The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-27-2016 CHC Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee Monday, June 27, 2016 5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hill ROLL CALL: Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items. 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 Avenue. ARCH-2193-2015; Continued review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 33-unit multi-family residential project; and, review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with addendum for project modifications since initial review; R-4 zone; LR Development Group, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) 2. 570 Higuera Street. ARCH-2699-2016; Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot commercial building within the Downtown Historic District with a Categorical Exemption from environmental review.; C-D zone; SLO Creamery LLC, applicant. (Rachel Cohen) San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of June 27, 2016 Page 2 3. 690 Islay Street. HIST-3168-2016; Review of a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement for the Master List historic Kimball House with a Categorical Exemption from environmental review; R-2-H zone; John Poremba, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates ADJOURNMENT Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Item Number: 1 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 33-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 is 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 5/20/2016 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/BACKGROUND On March 28, 2016, the CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development, within four multi-level buildings. The proposal also included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided the following direction to the applicant: 1)Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-way and the new development; and CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 2 2) Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence; a. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. The applicant has revised plans in response to CHC direction, and is now proposing a 33-unit multi-family residential project, within six separate buildings. The revised project retains plans for the adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House (Attachment 3, Project plans). The project requires review by the CHC 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 List Historic Property.2 An Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was completed evaluating the revisions to the project and any potential new impacts (Attachment 7). The Addendum found that the revised proposed project would not result in additional impacts, and that no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary. More details regarding the environmental review are described in Section 6.0 below. Following 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 and Addendum. 3.0 CHC PURVIEW The purview of the CHC is to review the applicant’s response to directional items from the CHC’s previous March 28, 2016, evaluation of the project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Secretary of Interior Standards, and cultural resources evaluation pursuant to CEQA. 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. 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 CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 3 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 2, Vicinity Map). (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Site plan, Sheet A1.0). A historic description of the site is included in the previous staff report (Attachment 5). 4.2 Project Description The applicant has made modifications to the project proposed at 41 Palomar in response to CHC direction. Table 1 provides a breakdown of components which remain and modifications included in the revised project in response to CHC direction. Table 1: Project Description March 28, 2016 Project Description Revised Project Description Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure No change Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building No change Reposition the house approximately 29 feet east and 45 feet south of its current location Reposition the house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south 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.) No change Construction of four residential structures: • two 2-story structures; one 3-story structure; and a 4- story structure built into the hill; • 41 residential units (six studios, one one- bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom apartments). Construction of six residential structures: • five 2-story structures and a 4-story structure built into the hill; • 33 residential units (five studios, 16 two- bedroom, and 12 three-bedroom apartments). 90 parking spaces and 82 bicycle parking spaces within a two -level garage beneath the north apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue 63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the north apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue The applicant proposed a residential architectural design that included flat roof lines and larger, multi- level residential structures. The applicant is proposing a residential architectural design that includes peaked roof lines and more separate structures to break up the massing of the multi-level residential structures. Materials: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, board and batten siding, and wood balcony railings No change CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 4 Figure 2: Rendering of the proposed multi-family project from the corner of Luneta and Palomar Avenue. 5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION 5.1 CHC Direction Staff has provided an analysis below that includes an evaluation of the applicant’s responses to CHC direction (Attachment 8, March 28, 2016 CHC Minutes). Directional Item #1: Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-way and the new development. The revised project proposes to reposition the Sandford House forward 33 feet east and 16 feet south. The previous proposal moved the house approximately 29 feet east and 45 feet south. The new relocation places the Sandford House 49 feet away from the right-of-way for Luneta Drive. The revised project is also located 40 feet away from the new multi-family structures. The previous project was located 15 feet away from the new development. Table 2 shows the overall change in distances from the previous project to the revised project. Table 2: Distance of the Sandford House from the proposed right-of-way of Luneta Drive and from the new development Distance from Luneta Distance from the new development Existing Conditions 64 feet N/A First Submittal 20 feet 15 feet Second Submittal 49 feet 40 feet CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 5 Applied Earthworks (AE) evaluated the proposed project revisions and provided a letter indicating that the project revisions will be consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines because the historic orientation along Palomar on the top part of the slope will remain the same (Attachment 4, Historic Evaluation Memo). By repositioning the house in the revised location, the structure maintains its prominent position at the center of the property along Palomar Avenue and increases the distance between the Historic House and the new construction. The revised plans increase the separation from new development and reduce the extent of repositioning of the Sandford House consistent with CHC direction. Directional Item #2: Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence. The revised project has increased the number of overall structures from four residential structures to six. The increase in the number of structures breaks up the massing of the previously proposed 3-story structure. The five, two-story structures have an approximate height of 28.5 feet and the four-story structure is 35 feet in height from average natural grade. The previous project had building heights ranging from 20 to 33 feet. The increased height of the revised project comes from the pitched roof design as opposed to the more flat roof design of the previous project (see Figure 5 below). The peaked roof design appears to better reflect the rooflines of the Sandford House and creates more open space between the Historic House and 49 feet 40 feet 20 feet 15 feet Figure 3: Comparison of the relocation of the Sandford House from the previous project to the revised project Previous Site Plan Revised Site Plan CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 6 the new structures. The Sandford House remains the tallest structure on the site at approximately 34 feet. The four-story structure sits below the Sandford House due to its location on the downslope (see Figure 4). Figure 4: East elevation view of the project site showing the height of the new structures compared to the Sandford House (Top) Revised project; (Bottom) Previous project Figure 5: South elevation view of the project site showing the previous and revised roof lines the new structures compared to the Sandford House (Top) Revised project; (Bottom) Previous project a) New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. The design of the revised project has been modified to better complement the Historic Sandford House. The new architecture reflects a more agrarian style with pitched roofs that are more Previous Project Revised Project Revised Project Previous Project CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 7 complementary to the Sandford House and provide a more authentic architectural form as opposed to the flat roofs of the previous project. The revised design also includes windows with divided lights and ventilation louvers which are also found on the historic house. An important component of architectural compatibility is use of authenitic and quality finish materials and architectural details. Staff recommends Condition No. 1 which requires submittal of all information for the ARC to review finishes and architectural details. Elevations of Building A and B include a smooth panel horizontal element between window fenestrations that do not appear to be consistent with the overall design or the Sandford House. Staff recommends that this element be removed (Condition No.2) and that the CHC recommend the ARC evaluate this architectural feature and provide feedback on a more a compatible architectural element. The use of horizontal siding, board and batten siding, or enlarging the windows may be more appropriate ways to better break up the south elevation. Figure 6: The dashed box highlights the smooth panel horizontal element recommended for removal 5.2 Archaeological Resources Applied Earthworks conducted an Archeological Resource Inventory (ARI) (Attachment 5, March 2016 Staff report) as part of the review of the previous project and did not find any evidence of archaeological materials on the surface. The revised project does not propose any new information or changes that impact the archeology. The proposed mitigation measures included in the Initial Study and incorporated as a recommended condition of approval 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 remain. 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.3 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was completed evaluating the revisions to the project and any potential new impacts (Attachment 7). The Addendum found that the proposed project is consistent with the original MND (Attachment 6) and the same mitigation measures are being required. The previous staff report noted that the MND found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources since it is 3 City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines section 4.60 CHC ARCH-2193-2015 (71 Palomar Avenue) Page 8 consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties4 (Attachment 6, Initial Study). The MND 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 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) find the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 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. Supplemental Historic Evaluation Letter 5. March 28, 2016 Staff Report (without Initial Study) 6. Initial Study 7. MND Addendum 8. March 28, 2016 CHC Minutes 4 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. ATTACHMENT 1 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 33-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 June 27, 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, 33-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 and Addendum properly characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No.XXXX-16 CHC ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar) Page 2 historic/cultural resources, 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. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 2. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on Buildings A and B. 3. 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 ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No.XXXX-16 CHC ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar) Page 3 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). 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 27th day of June, 2016. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee 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 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ' ' ATTACHMENT 3 ' ' 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 26 4 . 4 F F - P O D I U M D E C K 25 3 . 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 ' 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 8 . 5 F F 26 7 . 3 F G 26 7 . 8 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 8 . 7 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 50 C Y F I L L 20 ' M A X C U T 5' 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 8 . 6 E G ) 26 4 . 2 T W 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 NO T U S E D NO T U S E D 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 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 9 10 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 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 . 5 B S W 24 7 . 1 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 6 . 0 % 1 3 . 8 % 12 . 1 % 4.8 % 19 19 18.00' 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 4 ' 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 27 0 . 9 F S 26 8 . 0 F F 26 8 . 0 F F 26 8 . 5 F F 27 1 . 0 F F 26 4 . 8 F G 26 4 . 3 F G 26 7 . 8 F G 26 7 . 9 F G 11 11 11 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 27 0 . 9 F S 26 8 . 4 F S 26 6 . 9 F G BU I L D I N G C BU I L D I N G D BU I L D I N G F BU I L D I N G E BU I L D I N G A BU I L D I N G B BU I L D I N G G 1 ~ 26 6 . 5 F G 26 4 . 3 F G 26 4 . 0 F S 26 5 . 4 F G 26 9 . 5 F S 26 7 . 8 F S 26 8 . 8 F S 26 7 . 5 F S ATTACHMENT 3 ' ' S S W W W W S S S S S SD SD SD SD S D SD SD SD S D SD S D S 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 , T Y P 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 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 HD P E S T O R M D R A I N , SI Z E S V A R Y , T Y P HD P E S T O R M D R A I N , SI Z E S V A R Y , T Y P SD R 3 5 P V C SE W E R , S I Z E VA R I E S , T Y P 26 4 . 4 F F - P O D I U M D E C K 25 3 . 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 ' F F - 1 S T L E V E L P A R K I N G D E C K 26 8 . 5 F F 26 8 . 0 F F 26 8 . 0 F F 26 8 . 5 F F 27 1 . 0 F F BU I L D I N G C BU I L D I N G D BU I L D I N G F BU I L D I N G E BU I L D I N G A BU I L D I N G B BU I L D I N G G ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 5 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 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 14 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 15 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 16 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 17 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 18 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 19 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 20 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 21 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 22 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 23 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 24 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 25 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 26 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 27 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 28 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 29 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 30 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 31 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 32 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 33 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 34 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 35 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 36 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 37 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 38 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 39 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 40 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 41 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 42 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 43 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 44 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 45 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 46 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 47 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 48 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 49 ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 50 ATTACHMENT 5 ' ' ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 51 ATTACHMENT 5 ' ' 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 ATTACHMENT 5 ' ' 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 5 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC1 - 54 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ar e 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 Addre ss : P.O. Box 321 City San Luis Obispo Phone : (80 5 ) 541-1000 Zip __ 9 _3 4_0_1_ ATTACHMENT 4 CHC1 - 56 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 58 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 iv Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 60 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 viii Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 64 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 Figure 1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California. 2 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 66 ATTACHMENT 5 Figure 1-2 Aerial overview of subject property and surrounding neighborhood. 