The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-11-16 ARC Item 1 - Long Bonetti Ranch Project (ARCH-1219-2015 -- 120 Tank Farm Road) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC) SUBJECT: Review of a project located at the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch property including modifications and rebuilding of historic structures and the addition of four new buildings (including four residential units) located adjacent to the existing structures, totaling 42,000 square feet. Project includes a request for a 30% parking reduction, off-site parking (shared with the Tribune property), and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. PROJECT ADDRESS: 120 Tank Farm Road BY: Marcus Carloni, Special Projects Manager 3897 S. Higuera Street Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1219-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Tank Farm Center, LLC Representative Steve Rigor, Arris Studio Architects Historic Status Master List Zoning M-SP (Manufacturing – Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan) General Plan Services & Manufacturing Site Area ~5.56 Acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration SUMMARY The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2) for a project located at the site of the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch Complex. The project includes modifications/relocation of existing ranch complex structures as well as the proposed addition of four new buildings among the ranch structures, designed to create a Public Market at the subject location. The project also requests a 30% parking reduction with a portion of required parking proposed to be located off- site (at the adjacent Tribune Property). The ARC conceptually reviewed the project on November 3, 2014 providing 20 directional items to the applicant, and the CHC reviewed the project on June 6, 2016. The CHC recommended the ARC approve the project, but asked the ARC to review two changes to the project (farmhouse Meeting Date: July 11, 2016 Item Number: 1 ARC1 - 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 2 roof and Building 5 awning), as discussed in Section 3.3.1 below. The applicant’s responses and staff analysis is provided in Section 3 of this report. Additionally, an Initial Study (Attachment 7) has been prepared by Oliveira Environmental Consulting in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. 1.0 BACKGROUND & COMMISSION’S PURVIEW 1.1 Background The project site was previously approved for a business park development in 2010 (Attachment 4, 2010 ARC Approved Site Plan). The 2010 approval was then modified in 2013 to include the Tractor Supply tenant (Attachment 5, 2013 ARC Approved Site Plan). CHC Approval August 24, 2009 Modification to site with Listed Historic Resource Architectural review & approve CHC findings ARC Approval February 17, 2010 Time Extension January 2, 2013 Extends ARC approval to February 17, 2014 ARC Conceptual April 1, 2013 Review of proposed Modified Project (Tractor Supply) ARC Approval August 19, 2013 Final Approval ARC Conceptual Nov. 3, 2014 ARC Review July 11, 2016 Review of proposed Modified Project (Public Market) ARC Conceptual Nov. 3, 2014 ARC Conceptual Nov. 3, 2014 CHC Review June 6, 2016 Recommended Approval The applicant is now proposing a new project at the subject location as discussed in section 3.2 below. The current proposal was conceptually reviewed by the ARC in 2014. The ARC generally supported the concept and provided directional items to the applicant and staff (see Attachment 3). Due to the property containing the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch Farm Complex, the CHC reviewed the project on June 6, 2016 and recommended the ARC approve the project (see Attachment 13, CHC Resolution & Attachment 12, CHC Minutes) with review of Conditions 7 and 9 as discussed in section 4.0 below. 1.2 Purview The Commission is tasked with the following: 1. Review the project’s consistency with previous ARC direction (Attachment 3), the Community Design Guidelines, and the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Architectural Guidelines. 2. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7). 3. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 13) and take final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards. 2010 Project 2013 Modified Project Current Project ARC1 - 2 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 3 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The subject location is bounded by South Higuera Street, Tank Farm Road, and Long Street, with the Tribune property to the north. Existing structures include the former Long Bonetti Ranch complex (circa 1880 and 1930), consisting of a single story farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary (see detailed description in Attachment 6, PIA Report, “Resource Description”, Pages 7 – 12) . The Long‐Bonetti Ranch complex, as an assemblage of farming structures, is listed in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. Currently under construction along Long Street is the previously approved Tractor Supply Company building and associated shop building (to the south of Tractor Supply). Site Size ~5.5 acres Present Use & Development Historic Long-Bonetti Ranch buildings/Tractor Supply Company Topography Relatively flat Access Primary: Tank Farm Road Secondary: South Higuera (Tribune Property), Long Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: M-SP; Tribune parking lot and Tribune building South: C-S & C-S-PD; Commercial uses East: M-SP; Fitness/manufacturing uses West: R-2-S; Residential (Silver City Mobile Home Park) 2.2 Historic Site Documentation LSA prepared a Project Impact Analysis Report (Attachment 6, PIA Report) which details each resource, identifies character defining features, describes proposed modifications, and evaluates said modifications. Appendix A to the LSA PIA Report (Attachment 6) includes the site’s historic preservation agreement from August 1998. Appendix B to the LSA PIA Report (Attachment 6) includes a historic evaluation prepared by Judy Triem of San Buenaventura Research Associates in February of 1990. The report was associated with a proposed project that was not constructed. Appendix C to the LSA PIA Report (Attachment 6) includes a historic “limited site plan review” prepared by Chattel Architecture Planning & Preservation in April of 2008. The report was associated with a proposed project that was not constructed (the site plan of said project is provided as Attachment 4, 2010 ARC Approved Site Plan). 2.3 Project Description The applicant proposes a public market-type project with a mix of one and two-story buildings designed to accommodate various potential uses such as restaurants, vendors, a brewery, produce stands, and a market hall building with numerous specialty purveyors, local food products, and a demonstration kitchen. The new structures are proposed to be located adjacent to the historic Long Bonetti Ranch complex. ARC1 - 3 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 4 A summary of significant project features include the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans & Attachment 6, PIA Report): 1) Proposed modifications to existing structures (see detailed description in Attachment 6, PIA Report, “Project Description” on page 13): a. Relocation of the existing farmhouse (including entry pathway, water feature and landscaping), water tower, windmill, granary, and barn (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-2a) b. Rehabilitation of the existing farmhouse and granary c. Reconstruction of the existing barn and water tower d. Preservation of the windmill, and entry sign e. Restoration of the landscape features 2) Proposed addition of new structures among the historic Long Bonetti Ranch complex (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-4) a. Building 5: Contemporary Agrarian Design - 498 square feet b. Building 6: Agrarian Design - 5,008 square feet c. Building 7: Contemporary Agrarian - 30,438 square feet d. Building 8: Agrarian Design – 5,757 square feet 3) Parking a. Request for 10% shared use and 20% mix of uses parking reductions (a 95 space reduction). b. Request for 76 parking spaces to be located on the Tribune property directly to the north (off-site parking). 4) Tree Removals. Proposed removal of 5 Pine trees and 12 Monterey Cypress trees (see Attachment 10, Arborist Report). 5) Other associated site improvements including outdoor plazas, landscape, gardens and orchards, and central parking areas (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-5). 6) Conceptual signage (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet D2) and conceptual public art (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet D1). ARC1 - 4 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 5 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS On November 3, 2014 the ARC conceptually reviewed the subject project and provided 20 directional items to the applicant and staff (see Attachment 4, ARC Directional Items). The ARC was generally supportive of the layout and design of the project, and discussion/directional items mainly focused on 1) historic preservation items to be reviewed by the CHC, 2) minor modifications to Building 5 and 6, and 3) particular attention to modifications of Building 7 (Market Hall). This report focuses on the historic preservation items (CHC Review) and modifications to Building 7; the applicant has performed the minor changes to buildings 5 and 6 and has responded to the rest of the directional items as provided in Attachment 8, Applicant Response to ARC Direction Letter. 3.1 Overview of Layout and Design Overall, the layout and design of the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Higuera Commerce Park Architectural Guidelines (HCPAG), and historic preservation standards. This is accomplished by designing one and two-story structures with scale/massing that is compatible with the existing historic ranch complex structures and existing structures in the neighborhood. Also, the proposed agrarian and contemporary agrarian architectural styles distinguish the new structures from the existing historic structures while remaining compatible with these structures and the existing neighboring structures. Consistent with the CDG and HCPAG, the proposed new buildings include sufficient articulation and detailing throughout all elevations and the mix of materials (corrugated metals, rusting metal, wood siding, exposed steel and wood beams) and other exterior features are compatible with the historic structures and structures found in the neighborhood. Staff has providing findings of consistency with the CDG and HCPAG in the attached draft resolution. 3.2 Directional Items for Building 7 (Market Hall): Summary of Directional Items: Directional Item #7: Reduce the scale to be more compatible with the barn Directional Item #8: The siting of building 7 shall consider the barn and street views Directional Item #9: Explore providing better visual and pedestrian transitions from the sidewalk to the west elevation (entry) Directional Item #10: Revise the west elevation (entry) to respect pedestrian scale Directional Item #11: Simplify south and east elevations to reduce clutter Directional Item #12: Revise height to comply with Zoning Regulations max height For consistency with ARC directional items, the applicant has performed a wholesale redesign of the Market Hall (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheets 7-1 through 7-11). This includes providing significant setback from the street and lowering the overall scale/massing of the structure to provide improved compatibility and improved visibility of the barn. The design now steps down the massing as the structure approaches South Higuera Street and the lowered features (awnings, overhangs, and typical height storefronts), coupled with the additional setback from the street, provide pedestrian scale elements and an improved ARC1 - 5 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 6 transition from the sidewalk to the west elevation. The redesign also simplified the elevations by combining and pulling the awning elements closer to the structure, removing the angled building proportions, reducing the amount of roof plane movements (north elevation in particular), and reducing the overall height/scale of the structure. Consistent with directional item #12, the applicant reduced the height of the structure to 35 feet; however, the ridge of the structure is 40 feet in height, providing a long roof cap that is primarily finished with glass (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 7-7). Staff is looking to the ARC to consider this feature’s consistency with the Zoning Regulations allowance for “architectural features” to exceed the maximum height by up to 10-feet1. If allowed to remain, the ARC should consider conditioning the project to divide this feature to be broken into two smaller features to add articulation and reduce the monotony of the ridgeline. 3.3 Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation An analysis of the project’s consistency with Historic Preservation standards is provided in the June 6, 2016 CHC report (Attachment 11). The CHC reviewed the project on June 6, 2016 (see Attachment 11: CHC Staff Report 06-06-2016 & Attachment 12: CHC Minutes 06-06-2016) and found the proposed new structures to be compatible and complementary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the existing structures and project site, consist with historic preservation standards. The CHC also reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7) and found it to properly evaluate the project relative to historic/cultural resources, and found the project would result in less than significant impacts to historic/archaeological resources with inclusion of monitoring requirements which are incorporated into project conditions of approval. The CHC recommends approval of the project to the ARC per CHC Resolution No. 1008-16 (Attachment 13: CHC Resolution No. 1008-16). 3.3.1 CHC Directional Items CHC Directional Item #7: The slate roofing material (Building 1: Farmhouse) shall be replaced with a more historically appropriate material such as wood shingle, subject to the approval of the ARC. CHC Directional Item #9: The ARC shall consider the Building 5 awning element and its relationship (i.e. proximity) to the water tower. 1 Zoning Regulation Section 17.16.040: Components of solar energy systems, chimneys, elevator towers, screening for mechanical equipment that is not integral with building parapets, vents, antennae and steeples shall extend not more than 10 feet above the maximum building height. Previous Proposal Barn Barn Current Proposal ARC1 - 6 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 7 The applicant has revised the roof material for the Farmhouse and now proposes the use of a treated cedar shingle. A sample will be provided at the ARC hearing. The CHC expressed some concern with the proposed design of Building 5’s awning as it projects toward, and may impact the significance of, the water tower; asking the ARC to specifically review this element. The applicant has provided two alternate designs, one that includes a shortened/flat awning and the other that removes the awning altogether (see Attachment 9, Building 5 Alternate Awning Design). Staff recommends the “no awning option” as it allows for maximum visibility and prominence of the water tower. 3.4 Parking Reduction Request The proposed off-site parking location (76 Spaces on the Tribune property) is appropriate because the off-site parking lot is directly adjacent with the on-site parking area allowing for convenient pedestrian access to the project site. Condition of approval #7 requires the applicant to provide delineated pedestrian pathway(s) from the off-site parking lot to the subject location, to the maximum extent feasible. This language is used because the property is leased rather than owned by the applicant. The Zoning Regulations (Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.060.B&C) allow approval of a shared/mixed parking reduction of up to 30% for projects with common parking facilities and off-set peak times of maximum parking demand for various uses. It is anticipated that the peak hours of parking demand for the Public Market use will be noon/late afternoon on Saturdays and Sundays when the Tribune is closed for business. Additionally, the mix of businesses includes retail, specialty retail, produce stands, building/landscape material sales, light manufacturing (brewery), restaurant and office (Tribune) are anticipated to have varied times of peak parking demand. The project site is also located along SLO Transit Route 2 which provides two bus stop locations within close proximity. Also, 30% parking reductions have been commonly approved for similar shopping centers including University Square (890 Foothill), Foothill Plaza (776 Foothill), and Laguna Village (11550 Los Osos Valley Road). Condition of approval #8 requires bicycle parking to be provided at the same rate as the Community Commercial zone which requires more2 short-term bicycle parking spaces than are required by the Manufacturing zone. 2 Zoning Regulations Table 6.5. Manufacturing Zone bike parking is calculated as 15% of vehicle parking requirement. That 15% is then broken into 10% short term and 80% long term. Conditions of approval require this ratio to be 60% short term and 40% long term. Current Proposal Flat Awning Option No Awning Option ARC1 - 7 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 8 3.5 Conceptual Signage & Public Art The conceptual signage was prepared by Pierre Rademaker Design and includes two different monument-style signs, a historic plaque monument, and a project plaque concept. Signage will return to the ARC along with a complete signage package for the project site. The public art proposal was prepared by Michael Reddell and depicts life sized animals stacked upon one another fabricated from welded stainless steel rod. The proposed art will return to the ARC upon review from the public art jury. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff worked with Jeff Oliveira of Oliveira Environmental Consulting to prepare an initial study in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 7). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation/traffic will be less than significant. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Deny the project. Action denying the project should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of the Interior’s standards, or pertinent City standards. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Project Plans 3. ARC Directional Items 4. 2010 Approved Project Site Plan 5. 2013 Approved Project Site Plan 6. Project Impact Analysis (PIA) Report (LSA 2016) 7. Draft Initial Study 8. Applicant Response to ARC Directional Items 9. Building 5 Alternate Awning Design 10. Arborist Report 11. CHC Staff Report (June 6, 2016) 12. CHC Minutes (June 6, 2016) 13. CHC Resolution (June 6, 2016) 14. Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Architectural Guidelines Included in Committee member portfolio: project plans ARC1 - 8 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION GRANTING DESIGN APPROVAL OF THE “PUBLIC MARKET PROJECT” WHICH INCLUDES MODIFICATIONS AND RELOCATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC LONG BONETTI RANCH FARM COMPLEX AND ADDITION OF FOUR NEW BUILDINGS. PROJECT INCLUDES APPROVAL OF A 30% PARKING REDUCTION, OFF-SITE PARKING, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 11, 2016 (120 TANK FARM/3897 S. HIGUERA, BASE ADDRESSES– ARCH-1219-2015) WHEREAS, on November 3, 2014, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of providing conceptual feedback on preliminary project plans; Tank Farm Center, LLC. applicant; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2016, 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, for the purpose of historic preservation review of the subject project and recommended approval to the Architectural Review Commission; Tank Farm Center, LLC. applicant; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2016, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of design review of the subject application; Tank Farm Center, LLC. applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final design approval to the project (ARCH-1219-2015), based on the following findings: 1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s zoning designation and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. ARC1 - 9 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 2 2. The project is consistent with the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan since the project includes design elements, development standards, and preservation of significant Long- Bonetti Ranch structures as specified in the specific plan. 3. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the neighborhood. 4. That, consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines, the project incorporates sufficient articulation/wall plane movement throughout all elevations that avoids the appearance of “boxy” structures. 5. That, consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (Resolution No. 1008-16), the proposed new structures are compatible and complimentary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch Complex and that proposed modifications to the ranch structures does not alter character-defining features and historic spatial relationships will be maintained. 6. That, as conditioned, off-site parking is acceptable at this location because the off-site parking lot is directly adjacent with the on-site parking area allowing for convenient pedestrian access to the project site 7. That, as conditioned, a 30% parking reduction is acceptable at this location because parking facilities will be shared among several uses and the mix of businesses provide for varied times of peak parking demand. Furthermore, the location is within close proximity to bus stop locations and conditions of approval ensure significant bicycle parking. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation of the following mitigation measures 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 ARC1 - 10 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 3 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. 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. ARC1 - 11 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 4 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.  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 ARC1 - 12 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 5 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 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 ARC1 - 13 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 6 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. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. In the event that archaeological materials are discovered during project construction activities, construction shall be halted until a formal monitoring plan is prepared and approved by the City. The plan will need to include a summary of the project ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected and discovered 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. Transportation Mitigation Measure T-1: The following improvements are required to provide acceptable operations at locations where a project significant impact is identified for existing plus project conditions: Tank Farm Road/Long Street.  Install a Single/Multi-lane modern roundabout. Per City Circulation Element Policy 7.1.2, if after preliminary engineering roundabout control is determined by the City to not be feasible, traffic signalization of the intersection may substitute as mitigation.  Monitoring Plan, T 1: A plan for signal installation shall be developed in cooperation with City Staff and approved by the Public Works director or their designee. Signalization shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit/Encroachment Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. Mitigation Measure T-2: The following improvements are required to provide acceptable operations at locations where a significant impact is identified for cumulative plus project conditions: Tank Farm Road/Long Street and South Higuera Street/Tribune Driveway:  Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 will reduce cumulative plus project impacts at the Tank Farm Road and Long Street intersection.  Restrict side streets egress to right turn only at South Higuera Street and the Tribune Driveway. ARC1 - 14 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 7  Monitoring Plan, T 2: The plan for signal installation under Mitigation Measure T-1 shall include restricted side street egress limited to right turns only at South Higuera Street and the Tribune driveway. The plan shall be developed in cooperation with City Staff and approved by the Public Works director or their designee. The plan shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit/Encroachment Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically monitor traffic conditions to ensure compliance. Mitigation Measure T-3: Fair-Share of Improvement Costs. Fair-share calculations have been identified for all intersections, which are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS under cumulative project conditions, and experience an increase in delay with the addition of project traffic. The 2016 traffic report includes a listing of each of the study intersections warranting improvements, the corresponding improvements that the proposed project would be required to pay a fair-share of improvement cost towards, and the proposed project’s equitable share of these improvements. The project applicant shall be required to contribute to the fair share costs for identified improvements as stipulated in the 2016 traffic report.  Monitoring Plan, T-3: The fair share calculations and proposal for payment shall be developed in conjunction with City staff and the Department of Public Works director or their designee. Implementation of the fair share fee program shall be required prior to final inspections and project occupancy. City staff will periodically monitor cost compliance to ensure agreements are followed. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions of approval: Conditions Planning Division - Community Development Department Condition(s) 1. All applicable measures, conditions of approval, and code requirements from previous approvals, including but not limited to SPA 170-07 (City Council Resolution No. 10075, 2009 Series), ARC 170-07 (CHC approval: August 24, 2009 and ARC approval: February 17, 2010 Resolution No. 1003-10), and ARC/MOD 18-13 (ARC Resolution No. 1012-13) shall be incorporated herein. If a previous condition is modified with this approval, the latter condition shall supersede the former wording of the condition. 2. All proposed uses shall be consistent with the allowed uses tables from the Zoning Regulations and Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan (as amended by City Council Resolution No. 10075 (2009 Series)). Please note that approval of a Use Permit will be needed for several of the proposed uses. ARC1 - 15 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 8 3. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission. A separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved plans or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director, Cultural Heritage Committee, or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 4. Project signage shall return to the ARC for review of complete signage program for the project site. 5. Plans submitted for a construction permit shall clearly indicate the off-site parking location and indicate the number of spaces provided in the off-site lot (approximately 76 spaces are shown on current plans). 6. An off-site parking agreement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a construction permit. 7. To the maximum extent feasible the applicant shall provide a minimum of one delineated pedestrian crossing location from the offsite parking location (tribune parking lot) across the access driveway to the subject location, subject to the final approval of the Community Development Director. 8. Required bike parking shall be calculated prior to applying any parking reductions. Bike parking shall be calculated using the same rate as the Community Commercial zone with total required bike parking calculated as 15% of the total number of vehicle spaces with 60% short term spaces and 40% long term spaces. 9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 10. The treated cedar shingle roofing material shall be used in place of the slate roofing material. 11. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 12. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. ARC1 - 16 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 9 13. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. a. Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no brighter than approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the object of interest. 14. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 15. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 16. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department Condition(s) 17. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and/or proposed public and private easements for reference. The easements shall include but are not limited to the existing offer of dedication for public street purposes, public pedestrian easement, street tree easements, public utility easements, and the sewer easement. 18. The building plan submittal shall include complete site, utility, grading, drainage, and public improvement plans in accordance with the overall campus plan approvals and the latest proposed modifications. ARC1 - 17 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 10 19. Unless otherwise approved for deferral by the Public Works Department, the public improvement plans, including median and street design on Tank Farm Road, shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. Unless otherwise deferred, the public improvements shall be constructed and receive final inspection approvals prior to building occupancy. 20. The building plan submittal and final drainage report shall show and note compliance with the Interim Low Impact Development Standards for a Tier III project. This project was previously entitled through the ARC process. This modification as presented does not affect the previous approval date. As such, this project is not subject to the latest Regional Water Quality Control Board Post-Construction Stormwater Regulations. 21. The building plan submittal shall clarify that the proposed site changes, orchard, garden areas, and general landscape planting will not affect the functionality of the previously designed and installed stormdrain system. 22. Proposed drainage improvements located within the public right-of-way and/or areas of future widening/dedications are supported as project amenities but shall not be provided in-lieu of the previously approved Interim LID drainage strategy. A separate temporary encroachment agreement shall be recorded for the improvements prior to building permit issuance. The improvements shall be maintained by the developer and/or property owner. 23. The building plan submittal and final landscape plan shall evaluate and consider a line- of-sight analysis at street corners and at all driveways. The plantings located within the line-of-sight triangles for pedestrians and vehicles shall consider the respective speeds and shall be limited to a mature and/or managed plant height of not more than 30”. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a certified arborist report for the proposed tree removals and tree protection measures for the trees to remain. Based on a site inspection by the City Arborirst at least two of the existing Cypress trees along Higuera Street (themed street trees per City Engineering Standard #8020), can and shall be retained at this time and incorporated into the final landscape plan unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. The final landscape plan shall include additional street trees per City Engineering Standard #8020 to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Community Development Department. 25. The required street and median design shall consider the most current traffic modeling, lane widths, and lane configurations related to the Tank Farm Road and South Higuera intersection. The plan shall show the existing right-of-way, existing offers of dedication, and any additional or amended pedestrian and/or street easements. Any easements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance if applicable. Building Division – Community Development Department Code Requirement(s) 26. Demolition Permit required for building removals. ARC1 - 18 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 11 27. Wall and opening protection of buildings on the same lot shall comply with CBC 705.3. 28. Accessibility to public buildings and public accommodations shall comply with CBC 11B, including but not limited accessible routes, doors/gates, trash facilities, outdoor facilities, play areas, etc. 29. Farm House, Building 1, change of use from single family residence to restaurant shall comply with CBC Chapter 34, Existing Structures. 30. Concession Stand/Outdoor Bar, Building 4, egress and accessibility shall comply with CBC Chapter 10 and 11B 31. Building 5, egress and accessibility shall comply with CBC Chapter 10 and 11B. 32. Apartment buildings with three or more dwelling units, Building 6, shall be accessible to persons with disabilities conforming to CBC 1102A.1. Dwelling units within a single structure separated by fire assemblies do not constitute separate buildings. 33. Mezzanine within Building 7 shall comply with CBC 505. 34. Building 7 Upper Floor Dining Deck exit doors shall comply with CBC 1008.1.2. 35. Number of exit doors at Building 7 800 square feet Upper Floor Dining Deck shall comply with CBC 1008.1.2. 36. Polygal light-transmitting plastic roof panels at Building 7 shall comply with CBC 705A, 1505 and 2609. 37. Number of exits at Building 8 1000 square feet Mezzanine Level Dining Deck shall comply with CBC 1008.1.2. 38. Provide a Means of Egress Analysis for and Outdoor Activity Area complying with CBC Chapter 10. 39. Occupancy Classification for assembly uses intended for participation in or viewing of outdoor activities, including Open Plaza Farmers Market, shall be classified as Assembly Group A-5. CBC 303.6 40. Vintage Truck Stage/Platform shall comply with CBC 410 and 11B. 41. Each building and outdoor activity shall comply with CPC Occupant Load Factor Table A and Minimum Plumbing Facilities Table 422.1 42. Walkways paving materials shall comply with CBC 11B-302 and 11B-403. 43. Doors, doorways, gates and gateways shall comply with CBC 11B-404. ARC1 - 19 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 12 44. Remove or adjust existing Property Line beneath proposed buildings prior to Building Permit issuance. Transportation Division - Public Works Department Condition(s) 45. Prior to occupancy modify the Tribune driveway at Higuera Street with a median island and modifications to the driveway corners to restrict left turn movements at that location to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 46. Prior to occupancy design, install, and activate a traffic signal and appurtenances to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department at the intersection of Tank Farm & Long St. 47. Prior to occupancy prepare a preliminary roundabout design for the intersection of Tank Farm & Long to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and make an offer of dedication adequate for accommodating a future roundabout. 48. Prior to occupancy prepare a trip reduction plan to the satisfaction of the Active Transportation Manager. After occupancy implement approved trip reduction plan in perpetuity. Contact the City’s Active Transportation Manager, Adam Fukushima at AFukushima@slocity.org to develop the trip reduction plan. 49. Motorcycle parking shall be provided at 1 space per 20 required motor vehicle spaces (12 spaces). Utilities Department Condition(s) 50. The site is within the City’s Water Reuse Master Plan area and landscape irrigation for the project, including irrigation of the landscape median on Tank Farm Road, shall utilize recycled water with a separate metered water service. The irrigation system shall be designed and operated as described consistent with recycled water standards in the City’s Procedures for Recycled Water Use, including the requirement that sites utilizing recycled water require backflow protection on all potable service connections. Three sets of irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Building Department for review during the City’s building permit review process. The applicant may contact the City’s Utilities Project Manager at 781-7239 for more information. 51. As commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided. These facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer. 52. Implementation of the recycled water line extension plan (on Tank Farm Road from South Higuera Street to Long Street) shall be included as a part of public improvement plans for the project, and approved by Utilities, Public Works and the City Engineer. Th e required recycled water main line extension shall be completed and operational to the ARC1 - 20 Resolution No. XXXX-16 Attachment 1 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm Road/3897 S. Higuera Street) Page 13 satisfaction of the Utilities Director for landscape irrigation of the medians on Tank Farm Road. 53. Any existing sewer lateral serving the property that are not proposed/approved for reuse shall be abandoned at the City main consistent with City standards. 