuseppe and Michella DiF ranzo, who stated that their primary goal is to
preserve the beauty of the Sinsheimer Building, while creating improved circulation for
the restaurant and access to the outdoor dining area .
Project Architect Duffy discussed the conflicting overlap of door shutters at the egress
pathway and requested Committee direction; discussed the re-painting rear of building
to an original salmon color.
Project Architect Duffy explained the reasons regarding material choices for the trash
enclosure and stated that it is appropriate to utilize a contemporary product; explained
that the enclosure’s placement developed out of an egress-separation issue.
In response to Mr. Papp’s second inquiry, Mr. Duffy indicated that the 1980’s photo of
the Sinsheimer family in back of the building shows a salmon paint color and older black
& white photos suggest a darker color.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pierre Rademaker, San Luis Obispo, commented on the proposed modifications in the
back of the building, believing them to be of the lightest possible touch which maintains
the possibility of returning the windows to their original condition in the future; espoused
favorable view of half-shutters as they do express the history of the windows; alluded
favorably to the durability of poured concrete for the trash enclosure.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Walthert voiced support for the extension of the shutters;
commented on the severe color contrast between brick and pure white; supported a
different location for trash containment and suggested a door design that is consistent
with the building’s existing door design.
Committee Member Brajkovich commented on past conditions of approval for this site
based on his involvement with its seismic retrofit, stated some concern that the
proposed trash enclosure blocks views of the building from Rose Alley; stated that the
rear portion was once salmon -colored and suggested re-painting as an important
Draft CHC Minutes
02-22-16
Page 3
modification.
Committee Member Papp indicated the significance of the Sinsheimer Building is in part
due to its importance of reflecting the history of the Jewish merchant class of late 19th
Century; noted original shutters should be retained ; indicated preference for adapting
the building to new use purposes. In response to Mr. Papp’s comments, Project
Architect Duffy indicated that the bare concrete wall of the trash enclosure would be
broken up with landscaping and Italian courtyard features.
Committee Member Larrabee expressed support to the project’s direction, noting that
the building will be back in circulation and be a highly appreciated venue; shared that
she has no issues with trash enclosure appearing modern.
In response to Committee Member Kincaid’s in quiry, Project Architect Duffy described
the of the intent to create a courtyard experience and that access would be solely
through the restaurant, and Rose Alley would be emergency-egress only.
Chair Hill suggested solid and etched glass panels below windowsills for allowance of
natural light; In response to Ms. Hill’s inquiries, Project Architect Duffy indicated that the
stairwell window is double-hung and the heavy awnings are affixed to buildings both by
means of eyehooks and set-in employing gravity.
Committee Member Larrabee made a motion for acceptance of project with no
revisions; Chair Hill seconded. Discussion ensued, particularly in regards to creating a
condition toward further alley-side articulation of the trash enclosure.
Consensus vote on motion rendered 3-3 tie vote and the motion failed.
Chair Hill suggested examining two issues individually, specifically the treatment of the
windows, doors & shutters and the design of the trash enclosure.
Chair Hill made a motion accepting design of the doors and maintaining the original
shutters as recommended by Staff; seconded by Committee Member Larrabee; no
formal action was taken. Chair Hill withdrew the motion.
RECOMMENDATION: Chair Hill made motion to recommend approval of the project
based on Staff recommendation of the two Conditions, with the inclusion of third
Condition directing the Applicant to explore further materials and articulation of the trash
enclosure; Committee Member Papp seconded.
ACTION: On motion by Chair Hill, seconded by Committee Member Papp, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Hill, Papp, Larrabee, Brajkovich, Kincaid, and Walthert
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Baer
Draft CHC Minutes
02-22-16
Page 4
The foregoing resolution, with inclusion of the third Condition, was passed and adopted
this 22nd day of February 2016.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Staff:
Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast of anticipated CHC agenda items
for the March 28th & April 25th, 2016 meetings: CEQA Study Session with Assistant
City Attorney; PROJECTS: Initial study, repositioning & rehabilitation @ 71 Palomar;
SLO Brew façade re-model; and continuing CHC direction on 1516 Broad Street.
Staff Updates
Senior Planner Leveille provided following Staff updates: Historic District signs close to
completion; historic walking tour app being developed in-house; Chinatown archaeology
project currently in Phase 2; California Preservation Foundation training opportunities
available at Presidio conference in mid -April; links to webinars forwarded to Committee
toward further historical preservation training; and Advisory Body Recognition Reception
invitations, scheduled for March 22 nd, have been mailed.
In response to Chair Hill’s inquiry, Senior Planner Leveille provided update on
forthcoming Issues & Options Report per Sign Regulations and noted that Zoning Code
project is more likely slated for next year, requiring further progress on Downtown
Concept Plan and Mission Plaza Update.
Committee:
Committee Member Papp noted the success of the workshop and outreach event at
Mission Plaza for the Downtown Concept Plan ; shared concerns about the prior
archaeological consultant firm no longer working on the Chinatown Project. Chair Hill
shared perceptions pertaining to consultant lists and the City process where the
developer can be allowed to select consultants.
Chair Hill announced that interviews for Vice Chair Brajkovich’s seat were occuring;;
and discussed the Downtown Concept Plan Update.
Committee Member Papp announced that CHC -reviewed Jack House project is
proceeding and Art After Dark will feature an historical perspective art-walk installation
on March 4th.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Draft CHC Minutes
02-22-16
Page 5
Brad T. Opstad
Recording Secretary