3 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 67 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 12 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 76 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 (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 ATTACHMENT 5 (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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 • 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 5 APPENDIX A Personnel Qualifications 56 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 120 ATTACHMENT 5 57 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 121 ATTACHMENT 5 58 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 122 ATTACHMENT 5 59 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 123 ATTACHMENT 5 60 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 124 ATTACHMENT 5 61 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 125 ATTACHMENT 5 APPENDIX B Records Search Results 62 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 126 ATTACHMENT 5 63 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 127 ATTACHMENT 5 64 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 128 ATTACHMENT 5 APPENDIX C Native American Outreach 65 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 129 ATTACHMENT 5 66 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 130 ATTACHMENT 5 67 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 131 ATTACHMENT 5 68 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 132 ATTACHMENT 5 69 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 133 ATTACHMENT 5 APPENDIX D Cultural Resource Record Forms 70 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 134 ATTACHMENT 5 71 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 135 ATTACHMENT 5 72 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 136 ATTACHMENT 5 73 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 137 ATTACHMENT 5 74 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 138 ATTACHMENT 5 75 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 139 ATTACHMENT 5 76 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 140 ATTACHMENT 5 77 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 141 ATTACHMENT 5 78 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 142 ATTACHMENT 5 79 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 143 ATTACHMENT 5 80 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC1 - 144 ATTACHMENT 5 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 ATTACHMENT 6 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 A T T A C H M E N T 1 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 A T T A C H M E N T 2 A T T A C H M E N T 6 Addendum Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration For the 71 Palomar Avenue Multi-Family Residential Project San Luis Obispo, California Prepared for: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared by: Oliveira Environmental Consulting, LLC 3155 Rose Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 805.234.7393; jeffo@olive-env.com www.olive-env.com June 2016 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Project Background............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Purpose of This Addendum…............................................................................................... 4 1.3 Regulatory Framework for Addendum….……….................................................................... 4 2.0 Project Information........................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Location................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Original Project Description…............................................................................................... 5 2.3 Revised Project Description…............................................................................................... 5 3.0 Revised Project Environmental Impact Analysis................................................................................ 9 3.1 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects......................................................................... 9 3.2 Conclusion...........................................................................……………………………………………… 9 Figures Figure 1 – Project Vicinity and Site Location…………………………………………………………………………………. 6 Figure 2 – Revised Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay………………………………………………………………………… 8 2 ATTACHMENT 7 1.0 Introduction This document constitutes an Addendum to the March 18, 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) originally prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo for the 71 Palomar Avenue Multi-Family Residential Project (ARCH 2193-2015). This Addendum evaluates whether the addition of new information and clarifications in response to project revisions sponsored by the applicant would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant environmental effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the original project IS/MND. As verified in this Addendum, the analyses and the conclusions in the original project IS/MND remain current and valid. The new information and project clarifications contained in this Addendum would not cause new significant effects not previously identified in the MND nor increase the level of environmental effect to substantial or significant; and as such, no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant effects. No change has occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than were identified in the original IS/MND. In addition, no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that have not already been analyzed in the original IS/MND. Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. This Addendum incorporates the mitigation measures detailed in the original MND dated March 18, 2016. With this Addendum, the proposed project would still be within the framework of the evaluation for the project as documented in the original IS/MND. 1.1 Project Background The City of San Luis Obispo received an architectural review application for the development of a 41- unit multi-family residential project at 71 Palomar Avenue in the City of San Luis Obispo on October 16, 2016. The project was deemed complete on December 12, 2015 and a MND was published on March 18, 2016. The City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project and CEQA analysis on March 28, 2016 and decided to continue the project with direction to be reviewed at a future date. Direction provided by the CHC included the following: 1) Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of- way and the new development; and 2) Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence; a. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. 3 ATTACHMENT 7 1.2 Purpose of This Addendum The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the additional new information and clarifications resulting from the proposed project design revisions would result in any new or substantially greater significant environmental effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the original IS/MND. The City when considering approval of the proposed project will use this Addendum, together with the original IS/MND. 1.3 Regulatory Framework for Addendum For proposed project modifications or the addition of environmental information to a published IS/MND, State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) state that an Addendum to an MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred: • Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or • New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of MND adoption, shows any of the following: i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND, ii. The project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in the MND, iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This Addendum provides additional environmental information and clarifications resulting from project design revisions and demonstrates that the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions described above. Based on the analysis provided below, an Addendum to the original IS/MND is appropriate. 4 ATTACHMENT 7 2.0 Project Information 2.1 Project Location The proposed project is located at 71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052-162-007), near the intersection with Ramona Drive, south of Foothill Boulevard, in the northwest portion of the City of San Luis Obispo, California. The project parcel is 1.32 acres in size and is zoned “R-4” (High Density Residential). Please refer to Figure 1, Site Vicinity/Site Location, for a depiction of the project location. 2.2 Original Project Description The originally proposed project, as analyzed in the March 2016 IS/MND, consisted 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. The originally proposed 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 the March 2016 IS/MND for a detailed discussion of the originally proposed project elements. 2.3 Revised Project Description The original project discussed above has been revised to address directional items provided by the CHC (see Section 1.1. above). The revised project proposes to reposition the Sandford House forward 33 feet east and 16 feet south. The previous proposal moved the house approximately 29 feet east and 45 feet south. The new relocation places the Sandford House 49 feet away from the right-of-way of Luneta Drive. The revised project is also located 40 feet away from the newly revised residential structures. The previous project was located 15 feet away from the new development. By repositioning the house in the revised location, the structure retains its position at the center of the property along Palomar Avenue and increases the distance between the Historic House and the new construction. 5 ATTACHMENT 7 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 A T T A C H M E N T 7 The revised project also proposes to reduce the massing and scale of the project and reduce the total number of residential units. The previously proposed building to the west of the Sandford House has been reduced from three stories to two stories and smaller structures have been substituted for the larger structures originally proposed. The newly constructed apartment buildings will include five 2- story structures and a 4-story structure built into the hill with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, 16 two-bedroom, and 12 three-bedroom apartments) as opposed to 41 units proposed in the previous project. Parking for the site is proposed to be located in the semi-subterranean garage of the structure located at the north side of the site. The revised project will have total of 63 vehicle parking spaces, 66 bicycle long-term parking spaces and 22 short-term bicycle spaces. The previous project proposed 90 vehicle spaces, 82 long-term parking spaces and 4 short-term bicycle spaces. The original historic orientation of the Sandford House will remain the same with the house facing Palomar Avenue from the crest of the small slope on the project site. The overall property height will be lowered slightly across the slope. As originally described, the historic two-story residence will be rehabilitated following the City Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. As with the original project, non-historic rear additions to the Sandford House will be removed and the residence, currently serving as student housing, will become amenity space (leasing, computer and conference rooms, fitness room, etc.) for residents and management at the proposed new development. The revised project also includes modifications to the proposed tree removal and tree planting plan for the site. A Certified Arborist report was prepared A&T Arborists (2016) that identifies all of the trees on the site and their condition. The report identifies that the project will include the preservation of the Norfolk Island pine and two Island Date palms. The new landscape plan shows over 30 new trees will be planted on the site. The previous project proposed to retain the two Island Date palms and replant the site with 21 trees. Please refer to Figure 2, Revised Site Plan/Aerial Overview, for a detailed depiction of the revised project layout and footprint on the project site. 7 ATTACHMENT 7 P a l o m a r A v e n u e Luneta Drive AdjacentMulti-Family AdjacentMulti-Family Adjacent Residential Slide House Forward (39' East & 16' 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 Revised Site Plan/Aerial OverviewCity of San Luis Obispo 71 Palomar Ave Residential Development - Revised Street Boundary New Sandford House Location Multi-Family Appartments Parcel Boundary Walkway 0 25 5012.5 Feet A T T A C H M E N T 7 3.0 Revised Project Environmental Impact Analysis As stated above, the purpose of this Addendum is to introduce new project information and clarifications resulting from project revisions based on direction from the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee. In addition, this Addendum demonstrates that the new project information and subsequent revised environmental impact analysis discussed below do not trigger any of the conditions described under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 which outline the conditions for requiring the recirculation of a published MND. 3.1 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects The original project IS/MND found that the proposed multi-family residential development would result in impacts that were either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described above in Section 2.3, the applicant has revised plans in response to CHC direction and an analysis of the revised project is provided below. CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project is located on a site which is designated by the City as a Master List Historic property. 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. The revised project proposes to rehabilitate the Sandford House exactly as proposed in the original project, consistent with the City Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s (SOI) Standards. The project includes the demolition of two non-original additions that were installed after the period of significance; however, the project would retain, rehabilitate and reuse more than 75% of the original framework, roof and exterior bearing walls and cladding of the building. The project design will retain and repair the architectural features that define the character, form, scale and appearance of the Sandford House. Repairs or replacements will use materials similar in size, shape, quality and appearance when compared to the historic structure. The project will not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements to the building exterior. The project also proposes to remove the twin chimneys on the west side of the house and place a compatible patio off of the north side of the house. A revised historic analysis by Applied Earthworks (May 2, 2016) was prepared to address the revised relocation of the Historic Sanford House and the re-designed residential units adjacent to the structure. The Report identified the original historic landscape and setting have been materially altered by prior development of the surrounding area, including the subdivision of the original 15- acre parcel and construction of new roads, infrastructure, and neighboring residential development that ended the property’s relatively isolated location. As a result, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting has been substantially diminished by prior development and the property’s historic character is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. 9 ATTACHMENT 7 The proposed repositioning and slight reduction in elevation of the residence will retain the structure’s prominence on the parcel and will serve as an architectural anchor of the site. The architectural design of the new structures proposed for development has been revised to reduce their massing and scale and maintain the prominence of Sandford House on the site. The revised project includes architectural elements that highlight historic elements of the Sandford House, yet remains sufficiently modern and differentiated from the historic buildings to allow clear distinction between the historic and new. Neutral colors and lower heights will minimize contrast, while the rhythm of the facades and multi-light windows will still highlight the historic elements of the house. Project revisions also include an increase in the distance between the new construction and historic residence and the proposed new construction will assume a secondary position on the site. Visual intrusions resulting from new construction will be further reduced through reductions in development scale and massing and screening by vegetation. As proposed, the revised project is consistent with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Please refer to the original, 2015 Applied Earthworks report for a detailed discussion of the six specific recommendations established under the SOI Standards to guide rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Master List building and new residential units. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUE AREAS As described above in the project description, the revised project would include changes to the original project design primarily related to the siting of the historic Sandford House and reductions in the scale and massing of the new construction. The proposed changes in the revised project would not substantially alter the original IS/MND analysis since the revised project consists of an overall reduction in site development. The revised project would have similar impacts compared to the original project, including the less than significant with mitigation incorporated impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings of Significance, and less than significant impacts related to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. The revised project components would neither increase the severity of any significant impacts associated with the proposed development, nor result in new or substantially different environmental effects. 