54. Trees will not be allowed within the City’s sewer easement. On motion by _____________, seconded by _________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of July, 2016. _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Architectural Review Commission ARC1 - 21 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 22 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 23 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 24 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 25 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 26 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 27 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 28 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 29 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 30 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 31 AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 0- 8 OV E R A L L P R O J E C T V I E W Attachment 2 ARC1 - 32 AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 0- 9 VI E W F R O M T A N K F A R M A N D S O U T H H I G U E R A Attachment 2 ARC1 - 33 AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 0- 1 0 BU I L D I N G 7 BU I L D I N G 2 TH E T R I B U N E NO T A P A R T CO N T E X T P E R S P E C T I V E 1 : S O U T H B O U N D O N S O U T H H I G U E R A Attachment 2 ARC1 - 34 AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 0- 1 1 TR A C T O R SU P P L Y BU I L D I N G E NO T A P A R T BU I L D I N G 8 CO N T E X T P E R S P E C T I V E 2 : W E S T B O U N D O N S O U T H H I G U E R A Attachment 2 ARC1 - 35 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 36 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 37 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 38 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 39 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 40 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 41 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 42 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 43 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 44 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 45 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 46 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 47 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 48 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 49 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 50 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 51 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 52 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 53 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 54 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 55 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 56 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 57 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 58 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 59 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 60 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 61 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 62 Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 5- 1 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P WI N E A N D C H E E S E S H O P V I E W F R O M T H E P L A Z A Th e C a l i f o r n i a C e n t r a l C o a s t h a s q u i c k l y b e c o m e o n e o f t h e mo r e r e n o w n e d w i n e r e g i o n s i n t h e w o r l d , a n d w i t h g o o d re a s o n . S a n L u i s O b i s p o c o u n t y b o a s t s o v e r 2 0 0 w i n e r i e s of f e r i n g u p a v a r i e t y o f s t y l e s a n d e x p e r i e n c e s s u i t a b l e f o r t h e en t h u s i a s t a n d c a s u a l d r i n k e r a l i k e . M u c h o f t h e l o c a l f o o d a n d dr i n k c u l t u r e i s r o o t e d i n t h e e x c e p t i o n a l w i n e s p r o d u c e d r i g h t he r e i n S L O c o u n t y . Th e S L O W i n e a n d C h e e s e S h o p s e r v e s a s a f o r a y i n t o t h e vi b r a n t l o c a l f o o d a n d w i n e c u l t u r e . P a t r o n s a r e i n v i t e d t o sa m p l e a n d e n j o y t a s t i n g s o f v a r i o u s w i n e s , c h e e s e s , a n d ar t i s a n p a i r i n g s i n a s e t t i n g t h a t i s t r u l y “ S a n L u i s O b i s p o . ” Lo c a t e d o n t h e S o u t h p o r t i o n o f t h e p l a z a , t h e W i n e a n d Ch e e s e S h o p t a k e s a d v a n t a g e o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l l a n d m a r k s i t ne i g h b o r s . L a r g e g l a z e d o v e r h e a d d o o r s o p e n t h e s h o p u p t o th e p l a z a a n d a n o u t d o o r s e a t i n g a r e a t h a t i s u n i q u e l y s i t u a t e d un d e r t h e e x i s t i n g w a t e r t o w e r . F r o m w i t h i n t h e s h o p , a f u l l he i g h t m i t e r e d w i n d o w l o o k s o u t t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l w i n d m i l l a s we l l a s t h e B o n e t t i R a n c h s i g n . Ar c h i t e c t u r a l l y , t h e W i n e a n d C h e e s e S h o p h a s m a n y o f t h e sa m e c o n t e m p o r a r y a g r a r i a n f e a t u r e s a s t h e P u b l i c M a r k e t ; ve r t i c a l c o r t e n s i d i n g , c o r r u g a t e d m e t a l , r e c l a i m e d b a r n w o o d , an d e x p o s e d s t e e l s t r u c t u r e . L a r g e w i n d o w s a n d d o o r s pr o m o t e t h e i n d o o r / o u t d o o r f e e l a n d e n c o u r a g e t h e p a t r o n s to s l o w d o w n , r e l a x , a n d e n j o y s o m e o f t h e b e s t w i n e a r o u n d . PR O J E C T I N T R O D U C T I O N SC H E M A T I C P E R S P E C T I V E KE Y P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 63 Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 5- 2 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P N 53 9 s q f t 60 9 s q f t 5 7 ' - 2 " 37 ' - 9 " 30 6 s q f t 1, 4 9 8 s q f t CA S H I E R BU I L D I N G 5 BA R PR E P KI T C H E N BO O T H WI N E & CH E E S E SA L E S SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N SE R V I C E PR E P K I T C H E N - 3 0 6 s . f . RE T A I L WI N E & C H E E S E S A L E S - 6 0 9 s . f . BA R - 5 3 9 s . f . PR O J E C T S T A T I S T I C S TO T A L S Q U A R E F O O T A G E + CI R C U L A T I O N - 1 , 4 9 8 S . F . SC A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " MA I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 64 Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 5- 3 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P 24 ' - 0 " RI D G E 18 ' - 8 " RI D G E 13 ' - 8 " CA N O P Y 24 ' - 0 " RI D G E 28 ' - 2 " CU P O L A 13 ' - 8 " CA N O P Y 24 ' - 0 " RI D G E 18 ' - 8 " RI D G E 13 ' - 8 " CA N O P Y 24 ' - 0 " RI D G E CU P O L A 28 ' - 2 " 15 ' - 3 " CA N O P Y EA S T E L E V A T I O N NO R T H E L E V A T I O N SO U T H E L E V A T I O N WE S T E L E V A T I O N SC H E M A T I C E L E V A T I O N S SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L SI D I N G ( H O R Z B O X ) ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L SI D I N G ( HO R Z B O X ) RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L SI D I N G ( HO R Z B O X ) VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F Attachment 2 ARC1 - 65 Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 5- 4 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P NO T T O S C A L E WI N E A N D C H E E S E S H O P CO L O R S A N D M A T E R I A L S M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L R : ME T A L R O O F AE P S P A N OL D T O W N G R E Y W 2 : FA S C I A BE N J A M I N M O O R E OX F O R D B R O W N M 2 : ME T A L S I D I N G AE P S P A N CO O L M E T A L L I C S I L V E R M 3 : ME T A L S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X W 2 : VE R T I C A L W O O D - BO D Y RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D P 1 : CO R R U G A T E D P L A S T I C PO L Y G A L T R A N S L U C E N T P A N E L Attachment 2 ARC1 - 66 Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 5- 5 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P I B E A M R A F T E R T A I L S NO T T O S C A L E AR C H I T E C T U R A L D E T A I L S WI N E A N D C H E E S E E N T R Y CU P O L A CA N O P Y W 2 : FA S C I A BE N J A M I N M O O R E OX F O R D B R O W N M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L M 3 : EX P O S E D W I D E FL A N G E S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L OV E R H E A D D O O R BL A C K A N O D I Z E D AL U M I N U M F R A M E TR A N S P A R E N T G L A S S P A N E L S R : ME T A L R O O F AE P S P A N OL D T O W N G R E Y W 2 : VE R T I C A L W O O D - BO D Y RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D R : ME T A L R O O F AE P S P A N OL D T O W N G R E Y M 2 : ME T A L S I D I N G AE P S P A N CO O L M E T A L L I C S I L V E R M 2 : ME T A L S I D I N G AE P S P A N CO O L M E T A L L I C S I L V E R M 3 : EX P O S E D W I D E FL A N G E S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X P 1 : CO R R U G A T E D P L A S T I C PO L Y G A L T R A N S L U C E N T P A N E L Attachment 2 ARC1 - 67 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 6- 1 SC H E M A T I C P E R S P E C T I V E BU I L D I N G 6 - N E W S H O P S PE R S P E C T I V E V I E W A T B U I L D I N G 6 E N T R Y HO R I Z O N T A L L A P S I D I N G AS P H A L T S H I N G L E R O O F VE R T I A L B O A R D A N D BA T T E N S I D I N G ST A I N E D W O O D T R I M & E L E M E N T S BU I L D I N G N A R R A T I V E Re m i n i s c e n t o f t h e o l d d a y s , t h e m i x e d u s e B u i l d i n g # 6 re - e s t a b l i s h e s r e s i d e n t i a l u s e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y p r o v i d i n g fo u r , 2 b e d r o o m l i v i n g u n i t s . I n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e ad j a c e n t B r e w e r y , t h e r e t a i l b u s i n e s s e s o n t h e g r o u n d ﬂ oo r of B u i l d i n g 6 a r e e x p e c t e d t o b e a k e y d r a w i n t h e v i l l a g e th a t w i l l b e a m a g n e t f o r a g r i t o u r i s m i n S a n L u i s O b i s p o . Th e d e s i g n b r i n g s t r a d i t i o n a l f a r m b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s t o a co n t e m p o r a r y ﬂ av o r e d b u i l d i n g f e a t u r i n g v e r t i c a l b o a r d an d b a t t e n s i d i n g o f p a i n t e d ﬁ be r c e m e n t b o a r d . T h e up p e r r o o f w i l l b e c o m p o s i t i o n s h i n g l e m a t e r i a l w h i l e t h e vi s i b l e l o w e r r o o f s w i l l b e c o r r u g a t e d m e t a l o v e r t i m b e r t h a t pl a y o u t t h e s t o r y o f h i s t o r i c a g r i c u l t u r a l m a t e r i a l s . SI T E P L A N BL D G 6 CO R R U G A T E D ME T A L R O O F CO R R U G A T E D ME T A L S I D I N G Attachment 2 ARC1 - 68 11 X 1 7 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ - 0 ” 24 X 3 6 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 8 ’ - 0 ” 0 8 1 6 3 2 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 6- 2 SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N BU I L D I N G 6 - N E W S H O P S SE C O N D F L O O R - U N I T P L A N WO R K A R E A (4 7 0 S F , 4 0 % ) WO R K A R E A (4 7 0 S F , 4 0 % ) LI V E A R E A (7 0 4 S F , 6 0 % ) LI V E A R E A (7 0 4 S F , 6 0 % ) LI V E A R E A (6 5 5 S F , 5 6 % ) LI V E A R E A (6 5 5 S F , 5 6 % ) WO R K A R E A (5 2 4 S F , 4 4 % ) WO R K A R E A (5 2 4 S F , 4 4 % ) GR O U N D F L O O R - R E T A I L S H E L L P L A N GR O U N D F L O O R C O M M E R C I A L ( 4 ) U N I T S @ 1 , 2 5 2 S F T O T A L 5 , 0 0 8 S F SE C O N D F L O O R L I V E / W O R K U N I T 1 1 , 1 7 4 S F U N I T 2 1 , 1 7 4 S F U N I T 3 1 , 1 7 9 S F U N I T 4 1 , 1 7 9 S F T O T A L 4 , 7 0 6 S F BU I L D I N G T O T A L 9 , 7 1 4 S F F. S . RI S E R RO O M EL E V . ST A I R 77 ' - 0 " 7 2 ' - 0 " BE D 2 M. B E D KI T C H E N BA T H 2 W. I . C . M. B A T H DE C K KI T C H E N BA T H 2 W. I . C . M. B E D BE D 2 M. B A T H M. B A T H DE C K M. B E D W. I . C . BE D 2 M. B E D BE D 2 W. I . C . M. B A T H DE C K BA T H 2 BA T H 2 KI T C H E N KI T C H E N DE C K CO R R I D O R EL E V . ST A I R 77 ' - 0 " 7 2 ' - 0 " HE N BA T H 2 B W. I . C . ..C C . W.W EN BA T H 2 B W. I . C . W . W W C C . W W WO RK A R E A (52 4 S F , 4 4 %) WO RK A R E A (47 0 S F , 4 0 %) WO RK A R E A (52 4 S F , 4 4 % ) WO RK A R E A (47 0 S F , 4 0 % ) BA T H 2 H 2 KI BA T H 2 B B H KI T Attachment 2 ARC1 - 69 11 X 1 7 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ - 0 ” 24 X 3 6 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 8 ’ - 0 ” 0 8 1 6 3 2 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 0 8 1 6 3 2 6- 3 SC H E M A T I C E L E V A T I O N S BU I L D I N G 6 - N E W S H O P S SO U T H / N O R T H E L E V A T I O N EA S T E L E V A T I O N ( W E S T E L E V A T I O N s i m . ) +3 5 ’ - 0 ” +3 5 ’ - 0 ” +3 9 ’ - 0 ” Attachment 2 ARC1 - 70 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 6- 4 CO L O R & M A T E R I A L S B O A R D BU I L D I N G 6 - N E W S H O P S PE R S P E C T I V E V I E W A T B U I L D I N G 6 E N T R Y CO M P O S I T I O N S H I N G L E R O O F GA F T i m b e r l i n e i n B a r k w o o d PA I N T E D V E R T I C A L B O A R D A N D B A T T E N FI B E R C E M E N T S I D I N G Ke l l y M o o r e KM 4 8 6 7 S o u l Q u e n c h i n g PA I N T E D W I N D O W S U R R O U N D T R I M FI B E R C E M E N T B O A R D Ke l l y M o o r e KM 5 3 8 0 T o f f e e C r u n c h CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L S I D I N G & LO W E R R O O F C A N O P I E S We s t e r n S t a t e s M e t a l Bo n d e r i z e d F i n i s h PA I N T E D F I B E R C E M E N T HO R I Z O N T A L L A P S I D I N G Ke l l y M o o r e KM 4 8 9 3 M i s c h i e f M o u s e ST O R E F R O N T D O O R S A N D W I N D O W S Ka w n e e r A n o d i z e d A l u m i n u m Da r k B r o n z e N o . 4 0 WO O D T R I M , R A F T E R S , F A S C I A , P O S T S , R A I L I N G S Sh e r w i n W i l l i a m s W o o d s c a p e S e m i - T r a n s p a r e n t S t a i n SW 3 5 1 2 C i d e r M i l l Attachment 2 ARC1 - 71 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 6- 5 AR C H I T E C T U R A L D E T A I L S BU I L D I N G 6 - N E W S H O P S Su s p e n d e d S i g n s Wo o d B r a c e s Wo o d B r a c e s Al u m i n u m W i n d o w s Fi b e r C e m e n t S i d i n g Ra i l i n g - W o o d P o s t s Al u m i n u m S t o r e f r o n t St e e l S t r a p s a t W o o d Co n n e c t i o n s We l d e d W i r e F a b r i c - 4 ” x 4 ” Go o s e n e c k L a m p w i t h G u a r d Co r r u g a t e d M e t a l S i d i n g Co r r u g a t e d M e t a l C a n o p y Co r r u g a t e d M e t a l A w n i n g s Fi b e r C e m e n t W i n d o w T r i m Ra i l i n g - W o o d T o p a n d B o t t o m R a i l Attachment 2 ARC1 - 72 7- 1 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 PE R S P E C T I V E V I E W O F E N T R Y F R O M P A R K I N G L O T Th e S L O P u b l i c M a r k e t a t B o n e t t i R a n c h i s t h e d e s t i n a t i o n f o o d an d en t e r t a i n m e n t v e n u e o f t h e C e n t r a l C o a s t . A p l a c e w h e r e e v e r y d a y sh o p p e r s , f o o d i e s , a n d t o u r i s t s c a n f i n d a v a r i e t y o f c a r e f u l l y c u r a t e d pu r v e y o r s , r e s t a u r a n t s a n d p r o d u c e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e a b u n d a n c e o f SL O c o u n t y ’ s f o o d c u l t u r e . Th e b u i l d i n g i t s e l f h a r k s b a c k t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l l a n d m a r k s t h a t e x i s t o n t h e pr o p e r t y , w h i l e o f f e r i n g a c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d r e f r e s h i n g a r c h i t e c tu r a l vo c a b u l a r y ; a s t y l e w e c a l l “ c o n t e m p o r a r y a g r a r i a n . ” A s v i e w e d f r o m So u t h H i g u e r a S t r e e t , t h e b u i l d i n g ’ s f o r m i s r e m i n i s c e n t o f a c la s s i c b a r n . La r g e s t o r e f r o n t w i n d o w s a n d d o o r s t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e m o d e r a te cl i m a t e a n d a m p l e n a t u r a l d a y l i g h t . E x p o s e d s t e e l s t r u c t u r e , co r r u g a t e d m e t a l s i d i n g , r e c l a i m e d b a r n w o o d a n d v e r t i c a l c o r r u ga t e d co r t e n s t e e l o f f e r a r i c h a n d v a r i e d m a t e r i a l s p a l l e t . Lo a d i n g a n d s e r v i c e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e l y l o c a t e d o n t h e N o r t h s i d e o f t h e bu i l d i n g . T h i s lo c a t i o n a l l o w s t h e v e n d o r s e a s y a c c e s s t o t h e Pu b l i c Ma r k e t h a l l , a s w e l l a s t h e s u b t e r r a n e a n s t o r a g e a r e a . Fr o m t h e p a r k i n g l o t , p a t r o n s a r e g r e e t e d b y l a r g e w i n d o w s a n d do o r s in t o t h e m a r k e t h a l l . T h e c i r c u l a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d a n d o p t i m i z ed s o t h a t pa t r o n s f l o w t h r o u g h t h e b u i l d i n g g i v i n g e q u a l e x p o s u r e t o a l l ve n d o r s . Ve n d o r s t a l l s v a r y i n s i z e a n d f u n c t i o n a n d w e h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h e lo c a t i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c v e n d o r s . Be c a u s e o f S L O ’ s e x c e l l e n t c l i m a t e , t h e i n t e r i o r o f t h e m a r k e t i s c l o s e l y in t e g r a t e d w i t h t h e e x t e r i o r p l a z a . L a r g e g l a z e d o p e n i n g s a n d g la z e d ov e r h e a d d o o r s o p e n u p t o t h i s p l a z a , a l l o w i n g t h e a c t i v i t y o v e rl a p . A s vi e w e d f r o m t h e p l a z a , t h e m a r k e t h a l l p r o v i d e s m u l t i p l e l o c a t i on s f o r pu b l i c i n t e r a c t i o n . S e c o n d s t o r y d e c k s a r e c o v e r e d b y t r a n s l u c en t po l y g a l s h a d i n g s t r u c t u r e s . T h e s e e l e m e n t s t r a n s f o r m t h e p l a z a f r o m si m p l e c i r c u l a t i o n s p a c e i n t o t h e “ p l a c e t o b e ” o n s i t e . PR O J E C T I N T R O D U C T I O N SC H E M A T I C P E R S P E C T I V E KE Y P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 73 7- 2 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 MA R K E T H A L L E N T R Y F R O M P A R K I N G L O T SC H E M A T I C P E R S P E C T I V E KE Y P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 74 7- 3 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 SC H E M A T I C P E R S P E C T I V E MA R K E T H A L L F R O M T H E P L A Z A KE Y P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 75 7- 4 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 10 2 1 7 x 7 1 / 1 6 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617 16 4 '- 10 1/ 2 " 9 0 ' - 8 " 44 0 s q f t 57 7 s q ft 47 6 s q ft 39 0 s q ft 38 9 s q ft 45 7 s q ft 27 5 s q ft 36 2 s q f t 39 0 s q ft 34 4 s q ft 48 0 s q ft 28 5 s q ft 26 8 s q f t 42 9 s q ft 43 4 s q ft 61 2 s q ft 29 2 s q f t 30 6 s q f t 30 1 s q f t MO P S I N K ST A L L 1 ST A L L 2 ST A L L 3 ST A L L 16 ST A L L 8 ST A L L 14 ST A L L 10 ST A L L 15 ST A L L 6 ST A L L 7 ST A L L 17 ST A L L 11 ST A L L 4 ST A L L 5 EL E V .EL E V . EQ U I P M E N T ST A L L 13 ST A L L 18 ST A L L 19 ST A L L 12 ST A L L 9 ME C H A N I C A L /UT I L I T Y CA R T S T O R A G E 10 2 BA S E M E N T /ST O R A G E N SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N BA S E M E N T F L O O R P L A N ST O R A G E ST A L L 1 - 4 4 0 s . f . ST A L L 2 - 5 7 7 s . f . ST A L L 3 - 4 7 6 s . f . ST A L L 4 - 3 0 1 s . f . ST A L L 5 - 3 4 4 s . f . ST A L L 6 - 3 9 0 s . f . ST A L L 7 - 3 8 9 s . f . ST A L L 8 - 4 5 7 s . f . ST A L L 9 - 2 7 5 s . f . ST A L L 1 0 - 3 6 2 s . f . ST A L L 1 1 - 3 0 6 s . f . ST A L L 1 2 - 3 9 0 s . f . ST A L L 1 3 - 2 6 8 s . f . ST A L L 1 4 - 4 3 4 s . f . ST A L L 1 5 - 4 2 9 s . f . ST A L L 1 6 - 6 1 2 s . f . ST A L L 1 7 - 4 8 0 s . f . ST A L L 1 8 - 2 9 2 s . f . ST A L L 1 9 - 2 8 5 s . f . TO T A L S Q U A R E F O O T A G E +C I R C U L A T I O N - 11 , 9 1 0 S . F . PR O J E C T S T A T I S T I C S SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 76 7- 5 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 2 5 x 7 " = 1 4 ' - 8 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141516171819202122232425 2 4 x 7 " = 1 4 ' - 0 " 1234567891011 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1234 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 9 0 ' - 8 " 16 4 ' - 1 1 " 35 0 s q ft 85 6 s q ft 31 1 s q ft 23 2 s q f t 29 2 s q ft 29 4 s q f t 29 2 s q f t 29 0 s q f t 24 6 s q f t 28 9 s q f t 34 2 s q f t 35 5 s q f t 19 7 s q f t 92 s q f t 33 0 s q ft 29 4 s q f t 33 5 s q ft SL I D I N G G A T E IN F O ST A L L 6 ST A L L 7 ST A L L 8 ST A L L 9 ST A L L 10 ST A L L 11 ST A L L 12 ST A L L 1 ST A L L 4 ST A L L 5 ST A L L 2 ST A L L 3 ST A L L 13 ST A L L 14 ST A L L 15 ST A L L 16 ST A L L 17 ME N 'S WO M E N 'S EN T R Y SE R V I C E EL E V . SE R V I C E EN T R Y /EX I T JA N I T O R 1 EN T R Y EN T R Y JA N I T O R 2 N SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " SE R V I C E JA N I T O R 1 - 1 1 2 s . f . JA N I T O R 2 - 6 7 s . f . IN F O - 1 1 2 s . f . VE N D O R S ST A L L 1 - 3 3 5 s . f . ST A L L 2 - 3 3 0 s . f . ST A L L 3 - 1 9 7 s . f . ST A L L 4 - 2 3 2 s . f . ST A L L 5 - 9 2 s . f . ST A L L 6 - 3 1 1 s . f . ST A L L 7 - 2 9 2 s . f . ST A L L 8 - 2 9 4 s . f . ST A L L 9 - 2 9 4 s . f . ST A L L 1 0 - 2 9 2 s . f . ST A L L 1 1 - 2 9 0 s . f . ST A L L 1 2 - 2 4 6 s . f . ST A L L 1 3 - 2 8 9 s . f . ST A L L 1 4 - 3 5 0 s . f . ST A L L 1 5 - 8 1 5 s . f . ST A L L 1 6 - 3 4 2 s . f . ST A L L 1 7 - 3 5 5 s . f . PR O J E C T S T A T I S T I C S TO T A L S Q U A R E F O O T A G E + CI R C U L A T I O N - 11 , 6 5 7 S . F . MA I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 77 7- 6 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 2 5 x 7 " = 1 4 ' - 8 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141516171819202122232425 2 4 x 7 " = 1 4 ' - 0 " 1234567891011 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 4 ' - 1 1 " 6 6 ' - 8 " 50 8 s q ft 81 9 s q f t 45 0 s q ft 18 9 sq f t 49 3 s q ft 26 3 s q f t 48 8 s q ft DE C K DE C K 61 8 s q ft ST A L L 18 PR I V A T E DI N I N G R O O M ST A L L 20 EL E V . SE R V I C E EL E V . DE M O K I T C H E N / PO P UP R E S T A U R A N T ST A L L 21 ST A L L 19 OP E N T O BE L O W SE C O N D F L O O R MA R K E T H A L L ME C H ./ ST O R A G E ME C H ./ ST O R A G E N SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N VE N D O R S ST A L L 1 8 - 4 9 3 s . f . ST A L L 1 9 - 4 8 8 s . f . ST A L L 2 0 - 1 8 9 s . f . ST A L L 2 1 - 2 6 3 s . f . PR I V A T E D I N I N G - 5 0 8 s . f . DE M O K I T C H E N - 6 1 8 s . f . SE A T I N G DE C K # 1 - 8 1 9 s . f . DE C K # 2 - 4 5 0 s . f . TO T A L S Q U A R E F O O T A G E + CI R C U L A T I O N - 6, 9 1 6 s . f . PR O J E C T S T A T I S T I C S SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 78 7- 7 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 35 ' - 0 " RI D G E 35 ' - 0 " RI D G E 28 ' - 2 " RI D G E 28 ' - 2 " RI D G E 15 ' - 0 " F. F . 15 ' - 0 " F. F . 0' - 0 " F. F . 0' - 0 " F. F . SC H E M A T I C E L E V A T I O N S NO R T H E L E V A T I O N SO U T H E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " PO L Y G A L S H A D I N G ST R U C T U R E VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F CO R R U G A T E D ME T A L S I D I N G (H O R Z B O X ) RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E VE R T I C A L CO R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D PO L Y G A L S H A D I N G ST R U C T U R E CO R R U G A T E D ME T A L S I D I N G (H O R Z B O X ) GR E E N W A L L IN S T A L L A T I O N S SE R V I C E EN T R Y / E X I T TR A S H E N C L O S U R E Attachment 2 ARC1 - 79 7- 8 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L AU G U S T 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 35 ' - 0 " RI D G E 35 ' - 0 " RI D G E 28 ' - 2 " RI D G E 28 ' - 2 " RI D G E 15 ' - 0 " F. F . 15 ' - 0 " F. F . 0' - 0 " F. F . 0' - 0 " F. F . SC H E M A T I C E L E V A T I O N S WE S T E L E V A T I O N EA S T E L E V A T I O N SC A L E : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " PO L Y G A L S H A D E ST R U C T U R E CO R R U G A T E D ME T A L S I D I N G (H O R Z B O X ) RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D OR R E C L A I M E D BA R N W O O D PO L Y G A L S H A D E ST R U C T U R E EX P O S E D S T E E L ST R U C T U R E VE R T I C A L C O R R U G A T E D CO R T E N S I D I N G CO R R U G A T E D ME T A L S I D I N G (H O R Z B O X ) Attachment 2 ARC1 - 80 7- 9 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 MA R K E T H A L L E N T R Y F R O M P A R K I N G L O T NO T T O S C A L E CO L O R S A N D M A T E R I A L S M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L R : ME T A L R O O F AE P S P A N OL D T O W N G R E Y W 2 : FA S C I A BE N J A M I N M O O R E OX F O R D B R O W N M 2 : ME T A L S I D I N G AE P S P A N CO O L M E T A L L I C S I L V E R M 3 : ME T A L S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X W 2 : VE R T I C A L W O O D - BO D Y RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D P 1 : CO R R U G A T E D P L A S T I C PO L Y G A L T R A N S L U C E N T P A N E L Attachment 2 ARC1 - 81 7- 1 0 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 AW N I N G A B O V E M A R K E T H A L L E N T R I E S NO T T O S C A L E AR C H I T E C T U R A L D E T A I L S MA R K E T H A L L E N T R Y S T O R E F R O N T I B E A M R A F T E R T A I L RA F T E R T A I L M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L M 3 : EX P O S E D W I D E FL A N G E S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X P 1 : CO R R U G A T E D P L A S T I C PO L Y G A L T R A N S L U C E N T P A N E L M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L M 3 : EX P O S E D W I D E FL A N G E S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L M 3 : EX P O S E D W I D E FL A N G E S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L ST O R E F R O N T BL A C K A N O D I Z E D AL U M I N U M F R A M E TR A N S P A R E N T G L A S S W 2 : FA S C I A BE N J A M I N M O O R E OX F O R D B R O W N W 2 : KI C K E R BE N J A M I N M O O R E OX F O R D B R O W N Attachment 2 ARC1 - 82 7- 1 1 BU I L D I N G 7 - M A R K E T H A L L Au g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 1 5 SE C O N D F L O O R D E C K R A I L I N G NO T T O S C A L E AR C H I T E C T U R A L D E T A I L S GR E E N W A L L SE R V I C E E N T R Y G A T E CL E A R S T O R Y W I N D O W S M 3 : ME T A L S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X DE C K R A I L I N G WE L D E D W I R E F A B R I C 4 " x 4 " GR E E N W A L L 5' x 1 0 ' P A N E L S M 3 : EX P O S E D W I D E FL A N G E S T R U C T U R E BE N J A M I N M O O R E ON Y X WO O D G A T E HO R I Z O N T A L R E C L A I M E D BA R N W O O D P L A N K S WI N D O W S BL A C K A N O D I Z E D AL U M I N U M F R A M E TR A N S P A R E N T G L A S S M 2 : ME T A L S I D I N G AE P S P A N CO O L M E T A L L I C S I L V E R M 2 : ME T A L S I D I N G AE P S P A N CO O L M E T A L L I C S I L V E R M 1 : VE R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G CO R T E N WE S T E R N R I B - B A R E S T E E L W 2 : VE R T I C A L W O O D - BO D Y RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D W 2 : VE R T I C A L W O O D - BO D Y RE P L I C A B A R N W O O D O R RE C L A I M E D B A R N W O O D Attachment 2 ARC1 - 83 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 8- 1 PE R S P E C T I V E V I E W A T B U I L D I N G 8 E N T R Y BU I L D I N G N A R R A T I V E Bu i l d i n g 8 i s d e s i g n e d f o r a f a m i l y o w n e d b r e w e r y , r e v i t a l - iz i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s o n t h e r a n c h w h e r e ba r l e y a n d w h e a t o n c e g r e w a n d w h e r e t h e B o n e t t i f a m - il y s t o r e d w i n e i n t h e c e l l a r o f t h e h i s t o r i c h o m e . R e c a l l i n g ty p i c a l f a r m b u i l d i n g s , t h e B r e w e r y w i l l b e c l a d i n p a i n t e d ﬁ be r c e m e n t b o a r d , i n a b o a r d a n d b a t t e n p a t t e r n a n d ca p p e d w i t h a s t a n d i n g m e t a l s e a m r o o f . Gi v i n g n e w l i f e t o t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m s , t h e b u i l d i n g t a k e s c u e s fr o m t h e h i s t o r i c c o r e b u i l d i n g s a l o n g S o u t h H i g u e r a S t r e e t as e x p r e s s e d i n t h e w i n d o w s , e x p o s e d r a f t e r s a n d g o o s e - ne c k l a m p p o s t s . T h e e a s y t r a n s i t i o n f r o m i n d o o r t o b r o a d ou t d o o r s p a c e s n o t o n l y g r o u n d s t h e b u i l d i n g o n t h e s i t e bu t t a k e s f u l l a d v a n t a g e o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o ’ s c l i m a t e f o r di n i n g a n d l e i s u r e . CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L VE R T I C A L B O A R D AN D B A T T E N S I D I N G ST A N D I N G S E A M ME T A L R O O F WE L D E D W I R E ME S H R A I L I N G BL D G 8 SI T E P L A N SC H E M A T I C P E R S P E C T I V E BU I L D I N G 8 - B R E W E R Y Attachment 2 ARC1 - 84 11 X 1 7 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ - 0 ” 24 X 3 6 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 8 ’ - 0 ” 0 8 1 6 3 2 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 8- 2 BR E W E R Y P L A N BR E W E R Y M E Z Z A N I N E P L A N BR E W E R Y 1 , 2 5 7 S F DI N I N G D I N I N G R O O M / B A R 1 , 8 3 0 S F M E Z Z A N I N E D I N I N G 1 , 1 3 5 S F I N D O O R D I N I N G 2 , 9 9 0 S F OU T D O O R D I N I N G 7 2 9 S F BA C K O F H O U S E 1 , 5 1 0 S F TO T A L B U I L D I N G 5 , 7 5 7 S F UP ME N ' S WO M E N ' S VE S T . DI N I N G / B A R WA I T AR E A EN T R Y BR E W HO U S E OF F I C E MI L L PR E P & DI S H . KI T . SE R V . HA L L W A Y BR E W E R ' S OF F I C E CO L D ST O R . F. S . RI S E R RO O M CO L D ST O R . 6 9 ' - 0 " 90 ' - 6 " PA T I O UP ME Z Z . DI N I N G OP E N TO BE L O W 5 7 ' - 0 " 70 ' - 0 " OP E N TO BE L O W SC H E M A T I C F L O O R P L A N BU I L D I N G 8 - B R E W E R Y ME Z Z A N I N E A R E A C A L C U L A T I O N AR E A O P E N T O M E Z Z A N I N E : 3 4 1 2 S F MA X . A L L O W A B L E M E Z Z A N I N E A R E A : 3 4 1 2 S F / 3 = 1 1 3 8 S F PR O P O S E D M E Z Z A N I N E A R E A : 1 1 3 2 S F Attachment 2 ARC1 - 85 11 X 1 7 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 1 6 ’ - 0 ” 24 X 3 6 S H E E T S C A L E : 1 ” = 8 ’ - 0 ” 0 8 1 6 3 2 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 WE S T E L E V A T I O N EA S T E L E V A T I O N SO U T H E L E V A T I O N NO R T H E L E V A T I O N 8- 3 SC H E M A T I C E L E V A T I O N S BU I L D I N G 8 - B R E W E R Y +2 8 ’ - 0 ” +2 8 ’ - 0 ” +3 4 ’ - 0 ” FI X E D A L U M I N U M CL E R E S T O R Y W I N D O W S FI X E D A L U M I N U M WI N D O W S FI X E D A L U M I N U M WI N D O W S FI X E D A L U M I N U M WI N D O W S FI X E D A L U M I N U M ST O R E F R O N T AL U M I N U M S T O R E F R O N T SY S T E M AL U M I N U M S T O R E F R O N T SY S T E M BR E W E R Y T A N K S ( N O T S H O W N , IN F R O N T O F W I N D O W ) +3 4 ’ - 0 ” Attachment 2 ARC1 - 86 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 8- 4 CO L O R & M A T E R I A L S B O A R D BU I L D I N G 8 - B R E W E R Y PE R S P E C T I V E V I E W A T B U I L D I N G 8 E N T R Y CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L S I D I N G We s t e r n S t a t e s M e t a l An t i q u e R u s t i c F i n i s h PA I N T E D V E R T I C A L B O A R D A N D B A T T E N FI B E R C E M E N T S I D I N G Ke l l y M o o r e KM 4 4 2 0 D e e r T r a c k s PA I N T E D F I B E R C E M E N T S I D I N G A C C E N T Ke l l y M o o r e KM 5 7 0 1 R o a s t e d C o c o n u t ST A I N E D W O O D T R I M , R A F T E R S , F A S C I A , P O S T S , RA I L I N G S Sh e r w i n W i l l i a m s W o o d s c a p e s S e m i - T r a n s p a r e n t S t a i n SW 3 5 0 4 W o o d r i d g e ST O R E F R O N T D O O R S A N D W I N D O W S Ka w n e e r A n o d i z e d A l u m i n u m Me d i u m B r o n z e N o . 2 8 ST A N D I N G S E A M M E T A L R O O F We s t e r n S t a t e s M e t a l Bo n d e r i z e d F i n i s h CO R R U G A T E D M E T A L R O O F OV E R P A T I O We s t e r n S t a t e s M e t a l Bo n d e r i z e d F i n i s h Attachment 2 ARC1 - 87 DE C E M B E R , 2 0 1 5 8- 5 AR C H I T E C T U R A L D E T A I L S BU I L D I N G 8 - B R E W E R Y Al u m i n u m S t o r e f r o n t Wo o d B r a c e s Ex p o s e d R a f t e r T a i l s Wo o d P o s t s a n d B e a m s Al u m i n u m W i n d o w s Fi b e r C e m e n t S i d i n g Ra i l i n g - W o o d P o s t s Co r r u g a t e d M e t a l S i d i n g Go o s e n e c k L i g h t Fi x t u r e s We l d e d W i r e F a b r i c - 4 ” x 4 ” Go o s e n e c k L a m p w i t h G u a r d Wo o d T r i m St a n d i n g S e a m M e t a l R o o f Co r r u g a t e d M e t a l R o o f o v e r P a t i o Wo o d W i n d o w T r i m Ra i l i n g - W o o d T o p a n d B o t t o m R a i l Attachment 2 ARC1 - 88 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 89 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 90 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 91 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 92 Attachment 2 ARC1 - 93 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org Attachment 3 November 7, 2014 SUBJECT: ARCH-0029-2014: 120 Tank Farm Road, 3825 and 3897 S. Higuera St. Conceptual architectural review of a project located at the Long Bonetti Ranch property including modifications and rebuilding of historic structures and the addition of four new buildings (including four residential units) located among the existing historic structures, totaling 42,000 square feet The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of November 3, 2014, continued the project to a date uncertain with the following directional items: Color Key: Discussed in the June 6, 2016 CHC Staff Report Addressed by applicant (see Attachment 8), supported by staff. No Highlight Discussed in the July 11, 2016 ARC Staff Report Planning 1. Submit complete plans with all of the required information on the City’s checklist for final architectural approval. (Buildings 1-4) 2. Proposed modifications to the historic farmhouse shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee. Plans submitted for final review shall include existing and proposed floor plans/elevation drawings and justification for the replacement of historic features. 3. The designs of the reconstructed barn, granary, water tower, and windmill must be found consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and applicable City policy by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The designs for these structures must be based on documentary and physical evidence to ensure accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture. The proposed design for all of these structures does not appear to be accurate reconstructions and will need to be redesigned subject to the review and recommendation of the CHC. Plans submitted for review shall include existing and proposed floor plans/elevation drawings. (Building 5) 4. Possible relocation (e.g. switching the locations of Building 5 and the granary building) or demolition (and contemporary-style reconstruction) of the granary ARC1 - 94 ARCH-0029-2014 Attachment 3 Page 2 building could be supported by the ARC, pending staff review and CHC recommendation. (Building 6) 5. Provide additional buffering between Building 6 and the adjacent parking lot to the east. 6. The applicant shall consider revising the design of Building 6 (west elevation) to ensure the staircase for the residential units is not located within the proposed pedestrian plaza and the staircase is further enclosed to ensure residential privacy. (Building 7) 7. Reduce the scale of Building 7 to be more compatible with the historic barn. (Also discussed in ARC staff report) 8. The siting of building 7 shall take into consideration its relationship with the adjacent historic barn and views from the street.(Also discussed in ARC staff report) 9. Explore opportunities to provide a better visual and pedestrian transition from the sidewalk to the west elevation entry. 10. Revise the west elevation of Building 7 to respect pedestrian scale. 11. Simplify the design of the south and east elevations of Building 6 to reduce clutter for consistency with the other structures on the project site. 12. Revise the height of Building 7 to comply with the maximum height allowance per the Zoning Regulations. (Miscellaneous) 13. Provide a detailed farm implement display as required by condition 11b of ARC Resolution No. 1003-10. 14. A sign program will be required either as a condition or as a part of the approval of final plans. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the buildings and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site’s historic setting relating to the Long-Bonetti Ranch. The signage submittal shall be consistent with condition 6 of ARC Resolution No. 1012-13. (Also an ARC item) ARC1 - 95 ARCH-0029-2014 Attachment 3 Page 3 15. Provide a digital 3D model showing all proposed and approved buildings at the project site and showing improvements on adjacent properties for design and scale reference. 