3.2 Conclusion The proposed revisions to the original project would not cause new significant impacts not previously identified in the original IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the project would contribute considerably, and no new information has become available that shows that the project 10 ATTACHMENT 7 would cause significant environmental impacts. As such, the new project information and clarifications discussed above do not trigger any of the conditions described under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 which outline the conditions for requiring the recirculation of a published MND. 11 ATTACHMENT 7 Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES March 28, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, March 28th, 2016 at 5:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Shannon Larrabee, James Papp (arrived 5:35), Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Leah Walthert and Chair Jaime Hill Absent: Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Assistant City Clerk John Paul Maier and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, CARRIED 6-0, to approve the Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of February 22, 2016, as amended: 1.) Page 3, third paragraph revised to read: “…Project Architect Duffy described the of the intent to create…” PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 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 multi-family residential project, and review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; R-4 Zone; LR Development Group, applicant. Chair Hill noted that substantial correspondence had been received regarding this item. Committee Members indicated they had had the opportunity to review them. ATTACHMENT 8 Draft CHC Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 2 Senior Planner Leveille and Associate Planner Cohen provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Committee questions. Representing the applicant, architect Thom Jess presented development concept. He emphasized that the Sandford House will remain the tallest building on the site. Truitt Vance, structural engineer, described the preliminary civil and structural engineering plan and the process anticipated for re-positioning the Historic Sandford House. Committee questions to the applicant’s representatives followed regarding the property’s ownership, the status of the adjacent lot, building height, grading plans, space design, and occupancy projections. Barry Price, Applied Earthworks, explained that his firm prepared the project’s historical evaluation, complimented the architect and property owner for adjusting the plans and design several times to comply with the Historic Preservation Standards and summarized key findings that the project was consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines. PUBLIC COMMENT The following residents of San Luis Obispo spoke in favor of the project and identified themselves as part of the applicant team: Bob Nastase, President of Delta Tau Foundation Kirk Lemon, President of Alumni Victor Johnson, President of Delta Tau House Corporation The following residents of San Luis Obispo voiced opposition to the project, sharing a variety of concerns including the number of units planned, neighborhood compatibility, plans to relocate the Sandford House, removal of trees, traffic, noise, and plans to re- open Luneta Drive: Lydia Mourenza Tom Norwood Bob Mourenza Cheryl McLean Linda White Carol Florence, stated she was representing neighborhood collective “Save Luneta” Ed Benson Mila Vujovich-La Barre Elizabeth De Haan Barbara Remillard Peter Crough ---End of Public Comment--- ATTACHMENT 8 Draft CHC Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 3 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Committee Members Larrabee, Baer and Walthert expressed concerns about the number of housing units proposed for the site. Committee Member Papp observed that the Sandford House is on the Master List of Historic Resources because of its own characteristics as a structure, not because of its surroundings and asserted that repositioning the house would not compromise its historic nature. Committee Member Kincaid noted that the Commission’s purview is the historical element of the proposed project and not density, streets or City planning. He indicated he had been compelled by Earthworks’ presentation to vote for allowing the project to move forward. Chair Hill indicated she was not concerned about shifting the House if it enhances its status in historic listings. She expressed concern about how the “cultural landscape” could be disrupted by the project; and noted that the project is more appropriately discussed under the Committee’s purview in terms of massing rather than density. Chair Hill noted that the Sandford House would be overwhelmed in scale by the large- block nature of the planned multi-unit structures;; suggested new construction should take some detailing cues from historic structure; and questioned the height of retaining walls and the lack of long-term bicycle parking availability. The Committee discussed at length the appropriateness of the relocation of the House and the proposed project. ACTION: ON A MOTION BY CHAIR HILL, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Commission continued the item to a date uncertain with the following direction: 1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-way and the new development. 2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence. a. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. Motion passed 4:2:0:1 on the following vote: AYES: Hill, Baer, Kincaid, Walthert NOES: Larrabee, Papp ABSENT: Brajkovich ATTACHMENT 8 Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Item Number: 2 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot commercial building within the Downtown Historic District. ADDRESS: 570 Higuera Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner FILE NUMBER: ARCH 2699-2016 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 Creamery, LLC Representative Nancy Hubbard Historic Status Master List Submittal Date 1/29/2016 Complete Date 5/23/2016 Zoning C-D-H (Downtown-Commercial with Historic Overlay) General Plan General Retail Site Area ~38,420 square feet (.88 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. 2.0 SUMMARY & CHC PURVIEW The applicant is proposing to remodel and rehabilitate the Master List Historic Golden State Creamery (The Creamery) and construct a new 2,880 commercial building. The applicant is proposing changes to the site that are significantly different from the originally proposed project CHC2 - 1 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 2 that the CHC reviewed in April 2015. There are two components of the project which require review by the CHC 1: (1) Evaluation of conformance with City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for modifications to a historic resource; and (2) Evaluation of conformance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines for new construction in an historic district and on a historic property. 3.0 BACKGROUND April 27, 2015: The CHC previously reviewed a proposed remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery, and a new, two-story mixed-use structure within the Downtown Historic District (Attachment 4, Staff report and project plans). The CHC recommended the Architectural Review Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. November 13, 2015: The applicant modified the proposal and removed the two-story mixed use building from the project. The Director approved the remaining elements of the project which included the remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery in accordance with the CHC’s recommendation. The applicant’s current proposal is described in Section 4.2 below. 4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 4.1 Site Information/Setting The subject property is within the Downtown Historic District and located near the intersection of Nipomo and Higuera Streets (see Attachment 2, Vicinity Map). The project site is approximately 38,420 square feet (.88 acres) and contains four buildings, a 15 space parking lot (located behind Building 4 (Spike’s Restaurant)) and is accessed by pedestrians and vehicles from Higuera Street and from a parking lot off of Nipomo Street, east of the site. The property received an extensive remodel in 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. 1 2 3 4 Figure 1: The Creamery site plan with building identification numbers CHC2 - 2 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 3 the 1970s. In 1983, as part of a City-wide effort to recognize historic resources, the site was added to the Master List of Historic Resources because of its role and significant contribution to the growth and development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. A detailed historic description of the site is included in the previous staff report (Attachment 4) and within the Historic Preservation Design Review (Attachment 5). 4.2 Project Description The proposal is to remodel and renovate the Creamery and to construct a new 2,880 square foot commercial building. Project components are summarized below: Site Location Project Plan Page # Description of work Buildings 2 & 3 10 & 11 Reorganize interior spaces with new interior walls under the existing roof structures of Building 2 and 3 and construct new restrooms in Building 3. Building 4 12 & 21 Demolish a non-historic addition at the rear of Building 4 and construct an 864 square foot replacement addition. Building 4 30 & 36 Construct a new trash enclosure adjacent to Building 4; colors and materials to match. The west wall of Building 4 will be retained and the window fenestrations preserved. Building 3 11, 22 & 23 Demolish non-historic addition to Building 3 and construct a new addition for a restaurant (The Taqueria) and outdoor patio adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot and Ciopinot’s Restaurant. Western parking lot behind Building 4 13, 16, 17 & 18 Construct a new 2,880 commercial building (Building 5) along the west property line between Buildings 1 and 4. Western parking lot 9 Create a courtyard between Building 3 and the new Building 5 which includes the removal of existing trees and installation of new trees and landscaping; and removal of the fountain. All Buildings 17, 20, 24, & 38 Repaint and reside existing walls with board and batten siding, wide panel metal siding, and distressed, wide plank wood. All Buildings 37, 38, 39 & L-1 Repair and/or replace windows; Install metal awnings; Replace storefront doors; Remove current planters with a new landscape design. Entire site 39 Remove brick walkways and replace with decorative concrete paving. Entire site 4-7 Retain and repair several historic, character defining features including the prominent rooftop historic-era condenser tower (repair and repaint); and the historic-era skylight and clerestory arrangement (repair and repaint). Building 4 5 Repaint over the non-historic mural (new mural to be proposed at a later time). CHC2 - 3 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 4 Building 3 6 Cover and secure the existing electrical meters on Building 3 with a new door resembling the existing freezer doors and remove empty and abandoned conduits on the ceiling. Figure 2: Rendering of the Building 5 and the new plaza 5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION The role of the CHC 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 Rehabilitation and to provide recommendations to the ARC. 5.1 Secretary of Interior Standards An evaluation and supplemental memo regarding the proposed alterations was performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. The report and memo provide recommendations to ensure rehabilitation plans are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines (Attachment 5, Historic Preservation Design Review and Attachment 6, Supplemental Memo). The Historic Preservation Design Review found that the most appropriate treatment is best characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards of Treatment since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the property, restoration of key elements of the building’s exterior to approximate its appearance during the historic era, and new additions to the building and a new building that did not exist historically. The Historic Preservation Design Review and supplemental memo found the proposed project consistent with all 10 standards for rehabilitation based on adherence to the proper removal of non-historic wood additions and the use of modern materials in order to not create a false sense of history. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Design Review recommends rehabilitation of deteriorated historic features to their likely appearance, preservation of historic window openings and establishing archeological monitoring associated with new construction. All recommendations of the Historic Preservation Design Review are included as recommended CHC2 - 4 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 5 conditions of approval (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). Staff has included analysis of three of the most relevant standards below. SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Staff Analysis: As described above, the applicant will be removing non-historic additions on Buildings 3 and 4. In order to comply with SOI standards, the Applied Earthworks review states that the applicant must remove the wood additions “with the minimum amount of impact to original construction and new, planned additions shall be constructed with the same level of care to avoid impacts to the original buildings.” Staff has added a condition of approval to ensure that the applicant indicate on building plans the process of removal of the wood additions in order to avoid damaging the original building walls and replace any non-reparable or missing material to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction (Condition No. 1). SOI Rehabiliation Standard #9: New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. SOI Rehabiliation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing to add an addition and a trash enclosure adjacent to Building 4. The new addition on Building 4 will replace a non-historic addition located at the rear of the building. The 864 square foot addition will be differentiated from the historic building by its new construction and the use of board and batten siding which is different from the smooth stucco finish of Building 4. The trash enclosure will be located on the west side of Building 4 and obscure four of the window openings along that elevation. As proposed, the trash enclosure complies with SOI Standards #9 and #10 because the historic window fenestrations will be preserved and become a highlighted feature within the interior of the building (Condition No. 2) (Attachment 5, Project Plans, pg. 36). Figure 3: Historic photo of Buildings 3 & 4 as viewed from Higuera St. CHC2 - 5 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 6 The Applied Earthworks analysis notes that the new additions and alterations to Building 3 also comply with the SOI standards. The report states the “proposed new additions and new building construction are such that if removed, the essential form and remaining integrity to the Creamery complex would be unimpaired.” The proposed “Taqueria” addition (Figure 4) will be located in the place of non-historic additions along the east side of Building 3 (Attachment 5, Project Plans, pgs. 26 & 27). The proposed architecture is designed to complement and reflect historic elements of Buildings 3 and 4 (as viewed from Higuera Street) (see Figure 3 above) and includes smooth stucco finish and a notched parapet design with a tile accent. The design of the Taqueria also incorporates new, distinct architecture that sets the building apart from the Creamery but is compatible with the existing historic features (the original roof trusses, doors and condenser tower), scale, and massing. The proposed 2,880 square foot commercial structure (Building 5) complies with SOI standards #9 and #10 because it is compatible with the Creamery’s historic environment and its location (behind Building 4) protects the integrity of the historic site. The agrarian designed building incorporates elements and materials from Buildings 1 and 2 while also incorporating more modern elements such as the garage door storefronts, metal awnings and the rusted red paint color. 5.2 Historic Preservation Guidelines The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts. 5.2.1 Architectural Compatibility within Historic Districts 2 New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic architecture as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the districts 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. 2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1: Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts Figure 4: Rendering of the front facade of the Taqueria CHC2 - 6 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 7 Staff analysis: The proposed new commercial structure (Building 5, Attachment 3, Sheets 9 & 31) includes a blend of material elements and architectural features that are compatible with the existing structures within The Creamery. Section 5.2.2 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines notes that The Creamery does not exhibit the significant signature architectural elements found within the Historic Downtown District, but contributes its own, unique architectural style and historic association. Historic elements of the Creamery include those features that are associated with the dairy industry such as the basic massing of the buildings, dairy freezer and delivery doors and the original condenser tower (Attachment 5, Historic Preservation Design Review, Sections 2 & 4). The agrarian-industrial design of Building 5 is similar in form and shape to Buildings 1 and 2, but differentiated by scale, height and the proposed use of rust colored corrugated siding, window pattern and the use of roll-up storefronts. The new commercial structure will be located behind existing Creamery structures, will not affect the historical streetscape view from Higuera Street or obscure views of remaining historic architectural features (such as the roof form, the condenser tower, and freezer and delivery doors), and will be complementary to existing buildings in the Creamery. 5.2.2 Exterior building changes Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context...3 Staff analysis: As noted in the Historic Preservation Design Review (Attachment 5), the buildings associated with the Creamery have have been modified extensively and are not considered architecturally significant. The project proposes to remove the existing, plywood siding and replace with distressed wood, board and batten and metal siding. In order to not create a false sense of history, the supplemental memo provided by Applied Earthworks recommends that smooth, wide-width distressed wood siding and a smooth board paired with wide flattened battens be used to create a modern take on the materials (Attachment 6, Supplemental Memo). Staff has included this recommendation as Condition No. 3 within the draft resolution. The 3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.4.4: Exterior building changes: …Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replace character defining features shall 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. Figure 5: Building 5, the new Farmer's Building CHC2 - 7 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 8 proposed façade alterations are consistent with Section 3.4.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines because the proposed materials complement the unique architectural style and preserve the historic features of The Creamery. 5.3 Archaeological Resources The proposed project involves the construction of a new commercial structure (Building 5) located behind Building 4 and in front of Building 1 and new smaller-scale additions to Buildings 1 and 3. The Historic Preservation Design Review notes that The Creamery, a City Master List Historic Resource, is within the Downtown Historic District and is located within 200 feet of the top bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Due to the status of the subject property on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, and its location in an archeologically sensitive area, staff has added Condition No. 4 which requires an archaeological monitoring plan. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In -fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. 7.0 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, based on findings, and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. 