16. Include detailed information on pedestrian pathways, lighting, location of backflow prevention devices, and screening of mechanical equipment. a. Include delineated pedestrian pathways from the parking areas. b. Indicate locations of bicycle and motorcycle parking on site plan. c. The row of parking spaces east of Buildings 6 and 8 requires at least one landscape planter and shade tree to break up the 12 parking spaces. If pedestrian access is proposed through Building 6 and 8, the area shall also incorporate a small pedestrian “bump-out” to break up the 12 parking spaces and provide pedestrian access between the two buildings. 17. Provide additional detail/description of the proposed ornamental farm and orchard shown at the corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. Plantings in this area should not be tall enough to block views of the historic structures. 18. Provide information on loading areas (i.e. indicate if truck loading areas are needed) and refuse enclosures. Loading areas (including bays for individual buildings) and refuse enclosures are to be screened from street and off-site views and are to be architecturally integrated with the design of the project. 19. The parking analysis relies on shared parking with the Tribune property. Please provide a detailed parking calculation for the Tribune property to ensure adequate sharing of parking spaces. 20. The applicant is encouraged to provide public art within the project rather than paying the public art in-lieu fee. ARC1 - 96 Attachment 4 ARC1 - 97 Attachment 4 ARC1 - 98 ARC1 - 99 May 2016 PROJECT IMPACTS ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Rex Steward PB Companies 3480 South Higuera Street, Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Prepared by: Michael Hibma, M.A, RPH #603 Neal Kaptain, M.A., RPA #3799700 LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510-236-6810 Project No. PBC1501 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 100 LSA. MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LSA prepared this Project Impact Analysis for the Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project. The analysis utilized information drawn from previous historical resource evaluations, structural condition documentation, property records, and conceptual site plans. To augment the existing documentation, LSA conducted limited archival research, reviewed historical photographs of the project site provided by the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, and completed a field review of the built environment resources in the project site. The background research and field review identified one built environment cultural resource over 50 years of age in the project site: the Long-Bonetti Ranch (Ranch). The Ranch is a 2.17-acre former ranch complex at 3897 South Higuera Street/120 Tank Farm Road in San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, and is situated in Assessor Parcel Numbers 053-251-049 and -050. Built environment components of the Ranch include a single- story farmhouse, barn, water tower, entry sign, and granary, all of which were constructed between circa 1880 and 1930. Landscape elements consist of a water fountain, gas lamp, and several mature plantings adjacent to the farmhouse. The property is currently unoccupied. The Ranch was previously evaluated in 1990 and recommended as eligible for local listing for its association with agricultural development in San Luis Obispo and as the sole remaining ranch complex property type in the southern portion of the city. In 1998, a former owner entered into a Historic Property Preservation Agreement that requires the preservation of the appearance and historic integrity of the farmhouse, barn, windmill, water tower, and landscape features. Although the granary was not identified as a built environment component that required preservation, it was included in this Project Impact Analysis because of its age and visual contribution to the Ranch’s setting. Because the Ranch is currently listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources, it qualifies as a “historical resource” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as Section 14.01.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The proposed project would redevelop the Ranch with the addition of new construction and the re-use of the farmhouse, barn, granary, windmill, water tower, and entry sign. The gas lamp, water fountain, and landscape plantings would be incorporated into the design. The project would relocate the built environment components in a manner that would retain their historical arrangement and spatial arrangement to accommodate the new construction. This Project Impact Analysis assesses the compatibility of the proposed project with the character- defining elements that convey the significance of the Ranch. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are used as a baseline for determining the appropriateness of the proposed development, which calls for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of significant contributors to the Ranch. The results of this Project Impact Analysis indicate that the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Ranch as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The compatibility of the proposed design with the built environment features and historic spatial relationship of the Ranch components enable the resource to maintain its eligibility for inclusion in San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources The proposed project complements yet is differentiated from, the general scale, massing, and design of the Ranch’s components that contribute to its significance. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 101 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 1 2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 5 2.3 FIELD SURVEY .................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 HISTORIC STATUS SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 6 4.0 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 7 4.1 FARMHOUSE ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 BARN ..................................................................................................................................... 8 4.3 WATER TOWER .................................................................................................................. 9 4.4 WINDMILL ........................................................................................................................... 9 4.5 ENTRY SIGN ........................................................................................................................ 9 4.5 LANDSCAPE FEATURES ................................................................................................. 10 4.5.1 Water Fountain ......................................................................................................... 10 4.5.2 Gas Lamp ................................................................................................................. 10 4.5.3 Garden ...................................................................................................................... 10 4.6 GRANARY .......................................................................................................................... 11 5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 13 5.1.1 RE-USE OF LONG-BONETTI BUILT ENVIRONMENT ............................................. 13 5.1.2 NEW CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 13 5.2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 15 5.2.1 THRESHOLD FOR IMPACT .......................................................................................... 15 5.2.1.1 Secretary’s Standards ............................................................................................ 15 5.2.2 REHABILITATION OF THE FARMHOUSE ................................................................. 18 5.2.2.1 Rehabilitation Standard 1 ...................................................................................... 21 5.2.2.2 Rehabilitation Standard 2 ...................................................................................... 23 5.2.2.3 Rehabilitation Standard 3 ...................................................................................... 24 5.2.2.4 Rehabilitation Standard 4 ...................................................................................... 24 5.2.2.5 Rehabilitation Standard 5 ...................................................................................... 24 5.2.2.6 Rehabilitation Standard 6 ...................................................................................... 25 5.2.2.7 Rehabilitation Standard 7 ...................................................................................... 25 5.2.2.8 Rehabilitation Standard 8 ...................................................................................... 25 5.2.2.9 Rehabilitation Standard 9 ...................................................................................... 25 5.2.2.10 Rehabilitation Standard 10 .................................................................................. 26 5.2.2.11 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 26 5.2.3 RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BARN ............................................................................ 29 5.2.3.1 Reconstruction Standard 1 .................................................................................... 30 5.2.3.2 Reconstruction Standard 2 .................................................................................... 31 5.2.3.3 Reconstruction Standard 3 .................................................................................... 32 5.2.3.4 Reconstruction Standard 4 .................................................................................... 32 5.2.3.5 Reconstruction Standard 5 .................................................................................... 32 5.2.3.6 Reconstruction Standard 6 .................................................................................... 33 5.2.3.7 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 34 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 102 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) ii 5.2.4 RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER TOWER .......................................................... 36 5.2.4.1 Reconstruction Standard 1 .................................................................................... 37 5.2.4.2 Reconstruction Standard 2 .................................................................................... 37 5.2.4.3 Reconstruction Standard 3 .................................................................................... 38 5.2.4.4 Reconstruction Standard 4 .................................................................................... 38 5.2.4.5 Reconstruction Standard 5 .................................................................................... 39 5.2.4.6 Reconstruction Standard 6 .................................................................................... 39 5.2.4.7 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 40 5.2.5 PRESERVATION OF THE WINDMILL AND ENTRY SIGN ...................................... 42 5.2.5.1 Preservation Standard 1 ......................................................................................... 43 5.2.5.2 Preservation Standard 2 ......................................................................................... 43 5.2.5.3 Preservation Standard 3 ......................................................................................... 43 5.2.5.4 Preservation Standard 4 ......................................................................................... 44 5.2.5.5 Preservation Standard 5 ......................................................................................... 44 5.2.5.6 Preservation Standard 6 ......................................................................................... 44 5.2.5.7 Preservation Standard 7 ......................................................................................... 44 5.2.5.8 Preservation Standard 8 ......................................................................................... 45 5.2.5.9 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 45 5.2.6 RESTORATION OF THE LANDSCAPE FEATURES ................................................... 48 5.2.6.1 Restoration Standard 1 .......................................................................................... 49 5.2.6.2 Restoration Standard 2 .......................................................................................... 49 5.2.6.3 Restoration Standard 3 .......................................................................................... 50 5.2.6.4 Restoration Standard 4 .......................................................................................... 50 5.2.6.5 Restoration Standard 5 .......................................................................................... 50 5.2.6.6 Restoration Standard 6 .......................................................................................... 51 5.2.6.7 Restoration Standard 7 .......................................................................................... 51 5.2.6.8 Restoration Standard 8 .......................................................................................... 51 5.2.6.9 Restoration Standard 9 .......................................................................................... 51 5.2.6.10 Restoration Standard 10 ...................................................................................... 52 5.2.6.11 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 52 5.2.7 REHABILITATION OF THE GRANARY ...................................................................... 54 5.2.7.1 Rehabilitation Standard 1 ...................................................................................... 55 5.2.7.2 Rehabilitation Standard 2 ...................................................................................... 56 5.2.7.3 Rehabilitation Standard 3 ...................................................................................... 56 5.2.7.4 Rehabilitation Standard 4 ...................................................................................... 57 5.2.7.5 Rehabilitation Standard 5 ...................................................................................... 57 5.2.7.6 Rehabilitation Standard 6 ...................................................................................... 57 5.2.7.7 Rehabilitation Standard 7 ...................................................................................... 58 5.2.7.8 Rehabilitation Standard 8 ...................................................................................... 58 5.2.7.9 Rehabilitation Standard 9 ...................................................................................... 58 5.2.7.10 Rehabilitation Standard 10 .................................................................................. 59 5.2.7.11 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 59 5.2.8 SUGGESTED DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 61 6.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 63 7.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED ..................................................................................................... 64 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 103 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) iii FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Project Site and Vicinity ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Project Site .............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Proposed Improvements........................................................................................................ 17 Figure 5: Farmhouse: Comparative Images ......................................................................................... 27 Figure 6: Farmhouse: Comparative Images ......................................................................................... 28 Figure 7: Barn: Comparative Images ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 8: Water Tower: Comparative Images ...................................................................................... 41 Figure 9: Windmill: Comparative Images ............................................................................................ 46 Figure 10: Entry Sign: Comparative Images ........................................................................................ 47 Figure 11: Landscape View: Comparative Images............................................................................... 53 Figure 12: Granary: Comparative Images ............................................................................................ 60 Figure 13: Overall Setting: Comparative Images ................................................................................. 62 TABLES Table A: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Farmhouse ......................................................... 20 Table B: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction – Barn .................................................................. 30 Table C: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction – Water Tower ..................................................... 36 Table D: Secretary’s Standards for Preservation – Windmill and Entry Sign...................................... 42 Table E: Secretary’s Standards for Restoration – Landscape Features ................................................ 48 Table F: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Granary ............................................................... 54 APPENDICES A: Historic Property Preservation Agreement B: Historical Evaluation of Long-Bonetti Ranch C: Long-Bonetti Ranch Conceptual Site Plan - Limited Review D: Public Market at Bonetti Ranch - Conceptual Site Plan and Perspective Views (August 31, 2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 104 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Project Impacts Analysis (PIA) was prepared by LSA, for the Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project (Project). The PIA presents the results of a two-step process: (1) an analysis of the compatibility of the proposed design with the character-defining elements of the Long-Bonetti Ranch (Ranch); and (2) an assessment of the potential for the Project to result in a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of the Ranch as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). 1.1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The 2.17-acre project site, comprising Assessor Parcel Numbers 053-251-049 and -050, is at the northeast corner of the intersection of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road in the southern portion of the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site contains a former ranch complex constructed between circa 1880 and 1930, consisting of a single-story farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary. The Ranch is currently unoccupied. The Ranch is listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources. The proposed project would redevelop the Ranch with the addition of new construction and the re-use of the farmhouse, barn, granary, windmill, water tower, and entry sign. The gas lamp, water fountain, and landscape plantings would be incorporated into the design. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 105 Project Site 101 101 227 227 227 S H i g u e r a S t Tank Farm Rd S H i g u e r a S t S t Hi g u e r a S t Elk s L n O r c utt R d Pr a d o R d South St Mad o n n a R d L o s O s o s V a ll e y R d El M e r c a d o Ca l l e J o a q u i n Sa n t a F e R d V a c h e l l L n Da v e n p o r t Cr e e k R d C r o s s Margarita C al l e J o a qu i n Es p e r a n z a L n Granada Dr Birc h S t Sh o r t St Je s p e r s o n R d R u s t i c W a y Zac a Ln El m D r Buckley Rd Prado Rd Ho r i z o n Ln Clarion Ct L o n g Evans Rd Country Ln S t Suburban Rd Hind S t S t Ave Meissner Ln B r o a d Laguna Lake Park and Natural Reserve San LuisSan Luis Obispo CountyObispo County Regional AirportRegional Airport Dav e n p o r t Cre e k P e r f u m o C a n y o n F r o o m C r e e k P e r f u m o C r e e k S a n L u i s O b i s p o C r e e k Laguna Lake San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo SOURCE: StreetMap NA (2012). I:\PBC1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 1_Project Site and Vicinity.mxd (3/3/2015) FIGURE 1 San Luis Obispo Public Market at Monetti Ranch San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, California Project Site and Vicinity 0 1000 2000 FEET Project Site 101 1 1 San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo Pacific Ocean San LuisSan Luis ObispoObispo CountyCounty Attachment 6 ARC1 - 106 Project Site SOURCE: USGS 7.5-minute Topo Quads - Pismo Beach, Calif. (1994) and San Luis Obispo, Calif. (1994). I:\PBC1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Figure 2_Project Site.mxd (2/23/2015) FIGURE 2 Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Project Site 0 1000 2000 FEET Attachment 6 ARC1 - 107 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 4 2.0 METHODS LSA made a reasonable effort attempted to locate information about the Ranch and its historic context at repositories that are were most likely to inform the impacts analysis. LSA reviewed available information at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County and the University Archives collection at the Robert E. Kennedy Library at California Polytechnic State University. LSA also reviewed the previous evaluations of the property provided by the client (Triem 1990; Chattel 2008). The level of effort used during LSA’s research conformed to the general standards and guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior and, as developed by the National Park Service. They pertain to provide technical advice about historic preservation identification, evaluation, and documentation methods. They are widely cited and used throughout the historic preservation community to ensure the consistency of preservation activities conducted in the furtherance of environmental review. The scope of LSA’s research conformed to the Secretary’s Standards, specifically Standard II and the Use of Sources Guideline (National Park Service 2015). Each is presented below. Standard II. Historical Documentation Employs an Appropriate Methodology to Obtain the Information Required by the Research Design. Methods and techniques of historical research should be chosen to obtain needed information in the most efficient way. Techniques should be carefully selected and the sources should be recorded so that other researchers can verify or locate information discovered during the research. LSA’s methods and techniques of historical research for this analysis reflect a multi-pronged approach. LSA reviewed any previous cultural resource documentation available of the project site provided by the client. LSA reviewed official published national, state, and local cultural resource inventories that are widely available to the public and conducted research at local repositories to learn about the recent history of the surrounding area and any property-specific information that may be available. Use of Sources [Guideline] The documentation goals may not require exhaustive investigation of sources, such as deed records or building permits. Research may be kept cost-effective by making careful decisions about when to use particular sources, thereby limiting the use of time-consuming techniques to when absolutely necessary. The sources of information LSA chose to research was informed by previous experience in researching similar agricultural properties in California and the Central Coast. Previous experience in San Luis Obispo County also indicated which specific archival facilities to visit and which collections are the most likely to contain information useful to the evaluation. The goal of the documentation was to prepare an evaluative framework of the Ranch and note any structural changes over time. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 108 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 5 As described above, LSA conducted archival research, literature review and historical photograph analysis, and a field survey of the Ranch to prepare this analysis. Each task is described below. 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed previous research, maps, government records, websites, and other background information to characterize the architectural context of the project site. Pertinent documents reviewed by LSA included: • Historical Evaluation of Long-Bonetti Ranch (Triem 1990); • Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Strasbaugh Development 1998); • Structural Assessment of the Long-Bonetti Ranch Buildings (Vessely 2001); • Long-Bonetti Ranch – Conceptual Site Plan Limited Review (Chattel Architecture 2008); • Project Statement/Supplement – The Shops at Long-Bonetti Ranch (Oasis Associates 2008); • City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Commission (7 November 2014 meeting minutes) (City of San Luis Obispo 2014); • Calisphere at www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu (2015); and • Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Conceptual Site Plan and Perspective Views (PB Companies 2015). Please see References Consulted for a complete list of the materials reviewed. 2.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH On February 4, 2015, LSA conducted archival research at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County and the Robert E. Kennedy Library at California Polytechnic State University, both in San Luis Obispo, to obtain historical photographs of the Ranch and its buildings to compare the existing conditions with those during its period of significance. No photographs of the Ranch were identified in these collections. LSA obtained historical photographs of the Ranch, dating from circa 1940, from the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. The images provided information about several components of the Ranch’s built environment, particularly their form, appearance, materials, and construction history. 2.3 FIELD SURVEY LSA architectural historian Neal Kaptain, M.A., conducted a pedestrian field survey of the Ranch and its architectural setting on February 4, 2015. The purpose of the survey was to determine the existing conditions of the built environment as well as to obtain information about the architectural context and land-use patterns of the area. The field survey was documented through notes and photographs. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 109 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 6 3.0 HISTORIC STATUS SUMMARY The Ranch was evaluated in 1990 by San Buenaventura Research Associates, who concluded that the property was eligible for local listing (Triem 1990; Appendix B). The 1990 evaluation identified 11 built environment components that contributed to the significance of the Ranch. At the time of the 1990 evaluation, the Ranch’s built environment included the farmhouse, barn, windmill, pump house, water tower, granary, shop building, tractor shed and chicken house, additional sheds, farmhouse/bunk house/shed/storage. Landscape features consisted of a fountain, entry sign, and gas light. The Ranch was added to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources by a City Council resolution on March 15, 1994 (City of San Luis Obispo 1994). The Ranch was assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code of “5S1,” indicating that it is an “individual property that is listed or designated locally” (Historic Resources Group 2013:170; California Office of Historic Preservation 2003). In 2008, Chattel Architecture reassessed the Ranch complex as part of preliminary impacts review for an earlier project. Chattel’s reassessment concluded the Ranch complex remained eligible for local listing but the Ranch had sustained “severe deterioration from the elements and some elements identified in the 1990 (Triem) survey have been removed” (Chattel 2008:1; Appendix C). At the time of this evaluation, only the farmhouse, barn, windmill, water tower, entry sign, landscape features, and granary remained. Chattel concluded that the granary and shed(s) “lack sufficient integrity and significance to be treated as key contributing features” (Chattel 2008:5). However, despite Chattel’s finding with respect to the granary, this building is included in the current impacts analysis as it is an integral part of the Ranch’s historical built environment and is in the design of the current project. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 110 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 7 4.0 RESOURCE DESCRIPTION The Ranch, located at 3897 South Higuera Street/120 Tank Farm Road (APNs 053-251-049; -050) (Figure 3), consists of: • A single-story farmhouse, built circa 1880 (major remodel in 1908 and subsequent remodel in 1923); • A barn, built circa 1880-1890; • A water tower, built circa 1908; • A windmill, built circa 1930; • An entry sign, built circa 1908; • Landscape features (water fountain, gas lamp, and remaining historic plantings located west of and alongside the farmhouse), installed circa 1880-1930; and • A granary, built circa 1908. The following section describes the character-defining features of the components of the Ranch listed above. These features convey the significant aspects of the resources and justify their eligibility as contributors to the Ranch; they embody the essential materials, features, spatial patterns, and finishes of the property. 4.1 FARMHOUSE This resource consists of a rectangular, single-story, approximately 1,500 square-foot residence built circa 1880; the building was remodeled in 1908 and again in 1923. The farmhouse is located near the southwest corner of a 2.17-acre parcel in a semi-urban setting. The wood-framed building rests on a concrete perimeter foundation with a partial cellar, which is accessed at the rear, east-facing façade. The farmhouse is covered by a medium-to-low-pitched, cross-gabled roof with a front-gabled projecting wing on the right side of the main, west-facing, asymmetrical façade. The building has two brick chimneys, one in the peak of the main roof, and the other in the center of the east-facing hipped roof addition, likely used for a kitchen stove. The peak of the projecting gable wing is clad in wood fish scale shingles. The walls are clad in wide, drop-lap wood siding with sections of narrow, beveled lap wall cladding on the projecting wing on the main, west-facing façade indicating repair or alterations. The main entrance is in the center of the asymmetrical, west façade under a partial-width recessed covered porch supported by three cylindrical wood posts. The main entrance door consists of the original door and hardware. The windows and entrances are covered by plywood. Apparent alterations consist of new roofing, siding repairs, and a hipped-roof addition on the rear, east-facing façade. The farmhouse is currently vacant, is in fair condition, and shows evidence of fire damage at the right side of the south façade (Vessely 2001:3; Triem 1990:3-4). Attachment 6 ARC1 - 111 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 8 Based on field review and historical image analysis, the character-defining features of the farmhouse include: • Small, rectangular footprint; • Asymmetrical façade with a projecting gable front and wing massing; • Minimal ornamentation and use of simple construction techniques; • Use of mass-produced construction materials, such as milled lumber to frame the walls and roof, milled horizontal exterior siding, chimney bricks, and likely mass-produced windows and doors; • Medium-to-low pitched roof and narrow, overhanging boxed eaves; • Fish scale wood shingles in east-façade gable peak; • Raised front porch with decorative cylindrical wood support posts and a short, three-foot high enclosed knee wall; and • Simple fenestration and entrances with unadorned surrounds. See Table A below in 5.2.2, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation and application discussion. 4.2 BARN This resource consists of an approximately 2,700-square-foot, rectangular, wood-framed transverse- crib barn built circa 1880-1890. Based on field survey results, it is covered by a medium split- pitched, end-gabled, roof with flanking, shed-roofed cribs. The central section is approximately 23 feet high at the roof ridge and supported with 2-by-6-inch rafters. The rafters are joined together by 1- by-6-inch braces that also once supported a hay trolley system. The walls are framed with 3-by-4-inch redwood studs. The barn has a packed-earth floor. The exterior wall cladding consists of vertical board siding that varies in width. A full-length, shed-roofed crib is attached to the north and south façades. The north crib is approximately 16 feet wide and the south crib is approximately 14 feet wide. The barn has two side entrances on the west façade and evidence of a hay loft entrance at the east façade gable peak. The north façade has four evenly-spaced, square openings. The south façade is missing approximately one-quarter to one-third of the wall cladding. The roof is sheathed in wood shake shingles with sections overlaid with corrugated metal roofing. The barn is in poor condition (Vessely 2001:4; Triem 1990:4). The character-defining features of the barn include: • Rectangular, transverse crib-design; • Simple, utilitarian aesthetic; • Unfinished, rough-cut vertical wood cladding; • Open floor plan with exposed roof support framing; • Large, tall doors on east and west façades with evenly spaced openings on north façade for livestock; and • Hayloft with hay hooks. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 112 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 9 See Table B below in 5.2.3, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction and application discussion. 4.3 WATER TOWER This resource consists of a 17-by-17-foot tapered, wood-framed platform that once supported a wooden circular water tank. The 16-foot-tall tower base is framed by nine 6-by-6-inch wood posts supporting at platform of 6-by-10-inch beams. The tower foundation rests on the ground. The lower boxed portion is partially enclosed and walls clad in vertical board-and-batten wood siding. The base was later enclosed and used for storage (Vessely 2001:5; Triem 1990:5). Historical photographs of the Ranch depict the water tower with one square window on the north façade, two evenly-spaced square windows on the south façade, and a door on the east façade to access the interior space. The character-defining features of the water tower include: • Square-shaped, tapered box design with a simple, utilitarian aesthetic; • Open floor plan with exposed timber framing to support a platform and water tank; and • Unfinished, rough-cut, vertical wood cladding. See Table C below in 5.2.4, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction and application discussion. 4.4 WINDMILL This resource is a wind-powered water pump mounted on a steel-lattice framed, installed circa 1930. The present windmill replaced a previous wood-framed structure. The windmill provided water to the farmhouse and grounds. This function was later replaced by an electric water pump (Triem 1990:4). The character-defining features of the windmill include: • A mass-produced, steel-lattice tower, fan, and motor; and • The proximity to the water tower to facilitate pumping and storage. See Table D below in 5.2.5, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Preservation and application discussion. 4.5 ENTRY SIGN A decorative banner wood sign spans the driveway off South Higuera Street into the Ranch. It was added in 1908 when George Long purchased the property. In 1923, the sign was altered by the Bonetti family to reflect their occupancy. The name “Long-Street Farm/F. Bonetti” is clearly painted on the sign. The character-defining features of the entry sign include: Attachment 6 ARC1 - 113 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 10 • Prominent location along South Higuera Street frontage that frames the main entrance into the Ranch property and advertise the Ranch owners to passersby and the community; • Designed and decorated using simple construction techniques and mass-produced materials such as milled lumber posts; • A horizontal wood banner sign with simple, curved “lazy –S” brackets; and • A repetitive circular motif above the banner sign. See Table D below in 5.2.5, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Preservation and application discussion. 4.5 LANDSCAPE FEATURES The Ranch contains several landscape features. The landscape features that remain include a water fountain, gas lamp, and garden. These features are discussed below (Triem 1990:5). 4.5.1 Water Fountain This feature is a concrete walkway in front of the farmhouse leads past a cast-iron fountain pedestal in a shallow, diamond-shaped concrete basin. The basin has round wood balls at the four points of the diamond. In 1990, these same balls were observed on signposts and elsewhere on the property (Triem 1990:6). The water fountain is flanked by mature Mexican Fan palms (Washingtonia robusta). 4.5.2 Gas Lamp This feature is an approximately 20-foot-tall metal pole supporting an inoperable gas lamp fixture is located between the water fountain and the farmhouse. 4.5.3 Garden This feature is west of and adjacent to the farmhouse and covers approximately 4,700 square-feet. It consists of mature ornamental shrubs arranged around the water fountain basin, wisteria vines (Wisteria sinensis) along a deteriorating wood trellis north of and adjacent to the farmhouse, and two Mexican Fan Palms that frame the farmhouse’s main, façade when viewed east from South Higuera Street. The character-defining features of the landscape features include: • Simple, symmetrical lay out designed to showcase and frame farmhouse entrance from South Higuera Street and provide main pedestrian entrance to the property; • Use of decorative shrubs and Mexican Fan palms; • The use of mass-produced components such as the cast-iron tiered fountain pedestal basin in the water fountain; • The use of common materials such as ready-mix concrete to form the diamond-shaped fountain basin and pedestrian pathway from South Higuera Street to the farmhouse porch steps; and Attachment 6 ARC1 - 114 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 11 • The common metal piping, gas tubing and fixture, and glass bulb of the gas lamp. See Table E below in 5.2.6, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Restoration and application discussion. 4.6 GRANARY This resource consists of a rectangular 12-by-18-foot wood-framed building. The building has an asymmetrical façade that consists of a central portion with a wood floor and covered by a medium pitched, front-gabled roof with a wood flag pole at the gable peak. The central portion is flanked by shed-roof additions. The right addition is slightly longer than the left, and both are covered by variable-pitched roofs. The building is clad in board-and-batten siding and is covered by a roof sheathed in wood shake shingles with sections overlaid with corrugated metal roofing. The granary was built in 1908 by George W. Long, a local grain broker who lived at 546 Higuera Street and was used to store and process grain. The building was constructed with the wall cladding applied in reverse, exposing the wall studs and making the interior wall surfaces smooth to facilitate the movement of grain. The grain was stored in the center gable-roofed section. The granary was later used to store chicken feed in the central portion and added a shed-roofed chicken coop to the rear, east-facing façade. The flanking shed roof additions were used as garage space (Triem 1990:5). This granary was last used as a garage. There are three entrances in the west-facing façade. They consist of single, conventional wood door in the central portion that is accessed by a concrete step, and larger swing-out double doors of board-and batten siding in both shed-roof additions. The building is in fair- to-poor condition. The character-defining features of the granary include: • Asymmetrical façade and irregular massing; • variable-pitched roof line, wood siding, metal roofing, large entrances; • Small, rectangular footprint; • Minimal ornamentation and use of simple construction techniques; and • Use of mass-produced construction materials such as milled lumber to frame the walls and roof, rough horizontal exterior wall cladding and doors. See Table F below in 5.2.7, for a presentation of the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation and application discussion. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 115 Barn Granary Farmhouse Fountain Water Tower Entry Sign Windmill Tank Farm Road Hig u e r a S t r e e t Lo n g S t r e e t Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community SOURCE: Use Upper and Lower Case Fonts (MM/YY) I:\PBC1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Project Impacts Analysis\Figure 3_Existing Conditions.mxd (2/23/2015) FIGURE 3 Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Existing Conditions LEGEND Project Site 075 150 FEET Attachment 6 ARC1 - 116 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 13 5.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a mixed-use development totaling 42,000 square feet and includes the rehabilitation of two buildings (farmhouse and granary), the reconstruction of two buildings (barn and water tower), the restoration of the landscape features, and the preservation of the windmill. New construction (four new buildings) will generally occur north and west of the Ranch’s core. The Ranch’s existing built environment would be relocated in concert to new locations within the Ranch property. The relocations would be generally to the west and south to accommodate the new construction and to retain the overall spatial relationship and arrangement of the Ranch’s historical built environment. 5.1.1 RE-USE OF LONG-BONETTI BUILT ENVIRONMENT The proposed project incorporates the re-use of some contributing elements of the Ranch, as follows: • Rehabilitation of the farmhouse for use as a restaurant. • Rehabilitation of the granary for use as a produce barn. • Reconstruction of the barn for use as a wine vendor display area. • Reconstruction of the water tower for use as a concession stand or outdoor bar. • Preservation of the windmill and entry sign. • Restoration of the landscape features (water fountain, gas lamp, and gardens). These features are identified in paragraph 3(b) of the Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Appendix A), which states that: The property owner(s) agree to preserve the appearance and historic integrity of the Bonetti/Long Street ranch structures and grounds, including: ranch house, barn, windmill, water tower, entry sign and gardens, as shown in the approved REUSE/PRESERVATION PLAN on file in the Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, to the approval of the Community Development Director (Strasbaugh 1998:2). The historic preservation agreement does not prescribe treatment for secondary features of the Ranch, such as the pump house, granary, and sheds. However, although the granary was not included in the list of identified built environment components that required preservation, the building is incorporated in the design of the proposed project and assumed to be a contributing element of the Ranch for the purposes of this impacts analysis. 5.1.2 NEW CONSTRUCTION The following is a list of buildings and parking areas that would be constructed within the project site: • A new, approximately 1,500 square-foot commercial building shown as a Wine and Cheese Shop. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 117 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 14 • A new, approximately 4,900 square-foot, two-story, mixed-use building with ground floor commercial space and second floor residential units. • A new, approximately 29,500 square-foot commercial building for a proposed Market Hall. • A new, approximately 5,500 square-foot commercial building proposed to be used as a Brewery. • Retention of the Tractor Supply Building and shops E and K which were previously approved in 2013. • Reoriented parking layout and coordinated parking with two parcels to the north of the project site owned and operated by The Tribune (APN 053-251-070; -071). Attachment 6 ARC1 - 118 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 15 5.2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS This section assesses the potential of the proposed development to result in a significant impact to the Ranch under CEQA. 5.2.1 THRESHOLD FOR IMPACT According to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project with “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Examples of substantial adverse change include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). With respect to mitigating such impacts, §15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that: 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 (Secretary's Standards), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. Therefore, a project’s impact on a historical resource can be considered less than significant level if the project is implemented in accordance with the Secretary's Standards. The City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines also utilizes the Secretary’s Standards when considering project impacts to listed resources. 5.2.1.1 Secretary’s Standards Because the Ranch is listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources and therefore a historical resource under CEQA, the proposed project should comply with the Secretary’s Standards. The Secretary’s Standards are not proscriptive but rather provide general guidance for working with historic properties and are used by federal agencies and local governments to evaluate proposed rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, and reconstruction work; they are applied to a wide variety of resource types including buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts (Morton, Hume, Weeks, and Jandl, 1992) As described above, the Secretary’s Standards, and the degree to which proposed project conforms to their guidance, are a practical means for assessing and describing the potential impacts to historical resources. The Secretary’s Standards comprise four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction (Weeks and Grimmer 1995:2). Those four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Attachment 6 ARC1 - 119 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 16 Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “... require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time.” Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “... acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “... allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods.” Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “... establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.” Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. In this case, the proposed development includes new construction, rehabilitation of the farmhouse and granary, reconstruction of the barn and water tower, preservation of the windmill and entry sign, and restoration of the landscape features. Therefore, the following discussion applies the Secretary’s Standards for all four treatments to this project. With respect to rehabilitation, the National Park Service published Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns (Preservation Brief 14), which provides practical guidance, based on the Secretary’s Standards, to inform the appropriate incorporation and design of new exterior additions to historic buildings (National Park Service 2010). Attachment 6 ARC1 - 120 Tank Farm Road Hig u e r a S t r e e t Lo n g S t r e e t Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community SOURCE: Use Upper and Lower Case Fonts (MM/YY) I:\PBC1501\GIS\Maps\Cultural\Project Impacts Analysis\Figure 4_Proposed Improvements.mxd (2/23/2015) FIGURE 4 Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Proposed Improvements LEGEND 075 150 FEET Attachment 6 ARC1 - 121 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 18 5.2.2 REHABILITATION OF THE FARMHOUSE The farmhouse would be relocated approximately 16 feet, six inches to the southwest on a new foundation and be rehabilitated and converted to a restaurant with indoor dining and an outdoor dining platform. The proposed development would minimally alter the farmhouse’s materials, massing, detailing, and finishes. The farmhouse’s fenestration, fish scale-shingled gable peak, partial-width front porch with wood columns, and horizontal wood siding would be repaired. If deterioration of any of these elements is to a degree that is not feasible for repair and necessitates replacement, the materials, techniques, and workmanship would be in keeping with the original, as specified in the current project plans (Appendix D). A circa 1908 hipped-roof addition to the east façade would be retained to accurately convey the changes made to the farmhouse over time. A deteriorated trellis at the far right side of the north-facing façade would be removed to accommodate an outdoor deck seating and dining area for approximately 40 patrons. The farmhouse relocation would be done in concert with the, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary, such that when completed, it will reference the collective historical spatial pattern and arrangement of the Ranch’s built environment in a manner that would be understandable to the modern visitor. The project proposes alterations to the interior of the farmhouse as part of a restaurant conversion. These interior changes will not alter the building’s footprint or massing. The exterior of the farmhouse is the building’s most prominent visible aspect. The west-facing façade contains the building’s main “public face,” which is reflected in its design and ornamentation. As stated in Preservation Brief 18, rehabilitation of historic buildings necessitates, to some degree, some alteration to interior spaces to accommodate new uses or expansion of original uses (National Park Service 1998:1). The degree of acceptable change to interior spaces largely depends on the building. Buildings such as theaters, auditoriums, public halls, union halls, schools, and factories are defined to a greater degree by the design, plan, and ornamentation of their interior spaces, more than is the case for single-family homes or utilitarian agricultural buildings. For buildings such as the farmhouse, a higher level of adaptation is acceptable insofar as the underlying identity as a former residence can still be expressed. Currently, the farmhouse contains nine distinct interior spaces connected by a central hallway oriented east-west. The spaces include a living room/parlor, dining room, kitchen, a combination mudroom/vestibule/laundry room, bathroom, hall closet, and three bedrooms. The rooms vary in size, are rectangular or L-shaped, and are accessed via the central hall way. The primary spaces and secondary spaces are roughly divided by the central hallway with the living and dining rooms in the northern half the house and the secondary spaces (bathrooms, bedrooms, kitchen, etc.) located in the southern half. The proposed project will retain key aspects of the building’s spaces and circulation patterns, and areas designed for the preparation of food, interior dining, and bathroom facilities will remain in their original function. According to a proposed demolition plan, alterations to the farmhouse’s interior include the following: • Remove an interior wall and double door to combine the existing dining room and living room/parlor areas into a main dining area to accommodate seating for approximately 20 patrons. The existing fireplace and hearth at the southeastern corner of the room would be retained. The existing hallway would be removed to accommodate several objectives: the new dining area, space for the restaurant kitchen, and two bathrooms (discussed below). Attachment 6 ARC1 - 122 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 19 • Combine the existing mudroom/vestibule/laundry room and the northern half of the existing kitchen into an entry/reception area for restaurant patrons. This area would be accessed via double doors at the far left side of the north-facing façade. • Combine the southern portion of the kitchen along with the existing bathroom and a portion of a bedroom into restaurant kitchen space. A new entrance near the center of the south-facing façade would be installed to provide direct staff access to the kitchen. • Convert the remaining portion of the bedroom referenced above to accommodate two restrooms, and enlarge the existing bedroom at the southwestern corner of the farmhouse into a separate banquet room. • According to proposed project plans, alterations to the farmhouse’s exterior include the following: Construct a wood deck at the right side of the north façade for outdoor dining, with access from the building via the existing main entrance on the west-facing façade; • Install a new entrance in the center of the south façade for staff and vendor access into the kitchen; • Extend the porch knee wall approximately five feet and install two short steps for access to and from the outdoor deck dining area. The current fenestration pattern and entrances on each façade of the farmhouse are presented and described, from left to right, below. North façade • The mudroom/vestibule/laundry room entrance at the far left of the façade is flanked by two square-shaped windows. • Two windows mounted in separate, rectangular casements are located near the center of the façade. The far right window provides light into the living room/parlor and the other window provides light into the dining room. • Two separate windows placed in separate, rectangular casements are centered underneath the gable end at the far right side of the façade. These windows provide light for the living room/parlor area. South façade: • Two windows in separate rectangular casements at the far left side of the façade. These windows provide light into a bedroom located in the southwest corner of the farmhouse. • One window in a small square casement provides light into the bathroom. East façade: • One large window in a rectangular casement is located at the far left side of the façade and provides light into the existing kitchen. • Two windows paired together in a rectangular casement provide light into the kitchen and hall way. • One small window in a square casement provides light into the mudroom/vestibule/laundry room. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 123 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 20 West façade: • One large picture-frame window is underneath the covered porch and provides light into the living room/parlor area. • One window in a wood casement, slightly offset from the gable peak centerline, is located under the projecting gable peak. Proposed alterations to the farmhouse’s fenestration patterns or entrances presented above and proposed by the project are described below. North façade • No changes are proposed. South façade: • Install a new entrance in the center of the south façade for kitchen access. East façade: • Install a switch-back accessibility ramp on the rear, east-facing façade to the double door main entrance at the far left side of the north-facing façade. West façade: • No changes are proposed. For the reasons outlined below, these proposed changes to the farmhouse, when considered together, will not diminish the historical residential-oriented qualities of the farmhouse to a degree that its significance could not be perceived by visitors. Table A: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Farmhouse Rehabilitation Standard Compliant Not Compliant Not Applicable Standard 1: A property would 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. X Standard 2: The historic character of a property would be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property would be avoided. X Standard 3: Each property would 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 historical properties, would not be undertaken. X Attachment 6 ARC1 - 124 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 21 Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right would be retained and preserved. X Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property would be preserved. X Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features would be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature would match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features would substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. X Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials would not be used. X Standard 8: Archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure would be undertaken. X Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction would not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and would compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. X Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction would 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. X 5.2.2.1 Rehabilitation Standard 1 A property would 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 farmhouse is a single family residential building associated with the development of the Ranch. It was intentionally sited along South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road to facilitate connection with San Luis Obispo and the surrounding communities. It has persisted in this original location for over 130 years. The farmhouse would remain on the Ranch but be relocated to a new location approximately 16 feet, six inches southwest from its original location. This relocation will accommodate new construction on the site, one of the basic objectives of the project. The relocated farmhouse will rest on a new foundation that would be minimally visible and meet current health and safety code requirements. The farmhouse relocation would be done in concert with the, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary, such that when completed, it will reference the collective historical spatial pattern and arrangement of the Ranch’s built environment in a manner that would be understandable to the modern visitor. The proposed restaurant conversion would result in some changes to its distinctive materials and features and an approximately five foot extension of the porch knee wall at the far left side of the main, west-facing façade. However, the farmhouse and associated, Attachment 6 ARC1 - 125 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 22 barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary would collectively still be perceptible as a late-19th century and early-20th century residence that has a functional and collective spatial relationship to other features and contributors of the Ranch. The proposed exterior alterations to the farmhouse described above would be in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed new entrance in the central portion of the south-facing façade would not be visible from the main, west-facing façade and would be installed in a manner that references, but is not replicative, of the historic front porch. Per Preservation Brief 14: Generally, constructing the new addition on a secondary side or rear elevation-in addition to the material preservation-will also preserve the historic character. Not only will the addition be less visible, but because a secondary elevation is usually simpler and less distinctive, the addition will have less of a physical impact on the historic building. Such placement will help to preserve the building’s historic form and relationship to site and setting (NPS 2010:5). The proposed alterations would not impact the farmhouse’s primary, west-facing façade. The proposed deck for outdoor dining would not radically alter the building’s overall form or obscure its features. The construction of an approximately five-foot-long extension of the porch knee wall would provide patron access between the outdoor deck dining area and the areas of the Ranch along South Higuera Street. The knee wall extension would be at the far left side of the west-facing façade, at a height of three feet, and would not result in a new visual aspect or distraction from the farmhouse’s historic form, design, configuration, and comprehensibility as a former residence by modern visitors. The farmhouse would still be perceived as a residential building from its period of significance and retain those character-defining features that justify its eligibility. These alterations would not result in the significant alteration of the farmhouse, as described in this example of unsympathetic construction in Preservation Brief 14: A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation, or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and new interiors, and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards (NPS 2010:3). The proposed new entrance on the south façade of the farmhouse would be seen from Tank Farm Road. The entrance would consist of a single solid, multi-paneled wood door accessed by three steps. The door would provide kitchen staff and vendors access to the restaurant kitchen. Although the proposed entrance would be visible from Tank Farm Road, the project would install an ornamental farm, gardens, and an orchard, which, when mature, will screen the farmhouse’s south façade from Tank Farm Road. The current condition of the farmhouse’s fenestration and doors are unknown, as they are covered by plywood to secure the property and prevent entry. As stipulated in Section 5.2.2 above, the farmhouse’s doors and windows would be inspected to determine their current condition. When repair is not feasible, as determined by the architect and contractor, replacements may be deemed appropriate, provided the appearance, detail, profile, size, and material are designed to match the original door or window (Appendix D). The proposed alterations to the interior of the farmhouse will not result in a collective change of design, materials, finishes, and use of space that would impair the appreciation of the building’s architectural qualities. Interior spaces designed and historically used for gathering, entertaining, dining, bathing, preparing food, and entering/exiting will retain their general layout. As mentioned in Attachment 6 ARC1 - 126 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 23 Section 5.2.2, the farmhouse is a building that does not require a high degree of retention of configuration, finishes, and spaces that would otherwise be expected for a building that features prominent interior spaces integral to its significance, such as a theater, auditorium, or meeting hall. Given the farmhouse is a typical example of rural vernacular residential architecture of the late-19th and early-20th centuries, its common stylistic attributes would reflect those found in contemporary buildings. These attributes could include, but not be limited to, pre-fabricated wall or ceiling ornament, wainscoting, picture rails, wood accent pieces left unpainted or stained to look like something else, hinged or pocket doors dividing large open spaces, and a fireplace mantel. These vernacular interiors were subject to a degree of modification over time to modernize appearances, make the property more appealing to a buyer, or to replace damaged materials. Analysis of photographs of the farmhouse’s current interior indicates that it possesses a generally stripped, unadorned aesthetic with respect to the use of materials. For example, the walls are smooth and painted white, with no crown molding, wall paper, or wainscoting. Simple painted wood surrounds enframe interior doors and window casements. The floor is covered in wall-to-wall carpeting. The rehabilitation will remove much of the subsequent alterations and repairs made since 1930 and may uncover historical materials, such as the original wood flooring and other decorative accents that were altered since the end of the period of significance in 1930. As designed, the proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 1. 5.2.2.2 Rehabilitation Standard 2 The historic character of a property would be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property would be avoided. This historic character of the farmhouse is conveyed by its architectural qualities as a single-story, single-family residential building type. The proposed project does not include the removal or alteration of any of the farmhouse’s distinctive materials, nor does the proposed project include the major alteration of any of its key defining features, such as the decorative façade elements, fenestration pattern or materials, or ornamentation. The proposed project would relocate the farmhouse to a new location approximately 16 feet, six inches to the southwest, reducing the distance from the farmhouse to the South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road intersection. This would be done to accommodate new construction to the south and west, the installation of a new pedestrian pathway northwest of the farmhouse, and the reinstallation of the restored water fountain. The farmhouse depends on its grouping with the other built environment elements of the Ranch. The farmhouse itself is of minor singular importance in this regard. Its relationship to the rest of the Ranch is what is significant and conveys meaning as a working ranch. Therefore, the proposed rehabilitation of the farmhouse should not damage any of its distinctive materials or alter the features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize this historical resource. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 127 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 24 5.2.2.3 Rehabilitation Standard 3 Each property would 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 historical properties, would not be undertaken. The project would not create a false sense of history. New construction would use modern materials for a new entrance on the south façade, a new wood deck, an approximately five-foot extension of the porch knee wall, and the relocation of farmhouse on a modern foundation. The overall massing, shape, design, and architectural qualities would remain enabling a modern visitor to understand the building as a former residence. The new pathways and plantings in the vicinity of the farmhouse would be differentiated from the restored landscaping and pathways and help recreate the feel of a ranch, albeit with modern methods and techniques. New construction and vegetation would be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. 5.2.2.4 Rehabilitation Standard 4 Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right would be retained and preserved. The farmhouse was built circa 1880 and modified in 1908 and again in 1923. A circa 1908 hipped- roof addition to the east façade would be retained to accurately convey the changes made to the farmhouse over time. All character-defining elements of this property were present since its construction, and no additional features have acquired significance since 1923. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. 5.2.2.5 Rehabilitation Standard 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property would be preserved. The overall shape, materials, and finishes of the farmhouse would remain in place on the building or be referenced, but not replicated, in the new construction. The existing farmhouse’s wood siding, fenestration pattern and materials, decorative wood ornamentation, and wood columns represent the distinctive materials, finishes, or construction techniques common to the time. These historical elements would be referenced in the new construction, particularly the five-foot knee wall extension along the far left of the main, street-facing façade. As described above in 5.2.2.1, given the farmhouse is a typical example of rural vernacular residential architecture of the late-19th and early-20th centuries, an intact example would likely possess some pre- fabricated wall or ceiling ornaments, wainscoting, picture rails, wood accent pieces left unpainted or that were stained, hinged or pocket doors dividing large open spaces, and a fireplace mantel. Analysis of photographs of the farmhouse’s current interior indicates that the farmhouse possesses a generally stripped, unadorned aesthetic in the use of materials. These changes were likely made following the period of significance of 1930. The rehabilitation process and restaurant conversion will remove Attachment 6 ARC1 - 128 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 25 many of the subsequent alterations and repairs and may uncover historical materials, such as the original wood flooring and other decorative accents that would be restored and incorporated into the design of the restaurant. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. 5.2.2.6 Rehabilitation Standard 6 Deteriorated historic features would 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 would substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. The farmhouse’s features, such as wood siding, fenestration pattern and materials, decorative wood ornamentation, and wood columns, would be retained and preserved. Those features that are deteriorated and could not be repaired would be replaced with in-kind materials. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. 5.2.2.7 Rehabilitation Standard 7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials would not be used. The proposed project does not include any work where chemical or physical treatments would be undertaken. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. 5.2.2.8 Rehabilitation Standard 8 Archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure would be undertaken. Archaeological resources are not expected to be identified in the project site, as the area for relocation and related construction has been disturbed by grading, discing, and other farming-related activities. However, the proposed project does include excavation work. If any archaeological material should be encountered during this project, construction should be halted and appropriate mitigation measures taken to identify and avoid, or substantially lessen, potential impacts. The proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8. 5.2.2.9 Rehabilitation Standard 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction would not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 129 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 26 The new work shall be differentiated from the old and would compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. As discussed in Standards 1, 2, and 5, the proposed relocation and alteration of the farmhouse would not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships to such a degree that the Ranch, as a whole, could no longer convey its significance. As discussed in Standard 1, proposed new construction would occur along secondary façades, which is encouraged under these Rehabilitation Standards. As discussed in Standard 3, new construction would be sufficiently differentiated from, yet compatible with, the existing historic fabric and spatial patterns. The overall integrity and significance of the Ranch would not be impacted by the relocation within its boundaries. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 9. 5.2.2.10 Rehabilitation Standard 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction would 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. If the rehabilitated farmhouse was relocated to its original location, the proposed alterations removed, and converted to its original use as a residence, the essential form of the Ranch, as a whole, would not constitute a substantial adverse change to this historical resource. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10. 5.2.2.11 Conclusion Based on a review of design of this project, the proposed rehabilitation of the farmhouse conforms to the Secretary’s Standards. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 130 Architectural Rendering: Farmhouse from west. Existing: Farmhouse from west. FIGURE 5 Farmhouse: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 5_Farmhouse_Comparative Images.cdr (9/18/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 131 Existing: Farmhouse from northeast. Architectural Rendering: View of remodeled Farmhouse and new terraced deck from the plaza. FIGURE 6 Farmhouse: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 6_Farmhouse_Comparative Images.cdr (9/18/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 132 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 29 5.2.3 RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BARN The existing barn would be demolished and reconstructed approximately 20 feet to the southwest and closer to South Higuera Street. Although the barn would be slightly larger and closer to the street, these modifications would not affect the historic relationship between the barn and the other contributors of the Ranch to an extent that visitors would not be able to perceive the building as a barn and agricultural in nature. The proposed improvements would incorporate the barn’s character- defining features, such as its massing, gabled roof, roof pitch, metal roofing, and plain wood siding. New materials would be similar to the existing materials in dimension, color, and texture, but would not be identical and would be clearly differentiated as new construction. The existing barn has no foundation; the reconstructed barn would be situated on a concrete foundation to prevent water infiltration and provide necessary structural support. Openings in the east and west façades would be similar in height (approximately 8 feet as original) and an upper clerestory window would open via a sliding door reminiscent of a hayloft opening. The interior of the barn would be divided by a central walkway to access five stalls for wine vendors on either side. The upper sliding door near the gable peaks would reference the hay loft along with interior roof rafters joined together by 1 inch by 6 inch braces that once supported a hay trolley system that LSA asserts was once present indicates the remains of a hay hood/fork on the east façade indicates a previous hay loft for sorting and storing animal feed which has since been removed. The main entrances on the east and west façades in the proposed design would be approximately eight feet tall and consist of a two-part entrance system. The wood-clad exterior doors would replicate the sliding wooden doors common to transverse crib barns. The door system would consist of a boxed rail affixed above the door frame that would contain roller hangers connected to the wood-clad doors via metal brackets. When closed, the barn exterior would resemble the original all-wood appearance of the barn on the east and west façades. When opened, the secondary entrance would reveal modern metal framed glass sliding doors with wide sidelights. When fully opened, a comparable level of natural light from these doors would enter the barn interior. The secondary entrance system, while not original to the barn, would provide a higher level of building security and climate control. Five evenly-spaced Dutch doors along the north façade would be installed to both recreate the historic use of the barn for sheltering livestock and appropriately reference the evenly spaced openings currently in this location. The Dutch doors would be approximately seven feet tall. No Dutch doors would be installed along the south façade to remain consistent with the historic-period conditions evident from photographs and the remains of wall cladding. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 133 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 30 Table B: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction – Barn Reconstruction Standard Compliant Not Compliant Not Applicable Standard 1: Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. X Standard 2: Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a through archaeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. X Standard 3: Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials features, and spatial relationships. X Standard 4: Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re- create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture. X Standard 5: A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. X Standard 6: Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. X 5.2.3.1 Reconstruction Standard 1 Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. The barn is essential to the public’s understanding of the Ranch as a whole. The proposed design of the reconstructed barn would coherently reference this building type, massing, and its character- defining elements as a utilitarian, agricultural building. The reconstructed barn would replicate the original barn’s, variable-pitch, and front-gabled roof, which is the building’s more prominent feature. The barn’s roof would be clad in metal roofing material, which approximates some of the existing corrugated metal roofing material and meets modern fire codes. The reconstructed barn would reference the existing barn’s mass, size, and materials; when complete, it will not compromise the overall integrity of the Ranch. The barn will reconstruct an operating hay loft at the gable peak of the east and west-facing façades. As stated above, the upper sliding door near the gable peaks would reference the hay loft and interior hay trolley system that was present in the barn originally included. The use of a hay hood/fork and trolley system necessitates the presence of a hay loft for bale receiving, sorting, and storage. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 134 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 31 Currently, the barns entrances on the east and west façade are covered in wood, corrugated metal, or are missing. The proposed project would install a two-part door. An exterior door system will consist of a metal boxed rail and rollers affixed via brackets to wood-clad doors. The inner door system would consist of modern metal framed glass sliding doors with wide sidelights. The interior door system would provide higher level of security. When fully opened, these doors will provide a level of interior natural light comparable to historic-period conditions. As designed, the proposed development would in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 1. 5.2.3.2 Reconstruction Standard 2 Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a through archaeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The design of the reconstructed barn reflects the character-defining elements that convey the original barn’s significance. The proposed barn would be slightly taller and larger in square footage than the original; it would also be constructed in a new location approximately 20 feet to the southwest. The new barn would reference the larger openings on the original barn’s west and east façades. The upper sliding door near the gable peaks would reference the hay loft that LSA asserts was once present as the remains of a hay hood/fork on the east façade indicates a previous hay loft that has since been removed. The use of a hay hood/fork and trolley system necessitates the presence of a hay loft for bale receiving, sorting, and storage. No planning-related documentation referenced in the previous evaluations dated or described modifications to barns, such as removal of a hay loft (Triem 1990; Chattel 2008). Previous photographs of the building were not located at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County and the University Archives collection at the Robert E. Kennedy Library at California Polytechnic State University. The proposed addition of the Dutch doors on the north façade would refer to the barn’s historic use for feeding and housing livestock (Triem 1990:4).The proposed design reflects the original barn’s historical orientation, location and spatial relationship, wood wall-cladding, and massing; the new barn will comprise structural features that convey the original barn’s form and visual signature. The reconstructed barn would remain on the Ranch in a new location approximately 20 feet southwest from its original location. This relocation will accommodate new construction on the site which is one of the basic objectives of the project. The reconstructed barn will rest on a new foundation that wouold be minimally visible and meet current health and safety code requirements. The barn relocation would be done in concert with the farmhouse, water tower, windmill, and landscape elements; when complete, it would reference the collective historical spatial pattern and configuration of the Ranch’s built environment in a manner that would be perceptible to the modern visitor. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 2. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 135 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 32 5.2.3.3 Reconstruction Standard 3 Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials features, and spatial relationships. The project would demolish the existing barn. Salvaged materials would be incorporated into the reconstructed barn. The reconstructed barn would be located approximately 20 feet to the southwest of the original location. As described in Section 5.2.3.1, the proposed relocation would be in concert with the relocated farmhouse, water tower, windmill and landscape features. When completed, it will reference the current spatial configuration of the Ranch’s built environment in a manner comprehensible to the modern visitor. The relocation would be necessary to accommodate the circulation patterns between the barn and the proposed construction of the Market Hall and two, two- story mixed-use buildings to the north and east. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 3. 5.2.3.4 Reconstruction Standard 4 Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture. Given the general simplicity and utility of the original barn, the reconstructed barn would be perceived as modern but replicate the original in appearance, materials, design, color, and textures, as practicable. The remaining elements of the barn have informed and are incorporated into the proposed reconstructed barn. Historical photographs of the Ranch, dating from circa 1940, were provided to LSA by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. The images depict several components of the Ranch’s built environment. LSA analyzed these images for evidence about the barn’s materials, design characteristics, workmanship, and uses. Of the photos provided, three provide images of the barn. Analysis from these images informed design modifications to reflect historical conditions. Design modifications include: • Removing the Dutch doors proposed along the south façade; • Altering the metal louvered sliding screen doors on main entrances in the east and west façades to plain, wood-clad doors that slide open via metal boxed rail and roller hanger system; and • Resizing the proposed reconstructed barn to replicate the current barn massing and size. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 4. 5.2.3.5 Reconstruction Standard 5 A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 136 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 33 The proposed barn would not create a false sense of history. Materials that replicate the color and texture of the barn would be applied in a way that is referential rather than replicative. New construction would use salvaged materials as appropriate, but would largely consist of in-kind replacement materials such as vertical wood cladding and metal roofing that would be clearly recognizable as new to the casual observer. The interior of the reconstructed barn would be used to contain modern retail space and would be accessed via large, eight-foot high entrances in the center of the east and west façades and contain a two-part entrance system. Exterior doors would consist of wood-clad sliding doors common to transverse crib barns. The exterior doors would operate using a typical boxed rail and roller system that would be affixed to the sliding via metal brackets. When closed, the barn exterior would resemble the original all-wood appearance of the barn on the east and west façades. Once opened, the wood sliding doors would reveal a metal framed glass sliding doors flanked by wide sidelights that would be clearly identifiable by visitors as a modern door system and not original to the barn. This secondary entrance system would serve the practicable purposes of securing the building and its contents and climate control. New construction would be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 5. 5.2.3.6 Reconstruction Standard 6 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. The proposed reconstructed barn would incorporate five Dutch doors on the north façade to accommodate “stalls” for wine vendor space. The present barn has four evenly-spaced, square openings at this location that would be mirrored in the proposed reconstruction. No Dutch-doors would be installed along the south façade to reflect depictions in historic photographs of a solid wall at that location. The inclusion of the Dutch doors on the north façade are justified by the aforementioned openings and information from previous eligibility evaluations of the Ranch that noted “Mr. Long had 8 -10 horses. The Bonetti [family] kept only a few horses to plant and cultivate. They had four cows which they milked and used for the family; any leftover milk was taken to the creamery in San Luis Obispo” (Triem 1990:4). It is conceivable that any evenly-spaced openings along the south façade did exist at an earlier period, and such openings may have been subsequently closed by the Bonetti family. As a building type designed for utilitarian purposes, barns were often modified to accommodate the changing needs of different owners, land uses, and technological advances (Noble and Cleek 1995:14). The proposed addition of five evenly-spaced wine vendor “stables” accessed via Dutch doors is consistent with the historical pattern of adaptability of barns by new owners for new uses. Also in keeping with typical uses of barns for sheltering and feeding livestock, the reconstructed barn will feature a hayloft with doors above the main entrances on the east and west façades. As stated above, the upper sliding door near the gable peaks would reference the hay loft that LSA asserts was once present as the remains of a hay hood/fork on the east façade and interior trolley system which indicates a previous hay loft that has since been removed. The use of a hay hood/fork and trolley system necessitates the presence of a hay loft for bale receiving, sorting, and storage. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 6. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 137 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 34 5.2.3.7 Conclusion Based on a review of design of this project, the proposed reconstruction of the barn conforms to the Secretary’s Standards. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 138 Architectural Rendering: Reconstructed Barn – West Façade Existing: View of Barn from South Higuera Road. FIGURE 7 Barn: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 7_Barn View (Architectural Rendering and Existing).cdr (8/12/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 139 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 36 5.2.4 RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER TOWER The reconstructed water tower would be relocated approximately 20 feet southwest from its original location. The water tower would be relocated in conjunction with the barn. Following relocation it would retain its historical spatial relationship to the barn. The proposed water tower would reference the original square footprint and tapered massing. The lower portion would be clad with wood siding and he upper portion would be exposed heavy structural timber framing supporting a platform to mount a faux, wood-clad “shell” circular water tank. Any salvaged materials would be reincorporated into the reconstructed water tower. New materials used would be similar to existing in dimension, color, and texture, but would not be identical and be clearly discernible as new. See below for a proposed configuration description of each façade. • The north and south façades of the reconstructed water tower would replicate their respective historical fenestration patterns which consist of two, evenly-spaced, square-shaped windows on north façade and one square window on the south façade. • The east façade would have movable, accordion doors for a concession stand/outdoor bar. A seating area between the water tower and the proposed Wine and Cheese Shop would be shaded by metal framed trellis feature covered with translucent corrugated plastic. The trellis would be attached to the adjacent Wine and Cheese Shop and it will not extend past any of the water tower’s façade planes. • The west façade would be solid-faced with no openings. • The south façade of the water tower would have a single, unadorned entrance to access the interior of the concession stand/outdoor bar. Table C: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction – Water Tower Reconstruction Standard Compliant Not Compliant Not Applicable Standard 1: Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. X Standard 2: Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a through archaeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. X Standard 3: Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials features, and spatial relationships. X Standard 4: Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re- create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture. X Attachment 6 ARC1 - 140 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 37 Standard 5: A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. X Standard 6: Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. X 5.2.4.1 Reconstruction Standard 1 Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. The water tower is essential to the public’s understanding of the Ranch as a whole. The proposed design of the reconstructed water tower would coherently reference this building type and its character-defining elements, such as its structural support system, footprint, massing, wall cladding, and configuration, which are the building’s prominent features. A faux, wood-clad “shell” circular water tank would be installed on the platform to serve as signage and restore a visual element that replicates the water tower’s original purpose – providing gravity fed water supply to the Ranch. The reconstructed water tower would be compatible with the existing water tower’s mass, size, and materials and would not compromise the overall integrity of the Ranch. As designed, the proposed development would in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 1. 5.2.4.2 Reconstruction Standard 2 Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a through archaeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The design of the reconstructed water tower reflects the character-defining elements that convey the original tower’s significance as a water-conveyance structure on the Ranch. The proposed design reflects the original water tower’s historical orientation and location, wood wall cladding, fenestration pattern, entrances, tapered massing and exposed timber support framing for the water tank platform; the new water tower will replicate the heavy timber structural features and support systems that convey the original water tower’s form, purpose, and visual signature. The proposed addition of a door on the south façade, while not part of the original water tower per se, is needed to allow vendor staff access into the water tower to serve patrons. This proposed reconstruction will not result in a net increase in openings; it would be simple in design, replicate the water tower’s historical appearance when closed, and openings would be located on secondary façades. The reconstructed water tower would remain on the Ranch in a new location approximately 20 feet southwest from its original, current location. This relocation will accommodate new construction on the site, one of the basic objectives of the project. The reconstructed water tower will rest on a new foundation that would be minimally visible and meet current health and safety code requirements. The water tower relocation would be done in concert with the farmhouse, barn, windmill, entry sign, Attachment 6 ARC1 - 141 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 38 landscape elements, and granary, such that when completed, it will reference the collective historical spatial pattern and arrangement of the Ranch’s built environment in a manner understandable to the modern visitor. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 2. 5.2.4.3 Reconstruction Standard 3 Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials features, and spatial relationships. The project would demolish the existing water tower. Salvaged materials would be incorporated into the reconstructed water tower. As described in Section 5.2.3.1, this proposed relocation would be in concert with the relocated farmhouse, barn, windmill, and landscape features; when complete, it will reference the current spatial configuration of the Ranch’s built environment in a manner comprehensible to the modern visitor. The relocation would be necessary to accommodate the circulation patterns between the barn and the proposed construction of the Market Hall and two, proposed mixed-use buildings to the north and east. As designed, the proposed water tower reconstruction would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 3. 5.2.4.4 Reconstruction Standard 4 Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture. Given the general simplicity and utility of the original water tower, the reconstructed water tower will clearly reference its original appearance, structural configuration, materials, design, color, and textures. The addition of a faux, wood-clad “shell” circular water tank on the platform will restore a historical feature and the original purpose of the water tower (i.e. to provide the property with a gravity-fed water source). Historical photographs of the Ranch, dating from circa 1940, were provided to LSA by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. The images depict several components of the Ranch’s built environment. LSA analyzed these images for historical evidence of the water tower’s materials, design characteristics, workmanship, and uses. Of the photos provided, four provide images of the water tower. Analysis from these images informed design modifications to reflect historical conditions. Design modifications include: • Restoring the original fenestration configuration on the north and south façades; and Attachment 6 ARC1 - 142 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 39 • Redesigning the water tower to replicate the ratio of the water tower that was left exposed and the portion that was enclosed to replicate the current water tower’s structural appearance, size, and configuration. 5.2.4.5 Reconstruction Standard 5 A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. The proposed water tower would not create a false sense of history. Materials that replicate the unpainted and utilitarian appearance of the water tower would be referential rather than replicative. New construction would use salvaged materials as appropriate but, due to the current water tower’s advanced sate of decay, reconstruction would largely consist of in-kind replacement materials. The reconstructed water tower would reference the original vertical wood cladding, tapered massing, exposed structural timber framing, and tank platform supporting a faux wood-clad tank that would be clearly recognizable as new to the casual observer. New construction would be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Reconstruction Standard 5. 5.2.4.6 Reconstruction Standard 6 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. The proposed reconstructed water tower would reflect the design and appearance as evidenced in historical photographs from circa 1940. The reconstructed water tower will reproduce the physical appearance and configuration of the bottom half clad in wooden siding and the upper half of exposed heavy timber framing supporting a tank platform with a faux, wood-clad “shell” circular water tank would installed atop the platform. The lower portion of the water tower would be enclosed, as was the original, and will contain an outdoor bar and concession stand with a retractable, sliding wood-panel door on the rear, east-facing façade for counter and serving space. The enclosed portion will replicate the historical fenestration pattern of one, square-shaped window in the north façade and two, evenly spaced square-shaped windows in the south façade. On the rear, east-facing façade, a seating area for outdoor bar/concession stand patrons is proposed between the reconstructed and relocated water tower and the adjacent Wine and Cheese Shop. The seating area would be shaded by a metal-framed trellis covered in translucent corrugated plastic roofing attached to the proposed Wine and Cheese Shop. The trellis feature will not cross any of the water tower’s façade planes or physically touch the water tower. The use of translucent corrugated plastic and metal framing will minimize the trellis’ visual signature that, along with the presence of the wood-clad faux water tank, would provide patrons a shaded seating area while screening and minimizing indirect visual impacts to the water tower from views east into the Ranch from South Higuera Street. The interior of the water tower would be accessed via a simple, unpainted wooden door in the north façade. Although historic photographs do not depict a door at this location, there was a door on the rear, east-facing façade to provide access to interior storage space. The proposed addition of a door on the south façade, while not part of the original water tower per se, would serve a practicable purpose Attachment 6 ARC1 - 143 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 40 to allow vendor staff access into the water tower to serve patrons. This proposed relocation would not result in a net increase in openings; it would be simple in appearance, and would remain located on a secondary, non-street facing façade. 5.2.4.7 Conclusion Based on a review of design of this project, the proposed reconstruction of the water tower conforms to the Secretary’s Standards. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 144 Existing: Water Tower from west. Architectural Rendering: Water Tower from west. FIGURE 8 Water Tower: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 8_Water Tower_Comparative Images.cdr (9/21/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 145 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 42 5.2.5 PRESERVATION OF THE WINDMILL AND ENTRY SIGN The windmill and entry sign will retain their historic uses. The windmill would be relocated approximately 20 feet to the southwest of its current location, in concert with the water tower and barn locations. The entry sign would be preserved in place. The existing condition of windmill and entry sign would be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention and repairs needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material would match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. Work to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features would be completed in a manner physically and visually compatible with the original, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. The project would maximize retention of the windmill and entry sign’s distinctive materials and features. Table D: Secretary’s Standards for Preservation – Windmill and Entry Sign Preservation Standard Compliant Not Compliant Not Applicable Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. X Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. X Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. X Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. X Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. X Standard 6: The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. X 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. X Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. X Attachment 6 ARC1 - 146 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 43 5.2.5.1 Preservation Standard 1 A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. The windmill and entry sign would retain their historic uses. The proposed project would relocate the windmill approximately 20 feet to the southwest from its current location, in concert with the water tower and barn relocations. The synchronized relocation would preserve their historical spatial relationships. The entry sign would remain in it its historical location and be used as it was historically, namely to identify the property and demarcate the formal entrance. The project would result in the synchronized relocation of the reconstructed barn, rehabilitated water tower, and relocated windmill (described above), from their historical locations approximately 20 feet closer to the entry sign. Once completed, these synchronized relocations would retain their spatial relationships in a manner that is comprehensible to the casual observer. As designed, the proposed development would in compliance with Preservation Standard 1. 5.2.5.2 Preservation Standard 2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The windmill and entry sign would not be altered in terms of materials or design. These objects remain in relatively good repair. As described in Standard 1 above, the windmill would be relocated in concert with the reconstructed barn and rehabilitated water tower to preserve their collective historical spatial pattern. The entry sign would retain its historical use in its historical location. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 2. 5.2.5.3 Preservation Standard 3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. The project would not create a false sense of history. The windmill and entry sign would not be altered. The proposed relocation of the windmill would not alter its historic materials or design. The entry sign would remain in its historical location. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 3. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 147 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 44 5.2.5.4 Preservation Standard 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. The windmill was installed circa 1930; the entry sign was installed circa 1908 and modified in 1923. Their character-defining elements were established during their respective periods of construction. With the exception of the alteration of entry sign in 1923 when the Bonetti family moved to the property and painted the Bonetti name on the sign, no additional changes have acquired significance. There would be no attempt to create an earlier appearance of the windmill or the entry sign. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 4. 5.2.5.5 Preservation Standard 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. The project would preserve and protect the distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques that characterize the windmill and entry sign. The project would relocate the windmill. The relocation would not alter its distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques that characterize it. The entry sign would not be moved or otherwise altered. It would remain in place and its distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques that characterize it would be protected. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 5. 5.2.5.6 Preservation Standard 6 The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture. The windmill and entry sign would be assessed to document their existing condition. Based on the results of the assessment, appropriate steps would be taken if necessary to determine the proper procedure for repairing any damaged materials, finishes, and associated features. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 6. 5.2.5.7 Preservation 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 proposed project does not include any proposed work where chemical or physical treatments would be undertaken. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 148 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 45 As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 7. 5.2.5.8 Preservation Standard 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Archaeological resources are not expected to be found on the project site, as the area for relocation and related construction has been disturbed by grading, discing, and other farming-related activities. However, the proposed project does include excavation work. If any archaeological material should be encountered during this project, construction should be halted and appropriate mitigation measures taken to identify and avoid, or substantially lessen, potential impacts. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Preservation Standard 8. 5.2.5.9 Conclusion Based on a review of design of this project, the proposed preservation of the windmill and entry sign conforms to the Secretary’s Standards. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 149 Existing: Windmill with Water Tower and Barn from south Architectural Rendering: Windmill with rebuilt Water Tower and Barn from South Higuera Street. FIGURE 9 Windmill: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 9_Windmill_Comparative Images.cdr (9/21/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 150 Existing: Entry Sign from South Higuera Road. Architectural Rendering: Entry Sign from South Higuera Road. FIGURE 10 Entry Sign: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 10_Entry Sign_Comparative Images.cdr (8/12/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 151 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 48 5.2.6 RESTORATION OF THE LANDSCAPE FEATURES The proposed project would restore the landscape features to reflect the property’s period of significance of circa 1880-1930. The project would relocate the landscape features in concert with the relocation of the farmhouse to preserve the collective spatial relationship. The landscape features of the Ranch are located in an approximately 4,600-square-foot area west of and adjacent to the farmhouse. They include a water fountain, which consists of a raised concrete fountain basin with a cast-iron fountain pedestal; a gas lamp; and gardens which consist of several extant mature plantings. These plantings include: • Several ornamental shrubs arranged around the water fountain basin; • Wisteria vines on the existing trellis north of and adjacent to the farmhouse; and • Two Mexican Fan Palm trees that, when viewed from the west, frame the farmhouse’s main, west-facing façade. A professional biologist would determine if any of the existing plantings are diseased or past their productive life and require replacement. If any are in such a condition, they would be documented prior to their removal and an in-kind replacement planted in a manner that reflects the original’s spacing and arrangement with respect to the remaining plantings. Work needed to remove, stabilize and reinstall the water fountain and gas lamp would be done in a way that is physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. Recommended work on the fountain would include cleaning and strengthening the fountain’s concrete basin as appropriate, cleaning the cast-iron water fountain pedestal, and restoring the fountain as an operational water feature following relocation. The gas lamp consists of a metal pole with a glass, gas-lit fixture suspended from a curved metal pipe attached on the approximately 20–foot-tall pole. The gas lamp is located between the farmhouse and the water fountain. It is no longer functional. The project would relocate the gas lamp and restore its historic use as a lighting feature. Table E: Secretary’s Standards for Restoration – Landscape Features Restoration Standard Compliant Not Compliant Not Applicable Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property's restoration period. X Standard 2: Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. X Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. X Attachment 6 ARC1 - 152 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 49 Standard 4: Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. X Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. X Standard 6: Deteriorated features from the restoration period 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. X Standard 7: Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. X Standard 8: 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. X Standard 9: Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. X Standard 10: Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. X 5.2.6.1 Restoration Standard 1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property's restoration period. The gas lamp, water fountain, and associated plantings would be moved en masse from their current locations approximately 16 feet, six inches to the southwest in concert with the proposed relocated farmhouse. The relocated landscape elements would remain on the property and, when reinstalled, restore the historical spatial pattern and be readily understood by the public in the collective context of the Ranch’s period of significance (circa 1880-1930). Therefore, as designed, the proposed development would in compliance with Restoration Standard 1. 5.2.6.2 Restoration Standard 2 Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. The landscape features would not be altered in terms of materials or features. As several of these elements are living plants, there is some expectation that they may, as a result of the relocation, become stressed and require careful monitoring to remain viable. The water fountain and gas lamp Attachment 6 ARC1 - 153 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 50 remain in relatively good repair. As described in Standard 1 above, these landscape elements would be part of a synchronized relocation with the relocated farmhouse. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 2. 5.2.6.3 Restoration Standard 3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. The landscape features would be recognized for their association with the Ranch’s period of significance. They would maintain their historical spatial relationships and would be reused per their respective historical purposes. The water fountain would be operational, the gas lamp would provide light, and the plantings would convey earlier decorative landscaping patterns. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 3. 5.2.6.4 Restoration Standard 4 Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. The landscape elements would be restored to their respective appearance and function as they were during the Ranch’s period of significance. The project would relocate these elements to maintain their collective historical spatial relationship. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes not associated with the period of significance would not be integrated into the restored design. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 4. 5.2.6.5 Restoration Standard 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. As described in Standard 4, the landscape elements would be restored to their respective historical appearance and function. These elements were installed to beautify and illuminate a simple, single- family ranch property using materials and construction methods common to the period. The project would relocate these elements in a manner sensitive to preserving these aspects. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 5. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 154 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 51 5.2.6.6 Restoration Standard 6 Deteriorated features from the restoration period 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. The landscape elements are generally simple in design. They were built using materials and construction techniques common to the period. Should deteriorated features of the water fountain, or gas lamp require repairs, such work would be completed in a manner sympathetic to the original. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 6. 5.2.6.7 Restoration Standard 7 Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. Any repairs or replacement of missing pieces would be completed in a manner that references the period of significance using the available evidence and existing conditions. No attempts to add additional features or otherwise “contemporize” these elements are proposed. No additional features, materials, or elements salvaged from other areas within the project site or from other historical resources are proposed. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 7. 5.2.6.8 Restoration Standard 8 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 proposed project does not include any work where chemical or physical treatments would be undertaken. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 8. 5.2.6.9 Restoration Standard 9 Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Archaeological resources are not expected to be found on the project site, as the area for relocation and related construction has been disturbed by grading, discing, and other farming-related activities. However, the proposed project does include excavation work. If any archaeological material should be encountered during this project, construction should be halted and appropriate mitigation measures taken to identify and avoid, or substantially lessen, potential impacts. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 155 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 52 As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 9. 5.2.6.10 Restoration Standard 10 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. The proposed project does not propose to incorporate designs unsupported in the available historical record or existing conditions via field survey observation or pre-construction surveys. The project will restore the configuration, operation, and collective aesthetic of the gas lamp, water fountain, and associated plantings at a location approximately 16 feet, six inches to the southwest in concert with the proposed relocated farmhouse reestablishing the primary relationship between these landscape elements and the center of the farmhouse’s main, street-facing façade. The project does not propose to “modernize” these features in a way that would alter their appearance from the restoration period. Repairs using modern parts and systems may be necessary to restore the operation of the water fountain feature and gas lamp. However, these parts would be installed in a manner (e.g., underground) such that they would not be readily visible. As described above in Section 5.2.2.1, the project would install an ornamental farm, gardens, and an orchard in the vicinity of the farmhouse. These landscape elements would be placed in areas that are currently bare ground. They would be separated from the restored water fountain, gas lamp, and associated plantings by wide pedestrian walkways to the south and north. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Restoration Standard 10. 5.2.6.11 Conclusion Based on a review of design of this project, the proposed restoration of the landscape features conforms to the Secretary’s Standards. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 156 Existing: Landscape View from southwest. Architectural Rendering: Landscape View from southwest. FIGURE 11 Landscape View: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 11_Landscape View_Comparative Images.cdr (2/25/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 157 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 54 5.2.7 REHABILITATION OF THE GRANARY The project proposes to rehabilitate a circa 1908 former granary for use as a produce barn. The proposed rehabilitation would alter, to some degree, the granary’s materials, massing, detailing, and finishes to some degree to accommodate the new purpose and to meet modern health and safety codes. The granary’s irregular massing and variable-pitched roof line, arguably its character-defining features, would be retained. The horizontal wood siding and metal roofing would be repaired or replaced with in-kind materials, as necessary; the treatment is specified in the current project plans (Appendix D). A circa 1923 shed-roof addition on the rear, east-facing façade once used as a chicken shed would be removed. This would make the building more accessible by opening three sides of the building to display produce and to accommodate a pedestrian pathway between the granary and the construction of Building 6 (Shops) to the east, which is one of the basic objectives of the project. The project would relocate the granary approximately 15 feet west of its original location. The project would alter the interior spaces and exterior configuration of the granary to accommodate conversion to a produce barn. Currently the granary contains three distinct interior spaces last utilized as garage space with a chicken coop at the rear portion of the building, therefore showing considerable adaptive re-use by former owners since construction in 1908. The interior spaces are generally rectangular and vary in size. The interior changes would remove any existing electrical wiring or lighting, built-in shelving, and material storage systems that were subsequently added by former owners. As a secondary support building of utilitarian design, the materials used in the interior spaces would have been selected based on basic or functional uses and unadorned in appearance. These materials are therefore, not considered character-defining features. The proposed rehabilitation would retain this component of the Ranch’s historical built environment in a manner that references its basic utilitarian aesthetic and appearance. Table F: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Granary Rehabilitation Standard Compliant Not Compliant Not Applicable Standard 1: A property would 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. X Standard 2: The historic character of a property would be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property would be avoided. X Standard 3: Each property would 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 historical properties, would not be undertaken. X Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right would be retained and preserved. X Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property would X Attachment 6 ARC1 - 158 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 55 be preserved. Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features would be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature would match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features would substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. X Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials would not be used. X Standard 8: Archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure would be undertaken. X Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction would not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and would compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. X Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction would 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. X 5.2.7.1 Rehabilitation Standard 1 A property would 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 granary is a single-story; irregularly shaped secondary support building built in 1908 and associated with the subsequent development of the Ranch by George Long and the Bonetti Family. The granary would remain on the Ranch at a location approximately 15 feet west of its original location and within the collective historical spatial pattern of the Ranch’s built environment. The proposed produce barn conversion would retain the granary’s distinctive features such as its irregular massing, variable-pitched roof line, wood wall cladding, metal roofing, and original entrances. Additional entrances would be added on the south and east-facing façades to create the open-air produce barn. Although the granary would no longer be used to store grain or as garage space, it would still be utilized and remain perceptible as an early-20th century secondary support building that has a functional and collective relationship to other contributing elements of the Ranch. The proposed alterations would not significantly impact the granary’s primary, west-facing façade. The proposed additional wall openings on the north and east façades for displaying produce would not radically alter the building’s overall form or obscure its features. The proposed openings would imitate the later historical use of the granary’s shed roof additions as garage space and their presence in the current design would not significantly impact the granary’s significance as an element of the Ranch. When closed, the bi-fold doors would replicate the granary’s solid wood-clad walls. When opened, the bi-fold overhead doors would protrude beyond each of the granary’s façade planes Attachment 6 ARC1 - 159 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 56 however; these doors would not stay permanently open and, therefore, would not result in the significant alteration to the granary as characterized in Preservation Brief 14: A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation, or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely integrate the historic and new interiors, and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards (NPS 2010:3). As designed, the proposed development would be compliant with Rehabilitation Standard 1. 5.2.7.2 Rehabilitation Standard 2 The historic character of a property would be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property would be avoided. This historic character of the granary is conveyed by its architectural qualities as a single-story, utilitarian building. The proposed project does not include the removal or wholesale alteration of any of the granary’s distinctive materials, nor does the proposed project include the major alteration of any of its key, defining features such as its irregular massing, variable-pitched roof line, wood siding, metal roofing, and configuration within the Ranch’s collective built environment. The granary’s significance depends on its grouping with the other built environment elements of the Ranch. The granary itself is of minor importance in this regard, but its relationship to the rest of the Ranch partially conveys the identity of the Ranch as a working property. Therefore, the proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the granary, a secondary building set among lager, more prominent buildings, would be completed in a manner that retains its spatial relationship with respect to the other historical elements of the Ranch’s built environment that does not significantly impact any of its distinctive materials or alter its features and spatial relationships that characterize it. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. 5.2.7.3 Rehabilitation Standard 3 Each property would 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 historical properties, would not be undertaken. The project would not create a false sense of history. New construction would use modern materials, such as the new siding, roofing, signage, and entrance doors to accommodate produce display and vendor space. The overall shape, design, and materials would be referenced in the rehabilitated granary enabling a modern visitor to understand the building as it was intended, a secondary, multi- purpose support building of utilitarian design. The rehabilitated granary would be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 160 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 57 5.2.7.4 Rehabilitation Standard 4 Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right would be retained and preserved. The granary was built in 1908 by George Long and altered at various times during the mid-20th century by the Bonetti Family for use as a chicken coop and automobile garage. All character- defining elements of the granary reflect the varied uses of this secondary building and remain present since the mid-20th century. The proposed rehabilitation is in keeping with the building’s historical pattern of being re-purposed for other uses. The proposed project however, would not result in a series of changes to the granary (i.e., the relocation and removal of the chicken coop addition on the rear, east-facing façade) that it would irreversibly alter the granary’s distinctive materials, nor any of its key, defining features, such as its irregular massing, variable-pitched roof line, wood siding, metal roofing, and configuration within the Ranch’s collective built environment. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. 5.2.7.5 Rehabilitation Standard 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property would be preserved. The overall materials, features, and finishes of the granary would remain in place on the building or be referenced, but not replicated, in the new construction. The existing granary’s irregular massing, variable-pitched roof line, wood siding, entrances, and materials represent materials, finishes, or construction techniques common to the time. These historical elements would be referenced in the new construction. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. 5.2.7.6 Rehabilitation Standard 6 Deteriorated historic features would 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 would substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. The granary’s features, such as its irregular massing, variable-pitched roof line, wood siding, metal roofing, large entrances, and materials would be largely retained. Those features that are deteriorated and could not be repaired would be replaced with in-kind materials. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 161 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 58 5.2.7.7 Rehabilitation Standard 7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, would be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials would not be used. The proposed project does not include any work where chemical or physical treatments would be undertaken. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. 5.2.7.8 Rehabilitation Standard 8 Archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measure would be undertaken. Archaeological resources are not expected to be found on the project site, as the area for relocation and related construction has been disturbed by grading, discing, and other farming-related activities. However, the proposed project does include excavation work. If any archaeological material should be encountered during this project, construction should be halted and appropriate mitigation measures taken to identify and avoid, or substantially lessen, potential impacts. The proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8. 5.2.7.9 Rehabilitation Standard 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction would not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and would compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. As discussed in Standards 1, 2, and 5, the proposed relocation and alteration of the granary would not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships to such a degree that the granary itself and the Ranch, as a whole, could no longer be understood. As discussed in Standard 1, proposed new construction and alterations would result in some changes to the historic materials, features. However, these changes would occur along the building’s secondary façades, which is encouraged under these Rehabilitation Standards and not impact the granary’s singular character-defining features, which include its irregular massing, variable-pitched roof line, wood siding, metal roofing, large entrances, and simple unadorned materials and utilitarian appearance. As discussed in Standard 3, new construction would be sufficiently differentiated from, yet compatible with, the existing historic fabric and spatial patterns. The overall integrity and significance of the Ranch would not be impacted by the relocation of the granary to another location within its boundaries. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 162 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 59 5.2.7.10 Rehabilitation Standard 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction would 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. If the proposed relocated and altered granary was moved approximately 15 feet east to its current original location, and subsequent additions were removed and converted back to its original use as a secondary support building, the essential form of the Long-Bonetti Ranch, as a whole, would not constitute a substantial adverse change to this historical resource. As designed, the proposed development would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10. 5.2.7.11 Conclusion Based on a review of design of this project, the proposed rehabilitation of the granary conforms to the Secretary’s Standards. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 163 Existing: Granary from the southwest. Architectural Rendering: Granary from the northwest. FIGURE 12 Granary: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 12_Granary_Comparative Images.cdr (8/17/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 164 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 61 5.2.8 SUGGESTED DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS The proposed designs of the new buildings appear to be compatible, but differentiated from, the historic fabric of the Ranch complex around it. Based on archival research, field survey, as well as the professional judgment of the author, no other major design improvements are necessary. However, as a means to strengthen the interpretive potential of the historical qualities of the Ranch, the project could install interpretive panels providing an overview of the Ranch’s history and the role it played in the history of San Luis Obispo, particularly agriculture. These panels could utilize historical images to enrich the visitor experience by linking visual evidence of the San Luis Obispo’s past with tangible evidence of that architectural heritage, which include the farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 165 Existing: Overall Setting from southwest. Architectural Rendering: Overall Setting from southwest. FIGURE 13 Overall Setting: Comparative Images Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California P:\PBC1501\g\Cultural\Figure 13_Overall Setting_Comparative Images.cdr (8/17/2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 166 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 63 6.0 CONCLUSION The Long-Bonetti Ranch is a 2.17-acre former ranch complex consisting of a single-story farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary constructed circa 1880 and 1930, located at 3897 South Higuera Street/120 Tank Farm Road in San Luis Obispo (APNs 053-251- 049; -050). The Long-Bonetti Ranch is currently listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources, and, therefore, qualifies as a “historical resource” under CEQA, as well as Section 14.01.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a mix of new construction and the re-use of historical buildings and structures. The Project will incorporate the rehabilitated farmhouse and granary, reconstructed barn and water tower, windmill, entry sign, and restored landscape features. Although several significant elements of the Ranch would be relocated to accommodate the new construction, which is a basic objective of the project, their collective relocation would occur in concert to preserve their general collective historical spatial relationship, massing, and setting of the historic Ranch core in a manner that would be easily comprehensible to modern, casual observers. New construction would occur inside and along the periphery of the Ranch’s historic core as part of the project. It would not, however, result in a detrimental effect to the status of the Ranch as a historical resource under CEQA. The design of the proposed new construction would be compatible and appropriately reference, but not replicate, the Ranch complex’s architectural character-defining elements. The new construction is designed to be differentiated from the general scale, massing, and design of the contributors to the Ranch. Based on an analysis dependent on field observations and archival research, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource and would not have a significant effect on the environment. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 167 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 64 7.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED California Office of Historic Preservation 2003 California Historic Resource Status Codes. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/chrstatus%20codes.pdf, accessed June 23, 2015. 2011 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6 - California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011% 20update.pdf, accessed June 23, 2015. Chattel, Robert Jay 2008 Long-Bonetti Ranch – 3897 Higuera Street and 120 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, CA. Conceptual Site Plan Limited Review. Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc., Sherman Oaks, California. City of San Luis Obispo 2014 Conceptual Architectural Review of a Project Located at the Long-Bonetti Ranch Property. Correspondence with Randy Alonzo, PB Companies. San Luis Obispo, California. 1994 Nomination of Seven Properties to the Master List of Historic Resources. San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda - 03/15/1994. Electronic document, http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink8/1/doc/22797/Page3.aspx, accessed September 1, 2015. Historic Resources Group 2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Historic Resources Group, Pasadena, California. Electronic document, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/SLO%20Final%20Historic%20Context%20Stateme nt_1.21.2014.pdf, accessed July 15, 2014. Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, H. Ward Jandl 1992 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, Washington D.C. National Park Service 1988 Preservation Brief 18: Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/18Preserve-Brief- Interiors.pdfm, accessed August 10, 2014. 1989 Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns. Technical Preservation Services, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/20-barns.htm, accessed October 22, 2013. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 168 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) 65 1991 Preservation Brief 25: The Preservation of Historic Signs. Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/25-signs.htm, accessed May 24, 2007. 1997 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria of Evaluation U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 2010 Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns. Technical Preservation Services, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/32-accessibility.htm, accessed May 24, 2007. 2015 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historical Documentation. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_5.htm, accessed May 28, 2015. Noble, Allen G. and Richard K. Cleek 1995 The Old Barn Book: A Field Guide to North American Barns & Other Barn Structures. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Oasis Associates, Inc. 2008 Project Statement/Supplement – to the Application for the proposed The Shops at Long- Bonetti Ranch. Oasis Associates, Inc., San Luis Obispo, California PB Companies 2015 Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Conceptual Site Plan and Perspective Views. February 20, 2015. On file at PB Companies, San Luis Obispo, California. Strasbaugh Development 1998 Historic Property Preservation Agreement: APN 053-251-025. On file at the Office of the City Clerk, San Luis Obispo, California and at the San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office, San Luis Obispo, California. Triem, Judy 1990 Historical Evaluation of Long-Bonetti Ranch: 3897 Higuera Street/120 Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo, California. San Buenaventura Research Associates, Santa Paula, California. Vessely, Robert S. 2001 Structural Assessment of the Long-Bonetti Ranch Buildings, 3897 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Robert S. Vessely, San Luis Obispo, California. Vlach, John Michael 2003 Barns. Norton/Library of Congress Visual Sourcebooks in Architecture, Design, and Engineering. W.W. Norton & company, New York, Library of Congress, Washington D.C. Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer 1995 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, and Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Services, Cultural Heritage Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington D.C. Attachment 6 ARC1 - 169 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) A-1 APPENDIX A HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT Attachment 6 ARC1 - 170 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 171 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 172 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 173 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 174 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 175 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) A-2 APPENDIX B HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF LONG-BONETTI RANCH Attachment 6 ARC1 - 176 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 177 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 178 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 179 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 180 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 181 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 182 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 183 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 184 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 185 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 186 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 187 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 188 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 189 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 190 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 191 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 192 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 193 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 194 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 195 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 196 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) A-3 APPENDIX C LONG-BONETTI RANCH CONCEPTURAL SITE PLAN - LIMITED REVIEW Attachment 6 ARC1 - 197 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 198 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 199 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 200 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 201 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 202 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 203 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 204 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 205 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 206 Attachment 6 ARC1 - 207 LSA MAY 2016 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P:\PBC1501_Bonetti\Completeness_Review\Completeness Review II\May_2016\FINAL_LSA_BONETTI_PIA_REPORT_(5.24.2016).docx (05/24/16) A-4 APPENDIX D PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN AND PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (PB COMPANIES, AUGUST 31, 2015) Attachment 6 ARC1 - 208 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ARCH-1219-2015 / EID-3116-2016 1. Project Title: PUBLIC MARKET AT BONETTI RANCH The project proposes a mixed development of small market elements, brewery, shops, restaurants, entertainment and open space. The project will incorporate a mix of new and re-use of existing historical structures over eight separate buildings. The application includes Architectural Review; City File ARCH-1219-2015 / EID-3116-2016. 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: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner 805-781-7176 Prepared By: Jeff Oliveira, Principal Environmental Planner Oliveira Environmental Consulting LLC www.olive-env.com 4. Project Location: Northwest corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. APN 053-241-049, -050 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Tank Farm Center, LLC 3480 South Higuera Street, Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project Representative Name and Address: Arris Studio Architects 1306 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 209 2 6. General Plan Designation: Manufacturing 7. Zoning: M-SP (Manufacturing Specific Plan) 8. Description of the Project: The Public Market at Bonetti Ranch project consists of a 5.5‐acre site located at the site of the previously approved Long‐Bonetti Ranch Project at the northwest corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road in the City of San Luis Obispo, CA. The project site contains a former ranch complex constructed between circa 1880 and 1930, consisting of a single story farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary. The Long‐Bonetti Ranch is listed in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. The proposed Public Market project is limited to the western parcel (APN 053-241-049) and consists of a revision to the originally approved Long-Bonetti Ranch Project and is the second phase of the full Bonetti Ranch development. Phase 1, consisting of a Tractor Supply Company store and retail buildings, has been previously approved and is already under construction. The proposed Public Market project (i.e., phase 2) will be built as a single phase, beginning with the proposed reconstruction and rehabilitation of historical resources followed by site work and grading. The proposed project will consist of the following significant features: 1) Proposed addition of new structures among the historic Long Bonetti Ranch complex (please refer to the attached project plans) a. Building 5: Contemporary Agrarian Design - 498 square feet b. Building 6: Agrarian Design - 5,008 square feet c. Building 7: Contemporary Agrarian - 30,438 square feet d. Building 8: Agrarian Design – 5,757 square feet 2) Proposed modifications to historic structures [please refer to the Project Description (page 13) of the attached report titled Project Impacts Analysis of the Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo (LSA, September 2015) for additional details] a. Relocation of the existing farmhouse (including entry pathway, water feature and landscaping), water tower, windmill, granary, and barn b. Rehabilitation of the existing farmhouse and granary c. Reconstruction of the existing barn and water tower d. Preservation of the windmill, and entry sign e. Restoration of the landscape features 3) Other associated site improvements including outdoor plazas, landscaping, gardens/orchard, Attachment 7 ARC1 - 210 3 and central parking areas In addition to the eight proposed buildings, totaling 48,242 square feet of commercial area, picnic lawns, recreational area, public art, orchards, demo gardens, and entertainment areas will occupy much of the site. The proposed Public Market uses are allowed under the Zoning Ordinance and the 2009 Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 5519‐09) with the approval of an administrative use permit. Please refer to Figures 1 and 2 for a detailed depiction of the project site vicinity, location and a site plan/aerial photo overlay. 9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The existing site consists of the former ranch complex development discussed above. The Long‐ Bonetti Ranch is listed in the City’s Master List of Historic Resources and is subject to the City Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The site also includes the Tractor Supply building and associated site improvements which are under construction. Pedestrian access to the site is available from South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. The project design includes pedestrian pathways allowing circulation between proposed buildings and includes bicycle parking. Mature landscape trees (Monterey Cypress) form the southern boundary of the site, along the existing sidewalk. The remainder of the site is occupied by the historic farm complex discussed in detail in the analysis below. Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows: West (across South Higuera Street): Developed with residential uses (Creekside Mobile Home Community), zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. North: Developed with office and commercial uses (Tribune offices), zoned M-SP, Manufacturing Specific Plan. East: Developed with office and commercial uses (Kennedy Club Fitness), zoned M-SP, Manufacturing Specific Plan. South: (across Tank Farm Road): Developed with commercial/retail uses (Higuera Center), zoned C-S, Commercial Services. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Architectural review approval, Use Permit approval for proposed project uses. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Attachment 7 ARC1 - 211 4 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 Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning X Transportation / Traffic X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems 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). 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)). Attachment 7 ARC1 - 212 5 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. Signature Date For: Michael Codron Tyler Corey, Principal Planner Community Development Director Attachment 7 ARC1 - 213 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 214 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5, 28, 29, 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 As evaluated in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR (October 2014), 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 exhibits quality views of nearby natural landmarks, including Islay Hill, Righetti Hill and the Coast Range to the northeast and is visually separated from the City core by the Orcutt Area and Broad Street. Visually, the eclectic nature of the Higuera Street corridor is difficult to define, but includes older buildings closer to the downtown core and larger more modern offices such as the Department of Motor Vehicles as one moves southward towards the project site. a) The proposed project is a fairly open lot surrounded by an urbanized section of the City on a site that has generally flat topography. The project site contains a former ranch complex constructed between circa 1880 and 1930, consisting of a single-story farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary. The Bonetti Ranch is currently unoccupied and portions of the site are currently under development consistent with Phase I of the development. The Bonetti Ranch is listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources. The proposed project would redevelop the Bonetti Ranch with the addition of new construction and the re-use of the farmhouse, barn, granary, windmill, water tower, and entry sign. The gas lamp, water fountain, and landscape plantings would be incorporated into the design. Please refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources, for a detailed discussion of proposed project redevelopment and consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. In addition, the project development will be consistent with the 2009 Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 5519‐09). Although the project site exhibits a fairly open lot configuration dominated by the former Bonetti Ranch complex and associated outbuildings, the project site is surrounded by higher density residential and commercial/office development consistent with the proposed project layout. With the historic preservation requirements outlined in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project would not impact unique visual features that would distinguish the site from surrounding areas. Although a portion of South Higuera is within a scenic vista corridor per the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element, 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 existing project site visual distinction correlates directly to the former ranch complex and outbuildings associated with the Bonetti Ranch, however, with the incorporation of proposed design elements previously reviewed by the City and analyzed against historic preservation requirements discussed below, the project would not significantly impact the overall character of the project site, block significant views from or in the vicinity of the site, or change the nature of scenic resources. b) Located approximately 0.5 miles to the west, Highway 101 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. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 215 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 c) Visual resources in the vicinity of the site are discussed above and include views of Islay and Righetti Hills and the Coast Range to the northeast. The applicant proposes development of a commercial retail complex at the site of the former Bonetti Ranch. 