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. Previous staff report 5. Historic Preservation Design Review by Applied Earthworks 6. Supplemental Memo by Applied Earthworks CHC2 - 8 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FIND THE NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING, REMODEL AND REHABILITATION TO THE MASTER LIST GOLDEN STATE CREAMERY AT 570 HIGUERA STREET CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES; 570 HIGUERA STREET (ARCH 2699-2016) 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 June 27, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #ARCH- 2699-2016, Creamery, LLC, 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. The proposed modifications to the Master List Golden State Creamery site which includes remodeling and rehabilitation is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining features will be retained. 2. The proposed construction of the new commercial building is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the property and with development in the vicinity within the Downtown-Historic District. 3. 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. 4. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing a commercial infill development project in the downtown core consistent with design principles for development in the downtown. CHC2 - 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No.XXXX-16 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (570 Higuera Street) Page 2 Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends 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, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. As recommended in the Applied Earthworks Evaluation, plans submitted for a building permit shall include details and the procedure for removal of the wood additions of Buildings 3 and 4 in compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation in order to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-reparable or missing material shall be replaced to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction. 2. As recommended in the Applied Earthworks Evaluation, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate the window openings in Building 4 shall be preserved and become a highlighted feature within the interior of the building. 3. As recommended in the Applied Earthworks Supplemental Memo, plans submitted for a building permit shall show all proposed exterior siding; the project design should avoid creating a false sense of historical development by using smooth, wide-width distressed wood siding and smooth board paired with wide, flattened battens. 4. The applicant shall provide an archeological monitoring plan prepared by a City qualified archeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will conduct the monitoring and circumstances where a Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor are required The plan shall recommend specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be submitted as a part of the building permit. On motion by Committee member _______, seconded by Committee member _____, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: CHC2 - 10 ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No.XXXX-16 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (570 Higuera Street) Page 3 NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of June, 2016. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC2 - 11 C-D C-R C-D R-3-H O-H C-R O-H R-3-H O-H-PD PF-H C-D-S-H C-D C-D-H C-D-H R-3-S R-4 C-D-MU C-D-H-PD R-3 C-D R-3-H HIGUE R A DANA NI P O M O MARSH MONTE R E Y VICINITY MAP File No. 0913-2015570 Higuera ¯ ATTACHMENT 2 CHC2 - 12 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 13 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 14 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 15 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 16 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 17 1. C o n d e n s e r T o w e r c . 1 9 2 8 : T o r e m a i n - r e p a i r & re p a i n t 2. E x i s t i n g F r e e z e r D o o r , c . 1 9 2 8 ; T o r e m a i n 5. E x i s t i n g L o a d i n g D o o r s , c . 1 9 2 8 ; T o r e m a i n 4. E x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e u n d e r r o o f , c . 1 9 7 0 : T o r e m o v e d a n d r e p l a c e d w i t h n e w w a l l s un d e r t h e r o o f 6. E x i s t i n g L o a d i n g D o c k , c. 1 9 2 8 ; T o R e m a i n 3. E x i s t i n g C o n d e n s e r T o w e r , S k y l i g h t & C l e r e s t o r y , c . 1 9 2 8 : T o b e r e p a i r e d , r e p a i n t e d a n d hi g h l i g h t e d a s o r i g i n a l e l e m e n t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o j e c t . T h e P r o m e n a d e R o o f ( a s p h a l t sh i n g l e s b o t t o m o f p h o t o ) t o b e r e m o v e d t o e x p o s e o r i g i n a l h i s t o r i c a l e l e m e n t s 6 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 HI S T O R I C E L E M E N T S - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 18 1. E x i s t i n g F o u n t a i n , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o b e r e p a i r & r e s t o r e d 2. P l a n t e r , c . 1 9 7 0 ; t o r e m a i n 3. E x i s t i n g M u r a l , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o r e m a i n 4. C r e a m e r y L o g o S i g n a g e , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o b e u p d a t e d a n d u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o j e c t 5. E x i s t i n g F u n k i n e s s , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o r e m a i n , r e p a i r & re p a i n t 7 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 FU N K Y E L E M E N T S - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 19 3. E x i s t i n g s u r f a c e e l e c t r i c a l p a n e l s t o b e c o v e r e d f o r s a f e t y & se c u r i t y 1. M a j o r r o o f f o r m s t o b e r e p l a c e d w i t h s t y l e a p p r o p r i a t e g a l v a n i z e d co r r u g a t e d r o o ﬁ ng t o u n i f y a p p e a r a n c e a n d s o l v e w a t e r i n t r u s i o n p r o b l e m s 4. R e m o v e p r o m e n a d e r o o f a n d r e p a i r e x p o s e d w a l l t o en h a n c e t h e c l e r e s t o r y s t r u c t u r e o n t h e e n d o f b u i l d i n g 2 (S e e P a g e 2 - P h o t o 3 ) 2. S p i k e s a d d i t i o n t o b e r e m o v e d & r e p l a c e d 8 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 WO R K S C O P E - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 20 1. N e w o p e n i n g s i n e a s t e r l y b r i c k w a l l 2. R e p l a c e 7 0 ’ s l e a s e s p a c e w i t h n e w l e a s e a r e a s o f a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l s 3. N e w l e a s e a r e a s u n d e r e x i s t i n g r o o f 9 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 WO R K S C O P E - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 21 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 22 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 23 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 24 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 25 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 26 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 27 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 28 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 29 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 30 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 31 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 32 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 33 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 34 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 35 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 36 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 37 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 38 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 39 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 40 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 41 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 42 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 43 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 44 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 45 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 46 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 47 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 48 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 49 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 50 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 51 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 52 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 53 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 54 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 55 10 gr e g w yn n a r c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 EX I S T I N G T O P O M A P ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 56 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 57 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC2 - 58 Meeting Date: April 27, 2015 Item Number: 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and a new mixed-use structure within the Downtown Historic District. ADDRESS: 570 Higuera Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner FILE NUMBER: ARCH 0893-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve the proposed remodel and the addition of a new mixed-use structure. Applicant Creamery, LLC Representative Greg Wynn, Architect Historic Status Master List Submittal Date 2/9/2015 Complete Date 4/7/2015 Zoning C-D-H (Downtown-Commercial with Historic Overlay) General Plan General Retail Site Area ~38,420 square feet (.88 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to remodel and rehabilitate The Master List Historic Golden State Creamery (The Creamery) and construct a new, two-story mixed-use structure. The project requires review by the Cultural Heritage Committee pursuant to Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.1 There are two components of the project which require review by the CHC: 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. CHC 3 - 1 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 59 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 2 (1) Evaluation of conformance with City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for modifications to a historic resource; and (2) Evaluation of conformance with Historic Preservation Ordinance and guidelines for new construction in an historic district. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting The subject property is within the Downtown Historic District and located near the intersection of Nipomo and Higuera Streets (see Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The project site is approximately 38,420 square feet (.88 acres) and contains four buildings, a 15 space parking lot (located behind Spike’s Restaurant) and is accessed by pedestrians and vehicles from Higuera Street and from a parking lot off of Nipomo Street, east of the site (site plan, Attachment 3, Project Plans, pg. 11). The property received an extensive remodel in the 1970s. In 1983, as part of a City-wide effort to recognize historic resources, the site was added to the Master List of Historic Resources because of its role and significant contribution to the growth and development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo (Attachment 4, Historic Resources Inventory). Current Buildings A Historic Preservation Design Review of the proposed alterations to The Creamery, performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. describes that the current arrangement of the existing structures was completed in 1926. Over time, there have been various modifications, additions and alterations to the buildings. Below is a brief description of the evolution of each of the buildings. Further details are provided in the Historic Preservation Design Review (Attachment 5, pgs. 5- 11). The building numbers correlate to the building numbers assigned in the project plans (see Figure 1, right). Building 1 was constructed in 1928 as a garage to store creamery delivery trucks. In 1974 to 1975 the building received significant alterations to establish separated retail space in the building. The corrugated metal siding was replaced with wood, windows and entry doors were installed along the north and south elevations, and a second floor was added within the structure. Figure 1: The Creamery buildings identified by number CHC 3 - 2 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 60 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 3 Building 2 originally was a part of Building 1 and was enlarged with a masonry addition with clay tile walls. With the 1974-1975 remodel, the corrugated siding was removed replaced with wood siding. The clay tile walls were preserved on the east elevations of the structure. The remodel also divided the building into retail spaces, and added a breezeway between Building 1 and 2 and a new entry that accessed Building 3. Building 3 was the first building constructed on the site and was built between 1905 and 1909. The structure faced Higuera Street and featured a high truss roof, cement floors and corrugated metal siding. In 1910 a storage building was added which matched the form and style of the original building. The front of the building was remodeled using cement in 1928 and connected the front facades of Building 3 and 4 (Figure 2, left). During the 1974-1975 remodel, a projecting cornice, lighting and pilasters were added to the front façade. Doors were replaced and openings were altered, however windows remain in their original location. The storage building was integrated into the front structure along Higuera Street and a covered breezeway was constructed between Buildings 2 and 3. Building 4 was constructed in 1928 as part of the building permit that included the remodel of Building 3 and the construction of Building 1. The structure had four window openings and an entry along Higuera Street and four wood framed double hung windows along the east elevation. The structure also included wing wall that framed the west side driveway. The 1974-1975 remodel removed one of the front windows, moved the entry, removed the west wing wall and added a mural to the east elevation (Attachment 3, project plans, pg. 7). Project Description The proposal is to remodel and renovate the Creamery and to construct a new two story mixed- use building. Project components are summarized below: Reorganize non-historic interior spaces with new interior walls under the existing roof structures of Building 2 and 3 (Attachment 3, project plans, pgs. 13 & 14); Demolish a non-historic addition at the rear of Building 4 and construct a replacement addition (Attachment 3, project plans, pgs. 22 & 23); Replace non-historic walls and construct new walls in Building 3 for small-scale retail space adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot (Attachment 3, project plans, pg. 9: photos 2 & 3 and pg. 12, areas highlighted in purple). Construct a new mixed-use building (Building 5) along the west property line between Buildings 4 and 1 (Attachment 2, Project Plans, pgs. 12 and 24); Figure 2: The Creamery facade along Higuera, 1939 CHC 3 - 3 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 61 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 4 Modify the east side of the Higuera Street parking lot into a courtyard preserving the existing fountain and tree in front of Building 3 (Attachment 3, Project plans pg. 25 & 27); Repaint and re-side walls; Repair and/or replace windows Replace storefront doors; Remove current planters with a new landscape design Remove brick walkways and reset (bricks are being removed in order to even out the grade and then reset back to their current location); and Retain and repair several historic, character defining features (see Attachment 3, Project Plans, pgs. 6 & 7): o Prominent rooftop historic-era condenser tower (repair and repaint); o Two large historic-era freezer doors (refinish); o Historic-era Clerestory arrangement (repair and repaint); o Two existing historic-era dairy loading doors (remain as is); o Existing historic-era loading dock area (remain as is). Building 1 and 2 (Attachment 3, project plans, pgs. 12, 13, 17, & 18): The applicant is proposing to repaint the exterior and repair or replace all the windows and skylights within the two buildings. Additionally the existing plywood exterior siding and trim will be removed and replaced with new horizontal hardi-plank siding. Storefront doors will be replaced and new light fixtures (similar to those existing, shown on page 7, photo #5) will be installed. Interior space within Building 2 will be reorganized to create space for new public restrooms. The applicant is also proposing to install new door openings on the east elevation of Building 2 where Goshi’s restaurant is located (Attachment 3, Project Plans, pg. 20). Both Building 1 and 2 will be re-roofed with corrugated metal. Proposed materials are shown on pages 25 and 26. Building 3 (Attachment 3, project plans, pgs. 6, 12, 14, 19, 20, & 21): The proposed plans include repainting the exterior and replacing the corrugated metal siding on the north elevation of Building 3. The interior space will be reconfigured and new lease space will be expanded and added under the existing roof span of Building 3 (Attachment 3, project plans, pg 14). The project will also repair, repaint the the condenser tower (Attachment 3, project plans, pg 6), install new roofing, and remove the promenade roof between Buildings 2 and 3 as shown on the project plans, page 6, photo #3 (Attachment 3). Plans also indicate that the project will cover and secure the existing electrical meters with a new door, retain the existing dairy freezer door and truss structure, and preserve the historic loading doors. The applicant is proposing to add a new parapet element with horizontal siding shown on the project plans, page 21 (Attachment 3) to screen existing mechanical equipment. As with Building 1 and 2, changes to Building 3 include removal and replacement of portions of exterior siding with new horizontal hardi plank siding and installation of new lighting that is consistent with current light fixtures. Building 4 (Attachment 3, project plans, pgs. 8, 12, 15, 22, & 23): The project proposes to retain the main structure and remove the rear dining area addition shown in photo #2 on page 8 (Attachment 3, project plans). A new dining room addition and trash enclosure will be constructed to match the colors and materials of Building 4. The west wall of CHC 3 - 4 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 62 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 5 Building 4 will remain and be integrated into the new addition’s floor plan as shown on page 15 (Attachment 3, project plans), and preserve the existing window openings. The mural on the east elevation of Building 4 (Attachment 3, Project Plans, pg.7, photo #3) will remain unaltered. Building 5 (Attachment 3, project plans, pgs. 12, 16, & 24): The applicant is proposing to develop an all new, two story mixed-use structure in the existing western parking lot (see site plans on pgs. 11 & 12, Attachment 3, project plans). The structure includes approximately 1,635 square feet of retail space and five residential units (one unit on the first floor and four units on the second floor) ranging in size from 450 to 555 square feet (Attachment 3, project plans, pg. 16). The design of the new mixed-use structure reflects colors, materials and architectural features of The Creamery structures such as corrugated metal siding and roofing and horizontal siding). The contemporary architecture also incorporates roll-up store fronts, canvas and metal awnings, metal railings and features a saw-tooth roof (Attachment 3, project plans, pg. 24). 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 to provide recommendations to the ARC. Secretary of Interior Standards An evaluation of the proposed alterations was performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. The report, prepared by Mr. James Jenks, provides recommendations to ensure rehabilitation plans are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines (Attachment 5, Historic Preservation Design Review). The Historic Preservation Design Review found that the most appropriate treatment is best characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards of Treatment since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the property, proposes restoration of key elements of the building’s exterior to approximate its appearance during the historic era, and proposes new additions to the building and a new building that did not exist historically. The Historic Preservation Design Review found the proposed project consistent with all 10 standards for rehabilitation based on adherence to the proper removal of non-historic wood additions. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Design Review recommends rehabilitation of deteriorated historic features to their likely appearance, preservation of treatment of retaining historic window openings and establishing archeological monitoring associated with new construction. All recommendations of the Historic Preservation Design Review are included as conditions of approval (Attachment 2, Draft Resolution). SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Staff Analysis: As described above, the applicant will be removing non-historic additions on Buildings 3 and 4. In order to comply with SOI standards, the Applied Earthworks review states that the applicant must remove the wood additions “with the minimum amount of impact to CHC 3 - 5 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 63 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 6 original construction and new, planned additions shall be constructed with the same level of care to avoid impacts to the original buildings.” Staff has added a condition of approval to ensure that the applicant indicate on building plans the process of removal of the wood additions in order to avoid damaging the original building walls and replace any non-reparable or missing material to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction (Condition No. 1). SOI Rehabiliation Standard #9: New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. SOI Rehabiliation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing to add a new addition to Building 4 as well as new additions and alterations to Building 3. The new addition on Building 4 will replace a non- historic addition and obscure two of the windows openings along the east elevation. As proposed, the addition to Building 4 complies with SOI Standards #9 and #10 because the historic window fenestrations will be enclosed with a design cover and not permanently filled with the proposed addition in order to preserve them for future use if the additions are removed. The addition will be differentiated by its new construction. The Applied Earthworks review notes that the new additions and alterations to Building 3 also comply with the SOI standards. The report states the “proposed new additions and new building construction are such that if removed, the essential form and remaining integrity to the Creamery complex would be unimpaired. The proposed additions and new construction will not occur in complex locations where their removal may damage adjacent historic buildings.” Additionally the plans indicate that removal of the non-historic roof between Building #2 and Building #3, demonstrate that no historic materials will be damaged or destroyed by the modifications. The proposed new mixed-use building (Building 5) complies with SOI standards because it is compatible with the Creamery’s historic environment and includes appropriate height (the height of the structure does not exceed Building 1) and location (behind Building 4). The saw tooth roof differentiates the structure from any of the other buildings in the complex. Additionally the structure incorporates material found on Creamery structures such as corrugated metal siding and horizontal siding. Historic Preservation Guidelines The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts. CHC 3 - 6 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 64 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 7 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic architecture as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the districts 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. Staff analysis: The proposed new, mixed-use structure includes a blend of material elements and architectural features that are compatible with the existing structures within The Creamery and buildings in the vicinity. The Creamery does not exhibit the significant signature architectural elements found within the Historic Downtown District, but contributes its own, unique architectural style and historic association. The project includes materials such as corrugated metal siding and roofing and horizontal siding which are consistent with the materials used in The Creamery as well as other nearby, non-historic structures such as the Soda Works building and the Children’s Museum. The use of balconies and the saw tooth roof design help to break up the mass of the building and convey an industrial feeling that is complementary, but differentiated from the industrial design of The Creamery. The new mixed-use structure will be located behind existing Creamery structures and will not affect the historical streetscape view from Higuera Street 3.4.4 Exterior building changes Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replace character defining features shall 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. Staff analysis: The proposed façade alterations are consistent with Section 3.4.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines because the colors and materials proposed are consistent with the original material used on Creamery structures such as corrugated metal and horizontal siding. Archaeological Resources The proposed project involves the construction of a new, mixed-use structure located behind Building 4 and in front of Building 1 and new smaller-scale addition to Buildings 1 and 3. The Historic Preservation Design Review notes that The Creamery, a City Master List Historic Resource, is within the Downtown Historic District and is located within 200 feet of the top bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Due to the status of the subject property on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, and its location in an archeologically sensitive area, staff has added Condition No. 3 which requires an archaeological monitoring plan. CHC 3 - 7 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 65 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In -fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the Architectural Review Commission that the project be approved, based on findings, and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. 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 Preservation Design Review by Applied Earthworks CHC 3 - 8 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 66 C-D C-R C-D R-3-H O-H C-R O-H R-3-H O-H-PD PF-H C-D-S-H C-D C-D-H C-D-H R-3-S R-4 C-D-MU C-D-H-PD R-3 C-D R-3-H HIGUE R A DANA NI P O M O MARSH MONTE R E Y VICINITY MAP File No. 0913-2015570 Higuera ¯ CHC 3 - 9 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 67 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVE THE REMODEL AND REHABILITATION TO THE HISTORIC MASTER LIST GOLDEN STATE CREAMERY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED-USE STRUCTURE AT 570 HIGUERA STREET (ARCH 0893-2015) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 27, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #ARCH 0893-2015, Creamery, LLC, 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. The proposed modifications to the Master List Golden State Creamery site which includes remodeling and rehabilitation is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining features will be retained. 2. The proposed construction of the new mixed-use building is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the property and with development in the vicinity within the Downtown-Historic District. 3. 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. 4. The project is consistent with Housing Element and Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing a mixed-use infill development project in the downtown core. The project is consistent with design principles for development in the downtown (LUE 4.0.16, 4.0.17) by providing for street level activity and upper floor dwellings. Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. CHC 3 - 10 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 68 ATTACHMENT 2 Resolution No.XXXX-12 CHC ARCH-0913-2015 (570 Higuera Street) Page 2 Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application # ARCH 0893-2015, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include details and the procedure for removal of the wood additions of Buildings 3 and 4 in compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation in order to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-reparable or missing material shall be replaced to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate the window openings in Building 4 shall be preserved and enclosed with a design cover and not permanently filled with the proposed addition. 3. The applicant shall provide an archeological monitoring plan prepared by a City qualified archeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will conduct the monitoring and circumstances where a Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor are required The plan shall recommend specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be submitted as a part of the building permit. 4. 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 27th day of April, 2015. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee CHC 3 - 11 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC2 - 69 Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California James Jenks Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 743 Pacific Street, Suite A. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Submitted To Covelop, Inc 1159 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 70 Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street ii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ..................................................................................................2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY .............................................4 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY ......................................................5 4.1 BUILDING #1 .........................................................................................................6 4.2 BUILDING #2 .........................................................................................................7 4.3 BUILDING #3 .........................................................................................................8 4.4 BUILDING #4 .......................................................................................................10 SUMMARY OF PLANNED MODIFICATIONS .........................................................12 5.1 BUILDING #1 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.2 BUILDING #2 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.3 BUILDING #3 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.4 BUILDING #4 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.5 BUILDING #5 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................13 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ..............................................14 6.1 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CREAMERY COMPLEX ......................15 6.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ......................................15 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES ..................................................................................19 7.1 PERCENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE PRESERVED. .........................19 7.2 RETENTION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ................................19 7.3 EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES ....................................................................19 7.4 INTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES .....................................................................19 7.5 ACQUIRED HISTORIC APPEARANCE ............................................................20 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ...............................................................................21 8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................21 8.2 REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC WOOD ADDITIONS ....................................21 8.3 ROOF REPAIR ......................................................................................................21 8.4 STOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT ...............................21 8.5 INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................22 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 71 Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street iii CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................23 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX A Conceptual Designs for the Proposed Creamery Rehabilitation FIGURES 4-1 1909 Sanborn map illustrating the first Creamery building, a garage at 570 Higuera Street. ...............................................................................................................5 4-2 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map, demonstrating the general footprint of today’s Creamery complex. ...........................................................................................6 4-3 South elevation of Building #1, built in 1928 as a garage for creamery vehicles. .........................................................................................................................7 4-4 East elevation of Building #3, illustrating the 1928 masonry wall and 1970s retail space to be removed and replaced. .............................................................8 4-5 The first creamery building, a converted garage. Image from Janet Penn Frank’s San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. ....................................................9 4-6 Building #3, The Creamery façade along Higuera Street, 1939. .......................................10 4-7 Building #4 façade along Higuera Street, 1939. ................................................................11 4-8 Today’s Building #3 and Building #4, with modified façade. ...........................................11 ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 72 1 INTRODUCTION CoVelop (Collaborative Development) Inc. proposes to rehabilitate the historic Golden State Creamery Buildings (the Creamery), located at 570 Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo, California. The Creamery complex is comprised of a handful of buildings which date to the early and middle twentieth century but which experienced substantial remodel in the mid-1970s. Generally, the proposed project will reorganize non-historic interior spaces under an existing roof structure, demolish two non-historic additions and construct replacement buildings in the same locations, construct a new small-scale retail space adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot, construct a new mixed-use building in the west side of the existing Higuera Street parking lot, and modify the east side of the Higuera Street parking lot into a courtyard. Existing buildings will be painted and resided, and existing storefront doors and windows will be replaced. Current planters will be removed in favor of a new landscape design and brick walkways will be removed and reset. The proposed project will retain and repair several historic, character- defining features (see Appendix A for the Conceptual Designs). The Creamery is included on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources and the property is located within the City’s Downtown Historic District. According to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, 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.” Accordingly, restoration or rehabilitation of the building must comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (updated November 2010) and must be approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). Because development of the project will require a discretionary permit from the City, it is also subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); under CEQA and the City Guidelines, 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, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 73 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH Three prior historical investigations of the Creamery property have occurred. In 1982, the Creamery was recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Form 523. The brief document provides little information on the history or the historical development of the property. However, the recorder examined the property following 1970s-era alterations to buildings, concluding that “…the Creamery is now a colorful complex of shops and restaurants. Major alterations to the original structure have left very few elements of the original creamery” (State of California DPR Form 523, 1982). In 1990, the City of San Luis Obispo and the City Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed an application to demolish five of the six buildings associated with the Creamery and construct a 60,000 square foot mixed use center. At that time, the CHC determined the structures to be historically, architecturally, and culturally significant. Per City requirements, San Buenaventura Research Associates prepared and submitted a Phase I Cultural Resource Study in April 1990 (Triem 1990a). The Phase I study included an overview of the original construction, use, and subsequent 1970s- era alterations to each Creamery building. The study recommended that the complex was significant, but likely not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to a loss of integrity. However, the CHC found the Phase I study to be inadequate, noting that it did not adequately address the historical, cultural, or architectural significance of the site. The CHC concluded that it would not consider the demolition request until a revised cultural resources survey was completed. In October 1990 San Buenaventura Research Associates completed a Phase II Cultural Resource Study (Triem 1990b). The Phase II report included the following: • The historical background of the Creamery, its relationship to other creameries and the role it played in the development of the dairy business in San Luis Obispo County; • Discussion of the architectural significance of the present Creamery complex, including changes to structures over time and significant remaining features; and, • Impact mitigation recommendations. The Phase II study concluded by noting that: “The complex of buildings known as the Creamery were simple utilitarian buildings of medium to poor construction when they were first built. The first attempt to unify the ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 74 3 appearance of the buildings was made in 1928. The façade constructed across the front of the buildings was designed using elements of Spanish Colonial Revival style seen in the stepped parapet with tile cap, the use of wood lintels over drive through entries and some windows and the concrete and stucco siding. Many of these features have been changed or removed. All that remains is the basic original massing and form of the buildings” (Triem 1990b: 13). And, “Of the five buildings in the Creamery complex, building #1 [Building #3 for the purposes of the current project] the Processing Plant is the most historically significant because it was the first building used as a creamery and housed the office and laboratory. The building also has the most distinctive features including the original truss roof, original doors where milk was delivered, and the cooling tower” (Triem1990b: 14). The Phase II study employed National Register of Historic Places significance and integrity criteria to evaluate the Creamery, noting that the Creamery is significant under National Register Criterion A for its significant contribution to the growth and development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. However, the study also noted that integrity of the Creamery, it’s retention of the essential physical features which allow it to transmit its historical significance, was questionable. The study reported that: “Because of extensive changes to the historic materials of the buildings over time, they have lost the essential physical features and workmanship that were part of their character when the building’s operated as a creamery…At present [1990], the group of buildings appear to only have integrity of location, association, and perhaps feeling” (Triem 1990b: 15–16). ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 75 4 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY Triem’s Phase II study (Oct 1990) included an overview of the historic development of the Creamery; the following the summary is drawn from that narrative. The dairy industry in the San Luis Obispo area commenced with the arrival of the Steele Brothers in 1866. Dairymen from the San Francisco Bay Area, the brothers purchased 45,000 acres of land in the southern Edna Valley. In the 1870s, the Steele’s operated five dairy farms, owning the second highest number of dairy cows in the state. By the 1890s three creameries operated in San Luis Obispo County, but by the turn of the century each had ceased operation. In 1907, Swiss immigrant Marius G. Salmina filled the vacuum, establishing a cooperative cheese factory in the Harmony Valley, along with new creameries in Harmony and Cayucos. In 1910 August Jensen, a dairyman who established the Central Creamery Company in Humboldt County in 1905, arrived in San Luis Obispo. That year Jensen opened another Central Creamery operation in a preexisting garage and machine shop at the Higuera Street property, the second creamery to be established in the City of San Luis Obispo. In 1912 the successful creamery changed its name to California Central Creamery, and in 1926 the company changed its name yet again to Golden State Milk Products Company. In 1930, the firm shortened its name to Golden State Company Ltd., a name it retained until the company was purchased by Foremost Dairy in 1954. At its peak, Golden State operated creameries throughout California, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Long Beach, as well as its local concern. Foremost became the last operating creamery in San Luis Obispo. In 1972, the small Higuera Street plant and its aging equipment became too costly to operate and the creamery was closed. The shuttered property was nearly sold to the City for demolition and use as a parking lot. However, the complex was purchased by Jim Swift and John Korelich, who in 1974–1975 converted the Creamery into a 20-shop restaurant and retail complex. Today, the Creamery buildings continue to function as a commercial destination in downtown San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 76 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY The Creamery is located at 570 Higuera Street, between Higuera Street to the south, Nipomo Street to the east, and San Luis Obispo Creek to the north. On the west side, a modern fence runs the length of the property. The July 1909 Sanborn map (Figure 4-1) is the first such map to illustrate a building on the subject property, labelled as a garage. The garage along Higuera Street, which remains at the property today in a modified condition, became the first creamery building. Figure 4-1 1909 Sanborn map illustrating the first Creamery building, a garage at 570 Higuera Street. By the April 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2), the Creamery assumed the general layout recognizable today. By then additional land was acquired on the east side of the complex, which included the 1929 brick building at 1043 Nipomo Street, used by the creamery for drying and storage (the 1043 Nipomo Street property is not part of the proposed project). The Sanborn map illustrates the two Creamery buildings which stand along Higuera Street today, as well as the large building at the rear of the property, constructed as a garage. As the map illustrates, the building immediately east of the garage was constructed to accommodate ice cream production and a clay-tiled addition along the east elevation was used as cold storage. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 77 6 The following section describes Creamery buildings in greater detail. Numbers assigned to Creamery buildings in this report correspond to building numbers used in the proposed project’s conceptual plans. Figure 4-2 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map, demonstrating the general footprint of today’s Creamery complex. 4.1 BUILDING #1 The building was constructed in 1928, when the Golden State Milk Products Company received a City Building Permit to erect a 40 x 130 foot garage to house creamery delivery vehicles. The simple, utilitarian style building initially featured wood-frame construction and corrugated metal siding. The 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2) also illustrates that the east elevation of the building was originally connected to the Ice Cream Manufacturing Building (the project’s Building #2) through an opening or large vehicle door. Today’s continuation of the roof over the two buildings illustrates the original arrangement. The map also demonstrates that the west elevation of the garage was open or included a door along the entire elevation, while the south elevation consisted of vehicle bay openings. The building underwent significant alterations in 1974–1975, when siding was changed from corrugated metal to wood and new windows and entryways were added to accommodate retail spaces along the south and north elevations. The garage door connection between Building #1 and Building #2 was enlarged with the construction of a north/south breezeway between the buildings. This allowed the placement of retail spaces along each side of the breezeway. A second floor was apparently added at the time, with the stairwell located along the east elevation ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 78 7 of the breezeway. The interior of Building #1 was substantially altered to accommodate separate commercial spaces. Figure 4-3 South elevation of Building #1, built in 1928 as a garage for Creamery vehicles. 4.2 BUILDING #2 As noted above, today’s Building #2 originally formed the east portion of Building #1. The 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2) demonstrates that between 1926 and 1950, the building, used for ice cream manufacturing, was enlarged to include a sizeable addition on the original south elevation. A masonry addition, which featured clay tile walls, was also added to the east elevation of the building. With the exception of the clay brick walls, the Phase II study notes that the rest of the building was clad with corrugated metal siding. During the 1974–1975 remodel, most of the metal siding was either removed or covered with wood, though some remnants of the corrugated metal siding remain on the wall near the southwest corner of the building. The clay tile wall still forms the east elevation of the building and it appears that what was once a first floor window on the east elevation of the masonry addition, demonstrated on the 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2), was expanded into an entryway and breezeway built east/west through the building. Retail spaces were added along the north and south sides of the breezeway, along with a small addition along the east elevation (Figure 4-4). A second entryway also pierced the masonry wall, allowing access to the rear of restaurants located in Building #3. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 79 8 The north elevation, along San Luis Obispo Creek, also experienced the addition of retail-related fenestration in the 1970s. Original interiors were altered or new construction was undertaken to accommodate new commercial spaces. Figure 4-4 East elevation of Building #3, illustrating the 1928 masonry wall and 1970s retail space to be removed and replaced. 4.3 BUILDING #3 Built between 1905 and 1909, the first building constructed at the property faced Higuera Street and originally featured a high truss roof, cement floor and corrugated metal siding. The 1909 Sanborn map (Figure 4-1) describes the interior building components as an office and garage, with a machine shop in the rear area of the building. The following year, the building was in use as the Central Creamery (Figure 4-5). In 1910, the Creamery received a City Building Permit to erect a new storage building, also illustrated in Figure 4-5. The building mirrored the form and monitor-style of the original building, and was built behind the original building. In 1928 the building’s façade was remodeled, an alteration that was included in a 1928 City Building Permit issued to the Golden State Milk Products Company. Then, the creamery remodeled the front of the original building using cement. The new façade connected the main building with a new building (the project’s Building #4) to the south. The new façade featured a stepped parapet. Plain concrete walls were interrupted by wood frame window openings and wood doors. A second floor was added to the front portion of the building; the Phase II study notes that the small space was used as a laboratory. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 80 9 Figure 4-5 The first creamery building, a converted garage. Image from Janet Penn Frank’s San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. A 1939 photograph of the Higuera Street façade illustrates the 1928 alterations (Figure 4-6). Plain concrete walls are evident. Five wood-frame window opening and a wood double-door entrance with a wood-frame transom are demonstrated. A wood door that is partially visible along the west elevation has since been filled in, though the seams are visible. A wing wall over the vehicle entrance connects the building with Building #4; the wall supports prominent signage advertising Golden State Milk Products. The 1928 façade was again altered during the 1974–1975 remodel (Figure 8). A projecting section was added below the cornice that contains lights, and pilasters were added. While the arrangement of the fenestration remained intact, windows were changed to multi-paned reflective glass, with aluminum frames and mullions. Wood doors were replaced with modern recessed doors, and openings were altered. Much of the northerly west elevation of the building, originally used as a loading dock for the delivery of milk to the creamery, was also modified at that time to accommodate new retail space. The space between the original and 1910 building was also filled in, creating a single large building. The rear of the building, where it meet’s today’s Building #2, was altered to accommodate the construction of the breezeway, with interior commercial spaces added along the corridor. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 81 10 Figure 4-6 Building #3, The Creamery façade along Higuera Street, 1939. 4.4 BUILDING #4 The construction of this building was approved as part of the 1928 Building Permit. The 33 1/3 x 41 foot building was built as an office adjacent to Building #3 and connected by a decorative wing wall that supported creamery signage. The wood-frame building was constructed with the same style façade as its neighbor, Building #3. The 1939 photograph of the Higuera Street façade illustrates this building (Figure 4-7). Four window openings are along the front elevation, with what appears to be a wood and glass entryway on the east side of the façade. All front fenestration features awnings. Four wood-frame double-hung windows are visible along the west elevation. A wing wall over the west-side driveway continues the façade. The 1974–1975 remodel altered the fenestration arrangement along the façade (Figure 4-8). While three window openings remain in their original locations, a fourth window and the entryway were reconfigured. The window was eliminated and a new recessed entryway was built along the elevation. A wood-frame and glass addition was also constructed on the rear of the building. A large colorful mural, which chronicles the dairy-based history of the creamery, covers the east elevation of the building. The wing wall over the west side driveway has been removed. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 82 11 Figure 4-7 Building #4 façade along Higuera Street, 1939. Figure 4-8 Today’s Building #3 and Building #4, with modified façade. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 83 12 SUMMARY OF PLANNED MODIFICATIONS 5.1 BUILDING #1 MODIFICATIONS • There are no planned modifications to Building #1. 5.2 BUILDING #2 MODIFICATIONS • Modifications include the reconfiguration of interior space on the north side of the breezeway for new public bathrooms. • New storefront doors and windows will be installed along the north side elevation, facing San Luis Obispo Creek. • New storefront doors and window will be installed along both sides of the breezeway and walls will be repainted and/or reclad with corrugated metal. • The narrow deteriorating roof over the breezeway will be removed. 5.3 BUILDING #3 MODIFICATIONS • The Higuera Street façade of the building will not be modified. • The central and northern portion of the west elevation will receive new storefront windows and doors, with new painting and/or new corrugated metal siding. • 1970s-era wood-frame additions along the east elevation, currently used for retail, will be demolished and replaced with new retail spaces in the same location. • An existing walkway connected to the south elevation of the breezeway will be filled in with a small retail space. Existing restrooms will be reconfigured in their current locations. • Two small retail spaces will be constructed adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot, adjacent to the east elevation of the building. 5.4 BUILDING #4 MODIFICATIONS • The Higuera Street façade of the building will not be modified. • Modifications to Building #4 include the demolition of the 1970s addition to the rear of the building and the construction of a new dining area, garden and trash enclosure which will occupy a portion of the rear (north) and the entire side (west) elevations. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 84 13 5.5 BUILDING #5 MODIFICATIONS Construction of a new building is intended in the west side of the Higuera Street parking lot. The building is conceptually planned as a two-story with a 2,190 square foot footprint. Four retail spaces are planned for the first floor and four residential loft units on the second floor. The building will feature metal cladding. The east side of the Higuera Street parking lot will be converted into a courtyard. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 85 14 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS To effectively evaluate compliance of the proposed alterations to the Creamery with the SOI Standards, it is important to appropriately define the specific category of treatment that is being proposed. The following definitions are cited verbatim from the “Introduction to Standards and Guidelines” provided online by the National Park Service: 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 [Weeks and Grimmer 2001]. One intent for alterations to the Creamery is to retain and repair as much as possible the important historic features of the building and remove some non-historic materials and additions. However, the proposed work does not appear to be consistent with a restoration treatment as defined under the SOI Standards given the proposed small new additions and new building to the Creamery complex. The proposed treatment of the Creamery is, therefore, best characterized as rehabilitation under the SOI Standards as it proposes continuation of a compatible use for the property, proposes restoration of key elements the building’s historic exterior (corrugated metal cladding) to approximate its appearance during the historic era, and proposes new additions to the building, and a new building, that did not exist historically. Consequently, this design review is conducted with reference to the Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as presented in the updated version provided online http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm, accessed March 30–31, 2015. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 86 15 6.1 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CREAMERY COMPLEX The 1990 Phase I and Phase II cultural resource studies concluded that the Creamery is significant under National Register of Historic Places Criterion A. Under Criterion A, significant resources are those that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of United States history. The Creamery is also significant under California Register of Historic Resources Criterion 1, where a significant resource must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. National Register and California Register resources may be significant at either the local, state, or national level. The Phase I study noted that: “The complex of buildings, known as the Creamery, are significant because of the role they played in the development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. From 1901 to 1970, there were approximately 11 creameries that operated in San Luis Obispo…[T]he Creamery at 570 Higuera Street is the oldest existing creamery in San Luis Obispo, although it operated from ca 1910 until 1970 under three different names….