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 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. Please refer to the City LUCE Update Background Report and EIR for a detailed discussion of the regulatory setting for aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, the City’s Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviews and approves the design of proposed buildings. Architectural review is a process whereby the City’s ARC examines a proposed project’s layout, building design, its relationship to the neighborhood in which it would be located, landscaping, parking, signage, lighting, and other features affecting the project’s appearance. The ARC is charged with administering architectural review to help achieve attractive and environmentally sensitive development. Based on these existing design review requirements, and as shown in the project elevations, photosimulations and proposed project plans and historic preservation elements, the project is not expected to degrade the existing visual character of the site. Impacts are considered less than significant. d) 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 density and development within the subject site with the potential to create an increase in light or glare or affect nighttime views. However, the project will be 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. Implementation of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Conclusion: With the lighting requirements discussed above, 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, 31 --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 (unless actively irrigated) 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. Although the site consists of a historic ranch/farming complex, the site has not been actively farmed for decades and is not zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) Although the site consists of a former ranch/farm complex, historic farming has not occurred on the site for decades. The project site is not located on active farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is designated for Attachment 7 ARC1 - 216 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 Manufacturing uses in the General Plan and is zoned M-SP (Manufacturing Specific Plan). 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 active 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 thresholds for ozone precursors)? 9, 20, 21, 13, 31 --X-- 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 217 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 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 excee d 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 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 proposed excavated site 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: The CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides guidance on potential project impacts related to GHG emissions based on a list of land uses and their corresponding thresholds. However, because of the unique nature of the public market proposed for development, the CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not provide comparable GHG thresholds that could be used to determine project emissions. Although regional shopping centers are included in the thresholds, it should be noted that the proposed project would not be considered to be a standard “regional shopping center” that would draw customers for more day-to-day needs; rather, the project is more consistent with a public market offering specialty shopping. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not include a better or more appropriate land use category to fit the proposed project. Although the CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not provide an appropriate or comparable land use for determining operational emission impact thresholds, air quality impacts resulting from the buildout of the City’s General Plan have been analyzed in detail under the LUCE Update EIR. Specifically, in 2009 the City conducted a GHG emissions inventory of annual emissions for the baseline year 2005. The City’s CAP also included forecasted business‐as‐usual (BAU) emissions for 2010, 2020 and 2035. The CAP BAU forecast supersedes forecasted emissions included in the original 2009 inventory. According to the emissions forecast, communitywide BAU emissions would increase by approximately 9 percent in 2020 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 218 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 compared to 2005 levels, and would further increase by approximately 21 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels. However, projected growth assumed under the Land Use Element is equal to or slightly less than the growth projections used to estimate worst case future GHG emissions in the CAP. Therefore, expected long‐term operational GHG emissions generated by new development is consistent with the land use and zoning evaluated under the LUCE Update and would be consistent with forecasted BAU communitywide emissions in the CAP. The CAP includes a communitywide GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. In order to address the forecasted increase in long-term operational emission impacts, the CAP includes specific GHG reduction measures that are designed to achieve this target, in combination with state and federal legislative reductions. As shown in the LUCE Update EIR, with implementation of the GHG reduction measures communitywide emissions would be reduced to 16 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, exceeding the 15 percent target. Please refer to Table 4.7-3 (titled “Consistency of Proposed LUCE Update Policies and Programs with Climate Action Plan Measures and Actions”) of the LUCE Update EIR for a detailed review of Land Use Element policies and their consistency with applicable CAP measures. The proposed project development would be consistent with the communitywide GHG emissions reductions assumed in the CAP and the incremental contribution of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. e) The project includes the development of commercial retail uses, as anticipated in the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment (2009) and the M-SP Manufacturing Specific Plan zone, and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. Future commercial uses have the potential to introduce odors (e.g., brewery), however, future uses will be required to be consistent with the site zoning and would be subject to commercial emission regulation based on local APCD and EPA requirements (including but not limited to mandated air filters) prior to business approval. Impacts are considered less than significant. 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. 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. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 219 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 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: i. 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, ii. 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. Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Attachment 7 ARC1 - 220 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 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, 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, 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, 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, 31 --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 5,17, 18, 33, 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, 33, 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 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 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 (March 1, 2016) and observations indicated that the Attachment 7 ARC1 - 221 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 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. Although the current, fairly open nature of the historic ranch lacks the physical development common in the site vicinity, 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 cypress and pine trees near the western property boundary along South Higuera Street and in the northern portion of the property. 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 and terrestrial 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 significant native vegetation exists 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. In order to provide an assessment of the mature cypress and pine trees on the project site, an arborist report was prepared by Robert Schreiber, ISA Certified Arborist (June 11, 2015). The report includes a site survey and analysis of the health and safety of the five Pine trees and twelve Monterey Cypress trees located on the project site. The subject trees are located in two general areas. The Pine trees are grouped together in the northern portion of the site near the entrance to the Telegram Tribune parking area from South Higuera Street and the Monterey Cypress trees, with one exception, are in the easement area between the pedestrian sidewalk and South Higuera Street. One Monterey Cypress tree is located within the property approximately 25 feet from the sidewalk. The Pine trees all exhibit evidence of branch failure and significant die back. The trees were planted too close together and, as a result, have grown in a manner that prevents healthy branch growth and has resulted in lopsided growth patterns in all but one tree. The Monterey Cypress trees, as a whole, have been extensively pruned to minimize roadway (Higuera Street) overhang. As a result, growth has been restricted over the roadway accelerating growth over the subject property resulting in substantially more end weight being concentrated on that side of the tree. Multiple trees show die back and little green new growth. A majority of the trees are showing 30° or more lean toward the property as a result of both wind activity and extensive pruning of the opposite side of the trees. Because of the overall poor and failing health of the trees, and because they are all at the end of their normal life span, and because of the risk of harm to persons and property resulting from the leaning and failing trees, the recommendation is to remove all of the subject trees. It is also recommended that new tree planting be limited to native species that are more conducive to the type of activities planned for the site. The proposed project includes a conceptual landscape plan showing the general removal of most, if not all, of the existing vegetation with the exception of the two Mexican palm trees flanking the entrance to the existing farm house. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme but does not stipulate planting type or species. 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 possibl e recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests. Conclusion: With 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 5, 26, --X-- Attachment 7 ARC1 - 222 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 or site or unique geologic feature? 31 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5, 24, 26, 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. 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. Historic Resource Evaluation: In order to assess the subject property historic background and the nature of the impacts related to project development, the following historic resource survey was prepared: Project Impacts Analysis of the Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo (LSA, September 2015). The following historic resource background and impact analysis is based on the September 2015 report. Bonetti Ranch Historic Background: According to the September 2015 LSA report, the historic setting of the Bonetti Ranch was previously evaluated in 1990 and again in 2008 identifying 11 built environment components that contributed to the historic significance of the property including the farmhouse, barn, windmill, pump house, water tower, granary, shop building, tractor shed and chicken house, additional sheds, farmhouse/bunk house/shed/storage. Landscape features consisted of a fountain, entry sign, and gas light. The Bonetti Ranch was determined to be historically significant and was added to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources in 1994. In 1998, a former owner entered into a Historic Property Preservation Agreement that requires the preservation of the appearance and historic integrity of the farmhouse, barn, windmill, water tower, and landscape features. Although the granary was not identified, it was included in the 2015 LSA report because of its age and visual contribution to the property setting. Because the property is currently listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources, it qualifies as a “historical resource” under CEQA, as well as Section 14.01.020 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Please refer to the 2015 report for a detailed current resource description of the subject property. According to the historic resource analysis, existing features of the Bonetti Ranch that still maintain historic significance include the following: farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape features (including water fountain, gas lamp and garden), and granary. Impact Analysis a) The proposed project will be required to comply with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance (City Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) and conform to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, including consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. An important step in complying with these standards is the identification of cultural resources within the project area. The aforementioned historic significance evaluation was prepared to meet this requirement. The proposed project includes the rehabilitation of two buildings (farmhouse and granary), the reconstruction of two buildings (barn and water tower), the restoration of the landscape features, and the preservation of the windmill. New Attachment 7 ARC1 - 223 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 construction (four new buildings) will generally occur in the north and west portions of the subject property. Relocation of historic structures will be generally to the west and south to accommodate the new construction and to retain the overall spatial relationship and arrangement of the historical built environment. In order to assess the historic resource impacts associated with the proposed rehabilitation, reconstruction, restoration, and preservation of the existing built environment, and impacts related to the proposed new construction, the 2015 report identifies the thresholds for determining resource significance and impacts. This includes Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines which states that: “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Examples of substantial adverse change include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” In addition, because the subject property is listed in the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources and therefore a historical resource under CEQA, the proposed project is required to comply with the Secretary’s Standards. The Secretary’s Standards comprise four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The proposed development includes new construction as well as rehabilitation of the farmhouse and granary, reconstruction of the barn and water tower, preservation of the windmill and entry sign, and restoration of the landscape features. As such, the impact analysis in the 2015 report applies the Secretary’s Standards for all four treatments to the proposed project. Please refer to the 2015 report for a comprehensive discussion of each element of the proposed project and a detailed analysis of th e historic resource impacts using the Secretary’s Standards. Although the existing elements of the property would be relocated to accommodate the proposed new construction, the 2015 report states that their relocation would occur in concert to preserve their general historical spatial relationship, massing, and setting of the historic ranch core in a manner that would be easily comprehensible to future observers. In addition, the design of the proposed new construction would be compatible and appropriately reference, but not replicate, the historic ranch complex’s architectural character-defining elements. The new construction is designed to be differentiated from the general scale, massing, and design of the contributors to the Ranch. Additionally, the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) will be responsible for reviewing the proposed project prior to permit approval. The CHC is a City‐designated committee that makes recommendations to decision‐making bodies on matters concerning the conversation, restoration, demolition, or related activities regarding cultural and historical resources in San Luis Obispo. Based on an analysis dependent on field observations and archival research, and with the required project review by the City’s CHC, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of this historical resource and would not have a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, recommendations in the 2015 report suggest that the applicant include educational and interpretive signage in the project design as a means to strengthen the historic qualities of the property. It should be noted that the applicant has included a historic monument (plaque) to be installed at the entrance to the project site to educate future observers about the history of the property (please refer to the project site plans for more information). b-d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. The 2015 report indicates that archaeological resources are not expected to be identified in the project site, as the area for relocation and related construction has been disturbed by grading, disking, and other farming-related activities over multiple decades of farming activity. However, if any archaeological material should be encountered during project construction activities mitigation measure CR-1 is provided to ensure proper handling of said material. Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. In the event that archaeological materials are discovered during project construction activities, construction shall be halted until a formal monitoring plan is prepared and approved by the City. The plan will need to include a summary of the project ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected and discovered materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for Attachment 7 ARC1 - 224 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed. Conclusion: With the recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. 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 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 225 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 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 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 226 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 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 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. However, compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will ensure that the creation of additional impervious areas will not increase the amount of runoff within the watershed, and will not affect percolation to the groundwater basin or adversely alter drainage patterns. In addition, the applicant’s adherence to the design recommendations provided in the Hydrologic and Hydraulic Drainage Report for Long Bonetti Commercial Development (prepared by Garing Taylor and Associates, June 26, 2014, as revised) will further reduce impacts. As such, erosion impacts would be 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 City’s SWMP, 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 discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, 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 of 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 227 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 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 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 to indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enforced with new construction. The anticipated long-term operation GHG emission impacts associated with the proposed project were discussed in detail above under Section 3, Air Quality. As discussed under Section 3, and in addition to required mitigation for construction phase emissions, the proposed project development would be consistent with the communitywide GHG emissions reductions assumed in the CAP and the incremental contribution of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. Conclusion: With the incorporation of required mitigation measures (see Air Quality impact analysis), and Title 24 regulations, 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, 30, 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, 30, 31 --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter 12, 30, 31 --X-- Attachment 7 ARC1 - 228 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 mile of an existing or proposed school? 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, 12, 31 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1, 4, 31 --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4, 17, 31 --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 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 229 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 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. a) In order to assess project impacts related to hazardous materials, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA; Rincon Consultants, September 8, 2015) was prepared for the subject property. According to the ESA report, there were no sites listed in the report that are expected to impact the subject property, with the exception of a documented historic Unocal Pipeline release site located along Tank Farm Road to the south of the subject property. Please refer to the 2015 Phase I ESA report for a detailed analysis of the project site, including past documentation of the release site. Based on the review of previous assessments conducted at the subject property as part of the Phase I ESA report, petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil (crude oil) is present beneath the southeastern portion of the neighboring property. Based on the weathered nature and type of TPH (crude oil) in the soil beneath the neighboring property, the potential for hydrocarbon impacted soil vapor to be present beneath the subject property (at levels requiring mitigation) is low. Remediation of the TPH impacted soil has not occurred on the subject property. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prepared two letters (dated August 22, 2005 and November 17, 2006) indicating that despite the fact that TPH-impacted soil was detected on the subject property, remediation is not required and construction is allowed to occur. Because of the RWQCB determination that soil remediation of the subject property is not required, and with adherence to the land use controls required under the 2006 Remediation License and Access Agreement for the neighboring parcel, and based on the requirements for the neighboring parcel under ASTM standards, impacts are considered less than significant and further mitigation is not required. In addition, 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 these 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, assuming such use complies 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, potential future commercial uses would not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and only a minimal amount of routine cleaning 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, 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. Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead -based paint. 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. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 230 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 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 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 commercial development with parking and associated amenities, and is approximately 3/4 of a mile southeast of Pacific Beach High School. As discussed in Impacts a and b, 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, including at the existing school. d) As discussed under impact a above, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the subject property. According to the ESA report, a search was conducted for the subject property and included data from surrounding sites within a specified radius of the property. There were no sites listed in the report that are expected to impact the subject property, with the exception of a documented historic Unocal Pipeline release site located along Tank Farm Road to the south of the subject property. Please refer to the impact discussion above for more information. Impacts are considered less than significant. e, f) The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the San Luis Obispo County Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the consideration of airport safety factors has led to the delineation of “safety areas” with respect to aviation safety risks. Please refer to the City LUCE Update EIR, Figure 4.8‐3, for a depiction of the airport safety zones as delineated through the ALUP. As shown, the project site is located within Airport Safety Zone 1b. The subject location is within the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan which does not include policies or standards for airport safety zone densities; therefore defaulting to the Zoning Regulations Airport Overlay Zone requirements, per Zoning Regulations Section 17.57.020.A. The proposed project complies with Airport Overlay Zone maximum allowed persons per acre (Chapter 17.57 Table 10) and would therefore not 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, residential and commercial 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 th e 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 5, --X-- Attachment 7 ARC1 - 231 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 requirements? 15,16, 27, 31 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-- 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. 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. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 232 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 In order to evaluate the specific nature of the hydrology and water quality issues for the subject property, the project proponents have initiated a hydrologic analysis (Hydrologic and Hydraulic Drainage Report for Long Bonetti Commercial Development, Garing Taylor and Associates, June 26, 2014, as revised). The principal objective of the report is to ensure that new development project meets the requirements of the Drainage Design Manual for impacts to the watershed and for water quality treatment, as discussed below. 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), the Interim Low Impact Development Standards, and City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of original entitlements. Building permits have been issued for and the installations have been completed for part of the storm drainage system providing water quantity and water quality controls. The system design will limit the post development runoff to that of the pre-development condition for the 2, 10, 25, 50, & 100-year storm events. The project will treat the runoff from all parking lots, drive aisles and trash enclosure areas in accordance with the Interim Low Impact Development Standards and City Engineering Standard 1010.B. City Engineering Standard for Source Control of Drainage and Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010.B clarifies that, “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 Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development/Redevelopment. The proposed project will include the construction of a commercial/retail development including multiple structures 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. According to the 2014 hydrologic analysis, the project site elevations range from 127.5 feet to 120 feet. The site is nearly flat, sloping towards the southwestern corner. The site currently drains via overland flow, discharging to the street drainage system, eventually entering an inlet at the corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. The inlet is at the downstream end of a stormdrain pipe which chesses the western edge of the site. The proposed project is planned to drain via a system of drain pipes to a detention system, eventually entering the City’s storm drain system. According to the 2014 analysis, the proposed development will result in 201,767 square feet of impervious surfaces (pavement and roofs), and 74,470 square feet of permeable surfaces (e.g., landscape and/or agricultural demonstration area). The hydraulic analysis included the modeled project stormwater runoff post-project development. The modeling indicates that the proposed detention system, consisting of underground chambers and associated rock, will provide the storage needed to reduce post-development stormwater flows to pre-development levels (or lower). No net increase in stormwater runoff is anticipated. According to the 2014 report, the proposed project compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management Plan is summarized as follows: Requirement Project Compliance Treat all runoff per CASQA BMPs All parking lot runoff is treated with drop-inlet water quality inserts. Roof drains are not directly connected to the storm drain system. All runoff from the site is treated in the detention system. Volumetric BMPs shall be designed to treat the runoff from a 1”/24-hour storm event. A 1-inch storm will produce 14,689 cubic feet of runoff. In comparison, the 100-year storm which was modeled as part of this analysis produced 116,600 cubic feet of runoff. According to the modeling, all of the 100-year storm runoff was able to be treated within the detention system. Therefore, all runoff from a 1”/24-hour storm would be treated within the proposed detention system. In addition, as discussed in the 2014 analysis, the proposed project satisfies the Interim Low Impact Development (LID) standards by providing the following LID measures: Amend Soils Attachment 7 ARC1 - 233 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26  A key aspect of this project is the incorporation of agriculture onto the site. To enhance agricultural production the soils will be amended as needed. Down-spout disconnect  All flow from roof drains is disconnected from the City's storm drain system because it will pass through the detention system. In the detention system it receives pretreatment (via settling in the water quality cells) and is given the opportunity to percolate into the soil. Porous paving systems  Porous pavement is used in the truck loading areas. Pavement disconnection  All flow from new pavement is disconnected from the City's storm drain system because it will pass through the detention system. In the detention system it receives pretreatment (via settling in the water quality cells) and is given the opportunity to percolate into the soil. Stormwater ponds  The detention system incorporates a porous rock layer below the level of the outlet. This underground volume provides similar benefits as an above-ground pond, and can therefore be categorized as a stormwater pond. (Its volume is approximately 660 cubic feet.) Based on the analysis discussed above, water quality impacts would be considered less than significant. 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. Based on the 2014 report 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. Impacts would be considered less than significant. g), h) The proposed project ultimately drains to San Luis Obispo 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. 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. Conclusion: 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 2009 Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 5519‐09) and the General Plan and zoning designation for the site and is designed to fit among existing neighboring development and will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Impacts are Attachment 7 ARC1 - 234 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 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 2009 Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 5519‐09), the City 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 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. Roadway traffic from highways and major arterials is the most significant source of noise affecting sensitive land uses in the City. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 235 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 Of the road segments modeled under the LUCE Update EIR, the distance from the roadway centerline to the 60 A‐weighted decibel (dBA) contour ranges from 6 feet to 7,626 feet. Residential land uses located within the 60 dBA contour on these road segments are potentially exposed to noise levels above the 60 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standard for residential land uses. Some areas where this occurs include:  Highway 101 and Grand  Broad south of Orcutt  California south of Mill  Chorro south of Center  Foothill west of Casa  Johnson between Ella and Bishop  Los Osos Valley west of Froom Ranch  Madonna west of Oceanaire  Santa Rosa north of Boysen a) Future users of the proposed project 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 b e 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 commercial/retail 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 commercial/retail use, which is consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity and those within the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan. Project 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 the residential uses west of the project site. These uses will be shielded from noise generated by intervening structures, landscaping, and an existing sound wall, by distance and by the structures themselves. d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed 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. e, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo County Airport ALUP. The project is a commercial development, and 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. Impacts are considered less than significant. 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 1, 31 --X-- Attachment 7 ARC1 - 236 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 infrastructure)? 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 consists of a commercial/retail development. , The project site is designated for Manufacturing- Specific Plan development under the General Plan, and is zoned M-SP. According to the 2009 Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the site under the Land Use Element. New employment generated by the proposed project would not be considered substantial. Considering the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. Outside of the traffic/circulation improvements required under Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, below, no additional upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be required to serve the project. 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) The existing farm/ranch complex is a historic operation and has been unoccupied for decades and would not be considered a substantial loss of housing. Impacts are considered less than significant. c) 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-- 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 237 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 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. The proposed development of the site is consistent with the anticipated land use for the site and proposed development would be consistent with the zoning for the site and consistent with the neighboring uses. As stated in the 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. Development 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 not result in an increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to the City’s existing population, and deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from the proposed project is not expected. Furthermore, the project includes outdoor amenities for public use, agricultural demonstrations, gathering space and a public market. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on parks. e) Please refer to Section 16, Transportation/Traffic, below for a detailed assessment of required transportation improvements required. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities with the incorporation of the required transportation improvements discussed under Section 16. 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 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 238 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 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 is not expected to add to the demand for parks or other recreational facilities. No significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Impacts are considered less than significant. b) The project includes outdoor amenities and common areas, including agricultural demonstration areas, public gathering areas, outdoor seating for project businesses, art installations, etc. (please refer to the project site plans for a detailed depiction of outdoor amenity spaces). Impacts are considered less than significant. 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, 32 --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, 32 --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, 32 --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, 32 --X-- 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, 32 --X-- Evaluation As discussed in the City’s LUCE 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. In accordance with the City General Plan Circulation Element Section 6.2, Descriptions and Standards for Streets Classification, acceptable traffic operating conditions are LOS E in the Downtown and LOS D outside of the Downtown. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort and convenience. LOS are designated A through F from best to worst, which cover the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. LOS A represents essentially free‐flow conditions, and LOS F indicates substantial congestion and delay. 