[I]t would appear that the Creamery buildings [have] significance because of its long standing reputation as the oldest and largest Creamery in San Luis Obispo in its original location” (Triem 1990a: 4-5). However, the 1990 studies did not provide a period of significance for the Creamery. Based on available data, it appears that a period of significance from 1928 to 1972 (the year the creamery ceased operation) is appropriate. While the Creamery began operations in 1910, the complex did not assume its present architectural form until 1928, when today’s Building #1, Building #2, and Building #4 were constructed. That same year, the façade of Building #1 was modified with a cement finish. 6.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The proposed alterations to the Creamery as communicated in the conceptual drawings by Greg Wynn, Architect are consistent with the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation, though adherence to recommendations regarding removal of non-historic wood additions is required. Additionally, archaeological monitoring associated with new construction at the Creamery may be required. Deteriorated historic features, identified Standards #6, will be rehabilitated to their likely appearance during the Creamery’s recommended period of significance of 1928–1972. 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 Creamery has been used as a retail complex since the mid-1970s. The proposed project is not a new use but series of modifications designed to enhance the complex’s continued use as a commercial space. The continued use of the historic Creamery as a commercial space will require minimal further change to historic materials that have already experienced substantial alteration. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this Standard. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 87 16 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. Much of the historic character of the Creamery was altered during the mid-1970s during the conversion from use as a creamery to reuse as a retail complex. Today’s historic character is expressed in the intact location and general forms of the historic buildings, which will not be modified by the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project has identified several historic features, described in Standard’s #6, which will be retained and repaired. The proposed project complies with this Standard. 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 that would create a false sense of historical development. The proposed project complies with this Standard. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Existing modifications to the Creamery were made in the mid-1970s. Under CEQA Guidelines, buildings, structures and objects that are less than 50 years of age are generally not considered to be historical resources. As such, property modifications dating from the mid-1970s to the Creamery, such as small building additions, exterior wood siding, reorganization of interior spaces and installation of storefront doors and windows have not achieved historic significance in their own right. However, the proposed project retains conspicuous features that are emblematic of the 1970s-era alterations of the property, such as the existing fountain, which will be integrated into the new courtyard, and Building #4 mural. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this Standard. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be maintained. The Creamery is significant due to its role in local patterns of historic development as the second creamery established in San Luis Obispo and as the last creamery to operate within the city. The simple, utilitarian buildings that became the Creamery and subsequent 1970s-era construction at the property are not architecturally significant or examples of particular craftsmanship. However, care must be taken to preserve original materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques while removing the non-significant wood additions adjacent to Building #3 and Building #4. Additions must be removed with the minimum amount of impact to original construction and new, planned additions shall be constructed with the same level of care to avoid impacts to original buildings. Recommendation are provided in the next section regarding how best to address this concern; adherence to the recommendations will result in compliance with the Standard. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 88 17 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. Project proponents have identified several historic, character-defining features that will be retained and rehabilitated in a historically-appropriate manner that adheres to the Creamery’s recommended period of significance. These features include: • The prominent rooftop historic-era condenser tower, to be repaired and repainted; • Two large historic-era freezer doors, to be refinished; • Historic-era Clerestory arrangement, to be repaired and repainted; • Two existing historic-era dairy loading doors, to remain; • Existing historic-era loading dock area, to remain; and, • Iconography associated with historic signage will be used throughout the property. Conceptual plans rehabilitate the historic features appropriately. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this Standard. 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 the Standard. 8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposed project involves the construction of a new building in the Higuera Street parking lot and new smaller-scale retail space adjacent to the Nipomo Street Parking lot. The Creamery, a City Master List Historic Resource, is within the Downtown Historic District and is located within 200 feet of the top bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Depending on the depth of required trenching, the construction of the new buildings may require preparation of an archeological monitoring plan. Preparation and approval of such a plan by the City of San Luis Obispo, if required, will allow the proposed project to comply with the Standard. 9. New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships which 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. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 89 18 According to the conceptual plans, a new addition along the rear and west side elevations of Building #4 will replace a non-historic addition currently located behind Building #4. The addition consists of a modernized dining area, two restrooms, a trash disposal area and small garden area. The trash disposal area and garden area are planned along Higuera Street, and will be fenced and gated. While the appearance of the addition will differentiate from the adjacent historic Building #1, the addition will obscure the two northerly, original window openings along the west elevation. However, the window openings will not be filled in but preserved in place through a designed cover. Most of the addition will not be visible from Higuera Street due to associated fencing for the trash area and garden located immediately adjacent to Higuera Street, in the driveway west of Building #1. The proposed project also calls for the construction of a new addition along the east elevation of Building #3, in place of an existing non-historic addition. Further, new small-scale construction will occur immediately south of the new addition, projecting again from the east elevation. The non-historic roof connection between Building #2 and Building #3, above the breezeway, will also be removed. Conceptual plans demonstrate that no historic materials will be damaged or destroyed by the modifications. Conceptual plans for the new mixed-use building (Building #5) planned for construction on the west side of the Higuera Street parking lot demonstrate that the building is compatible with the Creamery’s historic environment. The height of the new construction does not exceed Building #1 and its location, behind the Higuera Street buildings, minimizes its appearance along the primary street frontage. Further, the sawtooth form of the roof mimics, with appropriate differentiation, Building #1’s roof shape. Cladding will feature metal siding and metal roof material, which is compatible with new cladding to be applied to other Creamery buildings as part of the rehabilitation. Metal cladding is appropriate, and reflects the type of exterior cladding used at the Creamery during the period of significance. Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with this Standard. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Proposed new additions and new building construction are such that if removed, the essential form and remaining integrity to the Creamery complex would be unimpaired. The proposed additions and new construction will not occur in complex locations where their removal may damage adjacent historic buildings. The proposed addition adjacent to Building #4 will obscure the two northerly windows along the west elevation. However, the window openings will be enclosed with a designed cover and not permanently filled. This will preserve the historic fenestration arrangement for future use if planned additions are eventually removed. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this Standard. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 90 19 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES The City of San Luis Obispo requires that alterations to listed historic resources be evaluated for consistency with SOI Standards for Treatment as well as additional requirements set forth on the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010). 7.1 PERCENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE PRESERVED. City Historic Preservation Program 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. While it is difficult to place a percentage on the remaining historic building fabric following the 1970s alterations, the proposed project does little to alter intact historic features and will return metal cladding to Creamery buildings. The proposed project appears to meet this requirement. 7.2 RETENTION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Character-defining features are addressed in the previous section in Standards No. 6. The proposed alterations to the building will retain and repair many of the Creamery’s remaining character-defining features. The proposed project appears to meet this requirement. 7.3 EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that “Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replace character- defining features shall 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” [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:13]. The proposed alterations to the Creamery are consistent with this guideline. 7.4 INTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that “interior changes to publicly- accessible listed historic building whose architectural or historic significance is wholly or partially based on interior architectural characteristics or features shall preserve and restore significant architectural features” [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:14]. While the Creamery is today publically-accessible commercial space, this guideline does not apply. The complex does ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 91 20 not derive its significance from original interior architectural features, virtually of which were removed in the mid-1970s when the property transitioned from a creamery to retail and restaurant use. Additionally, Triem’s Phase II study (Oct 1990) includes an interview with Joe Crescione, the architect for the mid-1970s modifications. Regarding the interior, Mr. Crescione recalled that: “The interior was basically barns with timbers going straight up…[I]t was like a barn with no walls, only columns, trusses and sheet metal roofs” (Triem 1990b: appendix). Accordingly, the proposed alterations to the Creamery are consistent with this guideline. 7.5 ACQUIRED HISTORIC APPEARANCE The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state, “[c]hanges to listed historic resources that the Director or CHC determine to have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:14). To the best knowledge of the project proponent and historic preservation consultant, no changes to the building have been identified by the Director or CHC to have acquired historic significance in their own right. This and prior studies conducted in 1990 to not identify any post-historic era changes that would be historically significant. Accordingly, the proposed alterations to the Creamery are consistent with this guideline. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 92 21 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The following recommendations are designed to aid in the sensitive rehabilitation of the Creamery. The recommendations are provided to guide future development and rehabilitation of the Creamery. 8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES New building construction at the Creamery may impact archeological resources. The status of the subject property, on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, and its location in an archeologically sensitive area of the City may require submission and approval of an archeological monitoring plan, depending on the depth of construction-related ground disturbing activities. The need for an archaeological monitoring plan shall be determined by the City. 8.2 REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC WOOD ADDITIONS 1. Extreme care should be taken during the removal of the wood additions to avoid damaging as much as possible the original building walls. 2. Any non-reparable or missing material should be carefully replaced to match in kind and alignment with that which is still present. 8.3 ROOF REPAIR 1. The retention of non-original skylights is acceptable, as they are not visible from the nearby streets. 2. The project proponent shall consider the use of corrugated metal roofing material, which was historically present at the Creamery. 8.4 STOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT The National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services issues Preservation Briefs, which are guidelines on preserving, rehabilitating, and restoring historic buildings. While current storefront windows and doors at the Creamery are not of historic-age, the proposed project will rehabilitate existing fenestration. Preservation Brief 11 examines the rehabilitation of historic storefronts; below are excerpted guidelines for the design of replacement storefronts, an important component of the proposed project. All 47 Preservation Briefs are viewable at http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs.htm. 1. Scale: Respect the scale and proportion of the existing building in the new storefront design. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 93 22 2. Materials: Select construction materials that are appropriate to the storefronts; wood, cast iron, and glass are usually more appropriate replacement materials than masonry which tends to give a massive appearance. 3. Cornice: Respect the horizontal separation between the storefront and the upper stories. A cornice or fascia board traditionally helped contain the store's sign. 4. Frame: Maintain the historic planar relationship of the storefront to the facade of the building and the streetscape (if appropriate). Most storefront frames are generally composed of horizontal and vertical elements. 5. Entrances: In order to meet current code requirements, out-swinging doors generally must be recessed. Entrances should be placed where there were entrances historically, especially when echoed by architectural detailing (a pediment or projecting bay) on the upper stories. 6. Windows: The storefront generally should be as transparent as possible. Use of glass in doors, transoms, and display areas allows for visibility into and out of the store. 7. Secondary Design Elements: Keep the treatment of secondary design elements such as graphics and awnings as simple as possible in order to avoid visual clutter to the building and its streetscape. 8.5 INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES The creation of a courtyard in a portion of the Higuera Street parking lot and the retention of the 1970s fountain creates an opportunity for a new interpretive display chronicling the unique history of the Creamery. The display, prominently located in the new courtyard, should include historic photos of the Creamery, historic Sanborn maps which illustrate the development of the complex, its renovation in the 1970s, and the proposed project’s historically-appropriate improvements. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 94 23 CONCLUSIONS The proposed rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street will be consistent with the SOI Standards for Treatment and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010). Under CEQA and the City Guidelines, a project that complies with the SOI Standards for Treatment will not have a significant impact on historical resources. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 95 24 REFERENCES City of San Luis Obispo 2010 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California. 2001 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. Updated online version, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/, accessed March 30–31, 2015. Franks, Janet Penn 2004 San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, South Carolina. Greg Wynn 2015 Creamery Project Plan, conceptual designs provided March 2015. Greg Wynn Architect, San Luis Obispo, California. Triem, Judith 1990a “The Creamery: Phase I Cultural Resources Study.” By San Buenaventura Research Associates for the Planning Mill. San Luis Obispo, California. 1990b “The Creamery: Phase II Cultural Resources Study.” By San Buenaventura Research Associates for the Planning Mill. San Luis Obispo, California. Unknown Author 1982 State of California Historic Resources Inventory Forms, DPR 523. Prepared for the Creamery Building, San Luis Obispo, California. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC2 - 96 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8943 O: (805) 594-1590 | F: (805) 594-1577 ARCHAEOLOGY CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Rupley, PE Project Manager Covelop, Inc. FROM: Aubrie Morlet, M.A. Senior Architectural Historian Applied EarthWorks, Inc. DATE: April 15, 2016 SUBJECT: Redesigned Golden State Creamery Rehabilitation Project, San Luis Obispo, California. _________________________________________________________________________________ At the request of Covelop, Applied EarthWorks (Æ) prepared this memorandum to address comments regarding the redesign of the Golden State Creamery Rehabilitation Project (project). Our previous study, Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California (2015), analyzed the project’s compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Rehabilitation (SOI Rehabilitation Standards) and the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. This memorandum is an addendum to our previous study. Following submission the redesigned project, San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff requested additional information on two items: Comment #4: In the original submittal and historic evaluation, all the replacement siding on the Master List Creamery buildings was to be replaced with metal siding (Section 6.2 #5 of the Historic evaluation). A memo evaluating the distressed wood and board and batten siding will be required. Comment #5: Section 6.2 #4 of the Historic Evaluation discusses the 1970s fountain and the mural. Since they were not originally going to be removed the evaluation did not give an opinion about their removal. The memo needs to comment on these changes as well. Æ Senior Architectural Historian Aubrie Morlet reviewed the design plans that illustrated the use of distressed wood and board and batten siding and removal of the fountain and mural. The alterations were assessed against the SOI Rehabilitation Standards for compliance. The Golden State Creamery is significant for its historical association with the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo and as the last example of its kind within the city. The buildings associated with the historical resource are utilitarian in design and construction and are not considered architecturally significant. Due to the mid-1970s remodel, the buildings are not considered a good example of the industrial type. However, the project design should avoid creating a false sense of historical development. Use of a smooth, wide-width distressed wood siding would appear modern and not create a false sense of history. The same standard shall be applied to the proposed board and batten siding. A smooth board paired with wide, flattened battens would look modern and not create a false sense of history (Figures 1 and 2). Adherence to the materials recommendations will comply with the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. ATTACHMENT 6 CHC2 - 97 2 Figure 1 Example of historical board and batten siding that should not be duplicated. Figure 2 Modern example of board and batten siding with wide, flattened battens is appropriate for the proposed project. ATTACHMENT 6 CHC2 - 98 3 The period of significance established for the Golden State Creamery is 1928 to 1972. The fountain and mural were installed during the remodel of the property for retail use in the mid to late 1970s. As the fountain and mural were installed after the period of significance, these elements do not contribute to the historical significance of the resource. Therefore, the fountain and mural could be removed without reducing the integrity of the historical resource. Additionally, the retail complex and associated fountain and mural are less than 50 years of age and do not appear to have acquired historical significance in their own right. Therefore the removal of the fountain and mural complies with the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. In conclusion, the removal of the fountain and mural and use of distressed wood and board and batten siding, adhering to the materials recommendation, appear to comply with the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. ATTACHMENT 6 CHC2 - 99 Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Item Number: 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement for the Master List historic Kimball House. ADDRESS: 690 Islay BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone: 781-7593 FILE #: HIST-3168-2016 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the applicant’s request to be a part of the Mills Act Historic Preservation program. 2.0 SITE DATA Applicant and Property Owner John Poremba General Plan Medium Density Residential Zoning Medium Density Residential, Historical Preservation (R-2-H) Site Area 8,700 sq. ft. Historic Status Master List Resource: Kimball House, Old Town Historic District Environmental Status Categorically Exempt (CEQA Guidelines §15331) 3.0 BACKGROUND The owner of the Kimball House at 690 Islay has submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act historic preservation agreement with the City. The draft Mills Act contract is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for a recommendation prior to Council action.1 1 As described in § 14.01.030 (B)(8) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance CHC3 - 1 HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay) Page 2 4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Site and Setting The property is an 8,700 square-foot parcel at the northwest corner of Islay and Broad Streets, within the Old Town Historic District. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family residences, many of which are also listed historic resources. The Kimball House is a two-story, single- family residence, built in 1902 by Willard S. Kimball and his wife, Carrie. Mr. Kimball was an attorney, and was instrumental in securing a horse-drawn streetcar route in the City. The architect of the building is unknown. It is a large home, described in City records2 as Colonial Revival in style, with Neo-Classical pediments and detailing. The exterior is covered with clapboard siding, with wood shingles and fish-scaling on gable roof ends. The site includes granite curbing, a low wall of Bishop’s Peak granite along the street frontages, and a granite hitching post in the right-of-way (see Attachment 4). The property appears to be in excellent condition. 5.0 MILLS ACT AGREEMENTS Historic preservation is an important goal, as stated in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan, and the Mills Act Program is one of the programs the City uses to achieve this goal.3 It is one of the most effective preservation tools available, providing a financial incentive to encourage preservation of heritage properties. Participation in the program is limited to properties on the Master List of Historic Resources. Currently, 52 historic properties participate in this program, with the last request approved by the Council in January, 2016. The program allows the City to enter into a historic preservation agreement (a “Mills Act Contract”) with owners of historic properties, who agree to preserve, maintain and in some cases, improve the properties in return for property tax savings. These savings are an incentive to undertake improvements and maintenance of historic properties. Improvements made to the property under the agreement must be consistent with applicable Secretary of Interior Standards as well as historical preservation standards and guidelines. Historic Property Preservation Agreements are prepared using standard language provided by the State Historic Preservation Office, conforming to the Mills Act (Govt. Code §§ 50280 – 50290). They only differ substantively in the description of the historic property and the maintenance and improvement programs planned by the property owner (Exhibit A of the agreement). Standard features of the contracts include: 2 Historic Resources Inventory form; Community Development Department historic property record (“yellow file”) for 690 Islay 3 COSE § 3.2 and § 3.6.2 Figure 1: Kimball House CHC3 - 2 HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay) Page 3  Assessment of the value of the historic property’s by County Assessor using a “Capitalization of Income” method, which can result in significant property tax savings. If the contract is canceled, the assessment is gradually increased to market value basis over the remaining ten year contract term.  A commitment by the property owner to preserve the building and to use the tax savings to maintain and improve it and preserve and enhance its historical value, exterior appearance, structural condition, and longevity. Each agreement includes an exhibit listing the maintenance and improvement measures to which the tax savings will be applied.  The agreement is recorded, and is binding on subsequent owners, heirs, or assigns until the agreement is canceled. There is a significant financial penalty if the agreement is cancelled due to breach of performance.  Agreements have a minimum 10-year term and the agreement “self-renews” annually for additional 10-year terms, so 10 years always remains on the contract until the owner or the City decides not to renew it. Once written notice of cancellation is given, the agreement will remain in effect for the balance of the remaining ten year term. The agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the City and property owner.  The structure may be altered under the contract; however alterations must comply with all City requirements and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with the guiding objective being the long-term preservation of the building’s original historical character and significance. 6.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Several improvements have been identified by the applicant for inclusion in the proposed historic preservation agreement for this property (Attachment 3). Recommended improvements to be included in the agreement for this property are included in Exhibit A of the draft Mills Act Contract (Attachment 5) and summarized below:  Replace front entry stairs to reflect the style of the home  Modify the modern driveway to a more traditional look and style  Modify the modern entry sidewalk to appear more consistent with the historical character of the property  Replace siding on the rear addition with more siding more appropriate to the building’s historic character, including the possible addition of a window  Remove an undated rear deck and kitchen entry addition to restore an appearance similar to original design  Restore the enclosed porch modification to an original appearance  Remove overgrown landscaping to improve the view of house from street; enhance and maintain landscaping and courtyard area  Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic wood structure and siding CHC3 - 3 HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay) Page 4  Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic windows, including stained glass windows  Periodic painting to preservation and maintain historic character  Repair or replace building mechanical ventilation systems  Repair and maintenance of flat roof section to prevent water damage  Interior painting 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historic property is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (Guidelines § 15378 (b) (4)). 8.0 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the draft resolution recommending that the City Council approve and enter into a Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) for the Master List Kimball House at 690 Islay Street. 9.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the City not enter into the proposed Historic Property Preservation Agreement, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, or Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 10.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Request Letter 4. Historic Resources Inventory Form 5. Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) CHC3 - 4 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT FOR THE MASTER LIST KIMBALL HOUSE LOCATED AT 690 ISLAY STREET WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series), establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic resources through financial incentives; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this property as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City and owners, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs and/or improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et. seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code. 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 June 27, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property preservation agreement; 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 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. Conservation and Open Space Element program 3.6.2 states that the City will participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties. ATTACHMENT 1 CHC3 - 5 Resolution No.XXXX-16 HIST-3168-2016 (690 Islay) Page 2 2. The Kimball House, located at 690 Islay Street, has been recognized as a historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List Historic Property. As such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Section 2. Environmental Review. The above actions do not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act and are exempt from environmental review. Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application HIST-3168-2016, allowing the City to enter into a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement. 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 27th day of June, 2016. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee ATTACHMENT 1 CHC3 - 6 R-2-H R-2-H R-2-H R-2-H R-2 R-2-H R-2-H ISLAY B R O A D VICINITY MAP HIST-3168-2016690 Islay St ¯ ATTACHMENT 2 CHC3 - 7 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC3 - 8 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC3 - 9 ATTACHMENT 3 CHC3 - 10 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC3 - 11 ATTACHMENT 4 CHC3 - 12 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING LOCATED AT 690 ISLAY STREET, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2016, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and John Poremba (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.” Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owner, his heirs, or assigns hereby agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through 50290 and in Section 3, below. Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal. a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as provided herein. b. If the Owner or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owner or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the agreement as provided herein. c. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owner of non-renewal. d. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of non-renewal in any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 13 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 2 Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Owner agrees to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee. b. The building’s interior closely relates to the property’s eligibility as a qualified historic property. The Owner agrees to allow pre-arranged tours on a limited basis, to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. c. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural ornamentation to the greatest extent possible. d. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement, repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit. The Owner agrees to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to changing the building’s use or commencing construction work. e. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A. f. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community Development Director. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 14 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 3 g. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owner’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish any and all information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 6. Cancellation. a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owner has failed to preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owner to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement. b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288. Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement. a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owner); then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this agreement, ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 15 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 4 apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owner or apply for such relief as may be appropriate. b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under. c. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract. Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic building located at 690 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 003-532-017, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto. To City: Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To Owner: John Poremba 690 Islay Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Section 10. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 16 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 5 b. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owner, or from those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on the Owner’s behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or improvement of the historic property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner’s activities in connection with the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees. c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the historic property. d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby. g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 17 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 6 Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owner; however the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing, recording, and administering the historical property contracts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have executed this agreement on the day and year written above. OWNER ____________________________________ ______________________________ John Poremba Date CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ____________________________________ ______________________________ Mayor Jan Marx Date ATTEST: ______________________________ Lee Price, MMC Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 18 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 7 EXHIBIT A MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE KIMBALL HOUSE LOCATED AT 690 ISLAY STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Owner shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character-defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the City of San Luis Obispo for property located at 690 Islay Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface treatments. Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term of this contract but in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:  Replace front entry stairs to reflect the style of the home  Modify the modern driveway to a more traditional look and style  Modify the modern entry sidewalk to appear more consistent with the historical character of the property  Replace siding on the rear addition with more siding more appropriate to the buildilng's historic character, including the possible addition of a window  Remove an undated rear deck and kitchen entry addition to restore an appearance similar to original design  Restore the enclosed porch modification to an original appearance  Remove overgrown landscaping to improve the view of house from street; enhance and maintain landscaping and courtyard area  Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic wood structure and siding  Ongoing preservation and maintenance of existing historic windows, including stained glass windows  Periodic painting to preservation and maintain historic character  Repair or replace building mechanical ventilation systems  Repair and maintenance of flat roof section to prevent water damage  Interior painting ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 19 Historic Preservation Agreement 690 Islay Street Page 8 State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On __________________ , before me _______________________________________________ , Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________________ , Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me,__________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. ATTACHMENT 5 CHC3 - 20