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. Five study intersections operate at Attachment 7 ARC1 - 239 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 unacceptable levels of service (LOS), E or F, during the AM, Noon, or PM peak hours. a,b) Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located west of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. In order to determine the nature of project impacts related to multimodal transportation and traffic level of service for area intersections and roadway systems, a traffic study (Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Multimodal Transportation Impact Study, Final Report. Omni Means Engineering, February 2016) was prepared. The purpose of this report is to present the existing and projected transportation impact conditions associated with development of the overall project for vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit related impacts, and the mitigation measures required to mitigate impacts and maintain multimodal transportation levels, including queuing characteristics for left turn movements, at project study area intersections and roadway segments. As discussed in the 2016 traffic report, the proposed project will have three access points, one on South Higuera Street where the existing Tribune driveway is, one on Tank Farm Road west of Long Street where the driveway for the Tractor Supply store will be, and an access point via Long Street. The 2016 traffic study analyzes all travel modes rather than just automobile impacts, this includes "person trip" generation which was developed in addition to the more common "vehicle trip generation". Person Trip Generation: The proposed project is projected to generate 227 MID peak hour person trips and 266 PM peak hour person trips, before any pass-by trip adjustments. These external person trip estimates were used to determine the trips for each travel mode. Vehicle Trip Generation: The proposed project is projected to generate 205 MID peak hour vehicular trips, and 241 PM peak hour vehicular trips, before any vehicular occupancy, modal, internal capture, or pass-by adjustments. The impact thresholds used to determine the significance of traffic impacts for the proposed project are consistent with the City’s adopted Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. The following is a summary of the project impacts when considering the performance of existing project vicinity intersections and roadway segment when project trip generation is added to the system (“Existing Plus Project Impacts”) and intersection and roadway impacts when anticipated cumulative community growth is added to the impacts generated by the proposed project (“Cumulative Plus Project Impacts”). Existing Plus Project Impacts: The project-added traffic volumes at the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Long Street are projected to further degrade the already deficient LOS and create a significant impact by increasing the volume to capacity ratio (v/c: defined as the comparison between roadway demand or vehicle volumes with roadway supply or carrying capacity) by more than 0.01. The following roadway segments have an existing plus project significant impact for the automobile mode:  S. Higuera Street from Suburban Drive to Tank Farm Road, northbound; deficient travel speed decreases by 1 mph in MID and PM peak hours.  S. Higuera Street from Suburban Drive to Los Osos Valley Road, southbound; deficient travel speed decreases by 1.2 mph in the MID peak and by 4.1 mph in the PM peak hours.  Tank Farm Road from Old Windmill Lane to S. Higuera Street, westbound; LOS degrades to exceeding standards. According to the 2016 traffic report, the roadway segment of Tank Farm Road from Old Windmill Lane to S. Higuera Street (westbound) is projected to become deficient for the automobile mode with project-added traffic volumes. This impact is a short-term impact; it is resolved with the build-out of the City's Transportation Capital Projects for roadway improvements, which include the construction of the Prado Road extensions and interchange modifications. The two segments on S. Higuera Street are also short-term impacts which are resolved with the Cumulative roadway improvements and not considered a significant impact in the Cumulative Plus Project scenarios. The project will be required to pay its fair share of these improvements thru transportation impact fees. The roadway segments which are deficient for baseline conditions for pedestrian and transit modes are not impacted or considered contextually significant. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 240 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 Cumulative Plus Project Impacts: The project-added traffic volumes at the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Long Street are projected to further degrade the already deficient LOS and increase the v/c ratio by more than 0.01. The intersection of S. Higuera Street at the Tribune Driveway access is projected to further degrade the LOS and creates a significant impact by increasing the v/c by more than 0.01. The roadway segments which are deficient for Cumulative (No Build) conditions for pedestrian and transit modes are not impacted or considered contextually significant. c) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Airport but will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. Please refer to Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for a discussion on project consistency with the adopted Airport Land Use Plan. d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways. 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. With the incorporation of the traffic mitigation discussed below, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. f) The project site is served by RTA, the regional transit agency. San Luis Obispo City bus lines are located within walking distance (South Higuera Street) that allows public transportation services to the Downtown and Cal Poly campus. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage and will be required to meet or exceed City standards prior to project approval. Mitigation Measure T-1: The following improvements are required to provide acceptable operations at locations where a project significant impact is identified for existing plus project conditions: Tank Farm Road & Long Street.  Install a Single/Multi-lane modern roundabout. Per City Circulation Element Policy 7.1.2, if after preliminary engineering roundabout control is determined by the City to not be feasible, interim signalization of the intersection may substitute as mitigation with the establishment of a plan line set back for future installation of roundabout control Mitigation Measure T-2: The following improvements are required to provide acceptable operations at locations where a significant impact is identified for cumulative plus project conditions: Tank Farm Road/Long Street and South Higuera Street/Tribune Driveway:  Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 will reduce cumulative plus project impacts at the Tank Farm Road and Long Street intersection.  Restrict side streets egress to right turn only at South Higuera Street and the Tribune Driveway. Mitigation Measure T-3: Fair-Share of Improvement Costs. Fair-share calculations have been identified for all intersections, which are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS under cumulative project conditions, and experience an increase in delay with the addition of project traffic. The 2016 traffic report includes a listing of each of the study intersections warranting improvements, the corresponding improvements that the proposed project would be required to pay a fair-share of improvement cost towards, and the proposed project’s equitable share of these improvements. The project applicant shall be required to contribute to the fair share costs for identified improvements as stipulated in the 2016 traff ic report. 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 7,16, 27, 31 --X-- Attachment 7 ARC1 - 241 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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 --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. The City also uses recycled water for all approved uses consistent with the City’s Master Permit and Title 22. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater Element 2010, the City Council reaffirmed the policy for a multi‐source water supply. The full allocation of Nacimiento Reservoir approved by Council in March 2016 added an additional 2,102 AF to the City’s annual contractual limit.  Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 6,940 AF/year  Nacimiento Reservoir: 5,482 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit  Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 187 AF in 2015. Recycled Water The project will be required to utilize recycled water for landscape irrigation and extend the recycled water distribution system from the existing main in South Higuera along the project’s Tank Farm Road frontage. 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, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 15,000 service connections. The City’s WRRF processes wastewater in accordance with the standards set by the State. In 2013, the WRRF had an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.1 MGD and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. Based on average daily influent flow records for 2015 average flows to the WRRF are approximately 2.74 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), e) 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 project. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project Attachment 7 ARC1 - 242 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 site, please refer to Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed analysis of the existing facilities and proposed improvements. 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 potable and recycled 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. f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for 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 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. 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. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 243 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 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, Long-Bonetti Ranch Specific Plan Amendment (ER 170-07), Addendum to Initial Study ER 170-07 for Modifications to the Approved Long Bonetti Ranch (ARC 18-13, available for review at the City Community Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401). The LUCE Update EIR can also be found 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 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, April 2010 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 August 2012 13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 14. 2010 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. Project Impacts Analysis of the Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo. LSA, September 2015. 27. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Drainage Report for Long Bonetti Commercial Development, Garing Taylor and Associates, June 26, 2014, as revised. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 244 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 37 28. Project Plans 29. Applicant project statement/description 30. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rincon Consultants, September 8, 2015. 31. San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. June 13, 2014. 32. Public Market at Bonetti Ranch Multimodal Transportation Impact Study, Final Report. Omni Means Engineering, February 2016. 33. Certified Arborist Report. Robert Schreiber, ISA Certified Arborist. June 11, 2015. Attachments: 1. Site Vicinity/Project Location Map (Figure 1) 2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay (Figure 2) 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 245 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 38 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. 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 Attachment 7 ARC1 - 246 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 39 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.  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. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 247 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 40  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 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. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. In the event that archaeological materials are discovered during project construction activities, construction shall be halted until a formal monitoring plan is prepared and approved by the City. The plan will need to include a summary of the project ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected and discovered 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. Transportation Mitigation Measure T-1: The following improvements are required to provide acceptable operations at locations where a project significant impact is identified for existing plus project conditions: Tank Farm Road/Long Street. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 248 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ARCH-1219-2015/EID-3116-2016 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 41  Install a Single/Multi-lane modern roundabout. Per City Circulation Element Policy 7.1.2, if after preliminary engineering roundabout control is determined by the City to not be feasible, traffic signalization of the intersection may substitute as mitigation.  Monitoring Plan, T 1: A plan for signal installation shall be developed in cooperation with City Staff and approved by the Public Works director or their designee. Signalization shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit/Encroachment Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. Mitigation Measure T-2: The following improvements are required to provide acceptable operations at locations where a significant impact is identified for cumulative plus project conditions: Tank Farm Road/Long Street and South Higuera Street/Tribune Driveway:  Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 will reduce cumulative plus project impacts at the Tank Farm Road and Long Street intersection.  Restrict side streets egress to right turn only at South Higuera Street and the Tribune Driveway.  Monitoring Plan, T 2: The plan for signal installation under Mitigation Measure T-1 shall include restricted side street egress limited to right turns only at South Higuera Street and the Tribune driveway. The plan shall be developed in cooperation with City Staff and approved by the Public Works director or their designee. The plan shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit/Encroachment Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically monitor traffic conditions to ensure compliance. Mitigation Measure T-3: Fair-Share of Improvement Costs. Fair-share calculations have been identified for all intersections, which are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS under cumulative project conditions, and experience an increase in delay with the addition of project traffic. The 2016 traffic report includes a listing of each of the study intersections warranting improvements, the corresponding improvements that the proposed project would be required to pay a fair-share of improvement cost towards, and the proposed project’s equitable share of these improvements. The project applicant shall be required to contribute to the fair share costs for identified improvements as stipulated in the 2016 traffic report.  Monitoring Plan, T-3: The fair share calculations and proposal for payment shall be developed in conjunction with City staff and the Department of Public Works director or their designee. Implementation of the fair share fee program shall be required prior to final inspections and project occupancy. City staff will periodically monitor cost compliance to ensure agreements are followed. Attachment 7 ARC1 - 249 ADDRESS 1306 Johnson Avenue / San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CONTACT 805.547.2240 / arris-studio.com Thomas E. Jess, ARCHITECT #C27608 Stephen A. Rigor, ARCHITECT #C33672 February 24, 2015 Mr. Marcus Carloni Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ARCH-0029-2014: 120 Tank Farm Road, 3825 & 3897 South Higuera SLO Marketplace – Conceptual ARC. Dear Marcus- Following are responses to the ARC’s November 7th, 2014 conceptual review. Planning 1. Submit Complete Plans with all of the required information on the City’s checklist for Final architectural approval. Response: Provided as requested Buildings 1-4 2. Proposed Modifications to the historic farmhouse shall be reviewed by the Culture Heritage Committee. Response: Plans have been created for CHC review. Provided both existing and proposed plans showing what will be removed internally and externally 3. Designs for Water Tower, Barn and Granary shall be reconstructed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards Response: We have made sure that the designs on the Water Tower, Barn and Windmill are in compliance. However, the granary building has elements/massing of the original building but we did create a portion of it that references the farmhouse. The Granary building was not considered a contributing building by both the previous and current historical reports Building 5 4. Possible relocation (e.g. switching the locations of Building 5 and the granary building) or demolition (and contemporary-style reconstruction) of the granary building could be supported by the ARC, pending staff review and CHC recommendation Response: Building 5, water tower, and windmill have been shifted 20’ South (towards Tank Farm Road)to accommodate siting of Building 2 and Building 7. Building 6 5. Provide additional buffering between Building 6 and the adjacent parking lot. Response: Modifications to Building 6 Floor plans, removed 1 stair (towards pedestrian plaza), enclose stair for increased security/privacy, increased vegetation and buffer along parking lot edge, increased storefront and retail space along plaza. Attachment 8 ARC1 - 250 ADDRESS 1306 Johnson Avenue / San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CONTACT 805.547.2240 / arris-studio.com Thomas E. Jess, ARCHITECT #C27608 Stephen A. Rigor, ARCHITECT #C33672 6. The applicant shall consider revising the design of Building 6 (west elevation) to ensure the staircase for the residential units is not located within the proposed pedestrian plaza and the staircase is further enclosed to ensure residential privacy. Response: Modifications to Building 6 Floor plans, removed 1 stair (towards pedestrian plaza), enclose stair for increased security/privacy, increased vegetation and buffer along parking lot edge, increased storefront and retail space along plaza. Building 7 7. Reduce the scale of Building 7 to be more compatible with the historic barn. Response: Building 7 has been reduced to 35’ in height with proportions that are more considerate of the adjacent historic barn. In scaling down the building, the form has also been simplified to be more reminiscent of a traditional barn form. In doing this, Building 7 competes less with the historic barn and imposes less of a visual impact overall. 8. The siting of building 7 shall take into consideration its relationship with the adjacent historic barn and views from the street. Response: Historic Barn (Building 2) has been shifted 20’ South providing a larger pedestrian path from the street and further separation from building 7. With this added space between the buildings, both structures have the opportunity for equal visibility while maintaining a cohesive relationship between the two. The outdoor space further emphasizes the hierarchy of the buildings by providing a more generous transition between the smaller structure (building 2) and the larger structure (building 7.) 9. Explore opportunities to provide a better visual pedestrian transition from the sidewalk to the west elevation entry. Response: Entry elevations (East and West) have both been redesigned to reflect a more pedestrian scale. Entry awnings, reduced glazing and building massing provide a better transition from sidewalk. 10. Revise the west elevation of Building 7 to respect pedestrian scale Response: Entry awnings and reduced glazing provide an inviting and pedestrian friendly scale for the building 11. Simplify the South and East Elevations of Building 7 to reduce clutter for consistency with the other structures on the project site. Response: Elevations have been simplified and adjusted to the axis of the project site, providing for a more consistent flow between buildings both functionally and aesthetically. 12. Revise height of Building 7 to comply with the maximum height allowance per the Zoning Regulations Response: Building 7 has been reduced in scale to comply with 35’ height allowance Miscellaneous 13. Provide a detailed Farm implement display as required by condition 11b of ARC Resolution NO 1003-10 Response: Refer to current landscape plan 14. A sign program will be required either as a condition or as a part of the approval of final plans. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the buildings and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site's historic setting relating to the Long-Bonetti Ranch. The signage submittal shall be consistent with condition 6 of ARC Resolution No. 1012-13. Response: in process 15. Provide a digital 30 model showing all proposed and approved buildings at the project site and showing improvements on adjacent properties for design and scale reference. Response: Provided overall perspectives showing how buildings relate to each other Attachment 8 ARC1 - 251 ADDRESS 1306 Johnson Avenue / San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CONTACT 805.547.2240 / arris-studio.com Thomas E. Jess, ARCHITECT #C27608 Stephen A. Rigor, ARCHITECT #C33672 16. Include detailed information on pedestrian pathways, lighting, location of backflow prevention devices, and screening of mechanical equipment. Response: In process a. Include delineated pedestrian pathways from the parking areas. Response: in process b. Indicate locations of bicycle and motorcycle parking on site plan. Response: in process c. The row of parking spaces east of Buildings 6 and 8 requires at least one landscape planter and shade tree to break up the 12 parking spaces. If pedestrian access is proposed through Building 6 and 8, the area shall also incorporate a small pedestrian "bump-out" to break up the 12 parking spaces and provide pedestrian access between the two buildings. Response: in process 17. Provide additional detail/description of the proposed ornamental farm and orchard shown at the corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. Plantings in this area should not be tall enough to block views of the historic structures. 18. Provide information on loading areas (i.e. indicate if truck loading areas are needed) and refuse enclosures. Loading areas (including bays for individual buildings) and refuse enclosures are to be screened from street and off-site views and are to be architecturally integrated with the design of the project. Response: refer to building 7 plans and elevations and site plan. The loading area for the entire site has been integrated into the parking spaces on the North side of Building 7. The intention is to provide designated loading/delivery times during non-business hours such that deliveries can be made efficiently. The trash disposal area is located within an outdoor enclosure that closely integrates with the architecture of building 7. Completely out of site, this enclosure features an awning roof and gates that tie into the architectural details found elsewhere on building 7 (exposed steel structure, polygal roof cover, reclaimed wood siding.) 19. The parking analysis relies on shared parking with the Tribune property. Please provide a detailed parking calculation for the Tribune property to ensure adequate sharing of parking spaces. Response: Refer to Overall Site Plan and cover sheet 20. The applicant is encouraged to provide public art within the project rather than paying the public art in-lieu fee. Response: in process Please look over responses provided above and contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Arris Studio Architects Steve Rigor Attachment 8 ARC1 - 252 JU N E 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 5- 6 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P FL A T A W N I N G - VI E W 2 NO T T O S C A L E AW N I N G A L T E R N A T I V E S - F L A T A W N I N G VI E W F R O M H I G U E R A S T . FL A T A W N I N G - VI E W 3 FL A T A W N I N G - VI E W 1 Attachment 9 ARC1 - 253 JU N E 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 5- 7 BU I L D I N G 5 - W I N E & C H E E S E S H O P NO A W N I N G - V I E W 2 NO T T O S C A L E AW N I N G A L T E R N A T I V E S - N O A W N I N G VI E W F R O M H I G U E R A S T . NO A W N I N G - VI E W 3 NO A W N I N G - V I E W 1 Attachment 9 ARC1 - 254 Prepared for: PB Companies Attention: Rex Steward 3480 S. Higuera Street, Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 11, 2015 Prepared By: Robert Schreiber ISA Certified Arborist 170 Terra St Morro Bay, CA 93442 805-441-3715 ISA Certified Arborist #FL-0314A Attachment 10 ARC1 - 255 2 of 12 This report includes a site survey and analysis of the health and safety of five (5) Pine trees and twelve (12) Monterey Cypress trees located by a proposed construction project on land (APN # 053- 251-049) located in San Luis Obispo, CA [see Assessors Parcel Map attached as Figure #1 below]. This report is intended for use by the property owner, their agents and the City of San Luis Obispo. The present condition (including general health and results of prior pruning) is to be addressed. The subject trees are located in two general areas. The Pine trees are grouped together near the entrance to the Telegram Tribune parking area entrance from Higuera Street (see Figure #2 below) while the Monterey Cypress trees, with one exception, are in the easement area between the pedestrian sidewalk and Higuera Street. One Monterey Cypress tree is located within the property approximately 25 feet from the sidewalk. The specifics relating to each trees location, DSH (diameter at standard height), height and width are attached as Figure #4 below. Pine trees: The Pine trees have been severly neglected over time. There is dense undergrowth (see Figure #5 below) as well as evidence of branch failure and die back. Tree #5 has co-dominant leaders at soil level that compromises the structure of the trunk (see Figure #6 below). The trees were planted too close together and, as a result, have grown in a manner that retards healthy branch growth and has resulted in lopsided growth patterns in all but tree #3. Monterey Cypress trees: The Monterey Cypress trees, as a whole, have been radically pruned to minimize roadway (Higuera Street) overhang. As a result, growth has been retarded over the roadway accelerating growth over the subject property. The consequence of less pruning over the property line has resulted in substantially more end weight being concentrated on that side of the tree. Evidence of failure caused by this condition exists. Tree #8 is a trunk only and is clearly dead with no signs of any growth at all. Tree #11 has a substantial cavity at the crotch of two (2) leaders. Multiple trees show die back and little green new growth (see Figures #7 – 10). A majority of the trees are showing 30° or more lean toward the property as a result of both wind activity and radical pruning of the opposite side of the tree. Attachment 10 ARC1 - 256 3 of 12 Conclusion and Recommendations: Removing trees is a difficult decision when developing property. Saving every tree is not always possible, but preserving trees that have the best chance for survival is a vital part of a new project. The existing trees addressed in this report are in the declining stages of their lives. A majority of them are poor health and new growth has been retarded due to overly aggressive pruning. In many instances, were the trees to be retained (especially the Montery Cypress) potential harm to persons and/or property would be possible due to the growth pattern that exists. The recommendation is to remove all of the subject trees and mitigate the removal with planting species that are more conducive to the site as well as native to the region. Co-ordination with the City Arborist regarding species selection would ensure a proper mitigation plan with benefits to both the property owners and the City of San Luis Obispo. Sincerely, Robert Schreiber Attachment 10 ARC1 - 257 4 of 12 Figure 1 Attachment 10 ARC1 - 258 5 of 12 Figure 2 Figure 3 Attachment 10 ARC1 - 259 6 of 12 Figure 4 Tree Inventory June 5, 2015 Tank Farm Road & Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo #1 – Species – Pine Point of reference – Sidewalk along Higuera Street Location – 29’ into property on a perpendicular line from sidewalk – 18’ +/- into property from Telegram Tribune entrance berm abuting property DSH – 14.3” / Height – 40’ / Width – 30’ #2 – Species – Pine Point of reference – Sidewalk along Higuera Street Location – 29’ into property on a perpendicular line from sidewalk – 35’ +/- into property from Telegram Tribune entrance berm abuting property DSH – 18.5” / Height – 39’ / Width – 30’ #3 – Species – Pine Point of reference – Sidewalk along Higuera Street Location – 48’ into property on a perpendicular line from sidewalk – 30’ +/- into property from Telegram Tribune entrance berm abuting property DSH – 20.50” / Height – 70’ / Width – 35’ #4 – Species – Pine Point of reference – Sidewalk along Higuera Street Location – 61’ into property on a perpendicular line from sidewalk – 12’ +/- into property from Telegram Tribune entrance berm abuting property DSH – 10.3” / Height – 45’ / Width – 30’ #5 – Species – Pine Point of reference – Sidewalk along Higuera Street Location – 64’ into property on a perpendicular line from sidewalk – 6’ +/- into property from Telegram Tribune entrance berm abuting property DSH – 2 co-dominant leaders with 13.6” & 11.2” DSH’s / Height – 50’ / Width – 40’ Attachment 10 ARC1 - 260 7 of 12 #6 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 36’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 40” / Height – 75’ / Width – 30’ #7 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 62’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 41.1” / Height – 65’ / Width – 25’ #8 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 71’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 44.1” / Height – 20’ / Width – 0’ #9 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 159’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 38.9” / Height – 96’ / Width – 45’ #10 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 187’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 34” / Height – 42’ / Width – 25’ #11 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 203’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 29.1” / Height – 60’ / Width – 25’ #12 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Attachment 10 ARC1 - 261 8 of 12 Location – 238’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 40” / Height – 75’ / Width – 45’ #13 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 239’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 39.2” / Height – 87’ / Width – 45’ #14 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 277’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 25.8” / Height – 39’ / Width – 40’ #15 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 285’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 23.7” / Height – 60’ / Width – 25’ #16 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 288’ from beginning of sidewalk in the easement area DSH – 41.3” / Height – 84’ / Width – 33’ #17 – Species – Monterey Cypress Point of reference – Beginning of sidewalk at Telegram Tribune entrance off of Higuera Street Location – 225’ from beginning of sidewalk – 25’ +/- into property on a perpendicular line from Higuera Street sidewalk DSH – 28.5” / Height – 75’ / Width – 24’ Attachment 10 ARC1 - 262 9 of 12 Figure 5 Figure 6 Attachment 10 ARC1 - 263 10 of 12 Figure 7 Figure 8 Attachment 10 ARC1 - 264 11 of 12 Figure 9 Figure 10 Attachment 10 ARC1 - 265 12 of 12 Attachment 10 ARC1 - 266 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Cultural Heritage Committee review of a project located at the Long Bonetti Ranch property including modifications and rebuilding of historic structures and the addition of four new buildings (including four residential units) located among the existing historic structures, totaling 42,000 square feet, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. PROJECT ADDRESS: 120 Tank Farm Road BY: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner 3897 S. Higuera Street Phone Number: 781-7176 e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1219-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: Review the discussion items in sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.2 and, upon finding the project consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, forward a recommendation of approval to the Architectural Review Commission as provided in the attached draft resolution (Attachment 1). SITE DATA Applicant Tank Farm Center, LLC Representative Steve Rigor, Arris Studio Architects Historic Status Master List Zoning M-SP (Manufacturing – Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan) General Plan Services & Manufacturing Site Area ~5.56 Acres Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration Pending SUMMARY The applicant has submitted plans (Attachment 2) for a project located at the site of the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch Complex. The project includes modifications/relocation of existing ranch complex structures as well as the proposed addition of four new buildings adjacent to the ranch structures design to create a public market at the subject location. A detailed Project Impact Analysis Report has been provided by LSA consultants which staff has reviewed and provided discussion items (see section 4.0 below) which are important topics for CHC consideration in providing a recommendation to the ARC (a draft resolution recommending approval to the ARC is provided as Attachment 1). Meeting Date: June 6, 2016 Item Number: 1 Attachment 11 ARC1 - 267 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The project is before the CHC since the proposed new construction is located on the property of a Master List Historic Resource, and modifications are proposed to several structures which are part of the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch complex. The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new construction and modifications to historic buildings in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI) for compatibility with the Master List Historic Long Bonetti Ranch. The CHC’s role is also to review the Cultural Resources section of the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).The ARC will take final action on the MND. 2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW The project site was previously approved for a business park development in 2010 (Attachment 4, 2010 ARC Approved Site Plan. The 2010 approval was then modified in 2013 to include the Tractor Supply tenant (Attachment 5, 2013 ARC Approved Site Plan). The applicant is now proposing a new project at the subject location as discussed in section 3.2 below. The current proposal was conceptually reviewed by the ARC in 2014. The ARC generally supported the concept and provided directional items to the applicant and staff. The directional items are provided in Attachment 3 (directional items related to CHC consideration were provided by the ARC and are highlighted for reference in Attachment 3) 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting The subject location is bounded by South Higuera Street, Tank Farm Road, and Long Street, with the Tribune property to the north. Existing structures include the former Long Bonetti Ranch complex (circa 1880 and 1930), consisting of a single story farmhouse, barn, water tower, windmill, entry sign, landscape elements, and granary (see detailed description in Attachment 6, PIA Report, “Resource Description”, Pages 7 – 12) . The Long‐Bonetti Ranch complex, as an assemblage of farming structures, is listed in the City’s Master List of 2010 Project CHC Approval August 24, 2009 Modification to site with Listed Historic Resource Architectural review & approve CHC findings ARC Approval February 17, 2010 Time Extension January 2, 2013 Extends ARC approval to February 17, 2014 ARC Conceptual April 1, 2013 Review of proposed Modified Project (Tractor Supply) ARC Approval August 19, 2013 Final Approval ARC Conceptual Nov. 3, 2014 CHC Review June 6, 2016 Review of proposed Modified Project (Public Market) 2013 Modified Project Current Project Attachment 11 ARC1 - 268 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 3 Historic Resources. Currently under construction along Long Street is the previously approved Tractor Supply Company building and associated shop building (to the south of Tractor Supply). Site Size ~5.5 acres Present Use & Development Historic Long-Bonetti Ranch buildings/Tractor Supply Company Topography Relatively flat Access Primary: Tank Farm Road Secondary: South Higuera (Tribune Property), Long Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: M-SP; Tribune parking lot and Tribune building South: C-S & C-S-PD; Commercial uses East: M-SP; Fitness/manufacturing uses West: R-2-S; Residential (Silver City Mobile Home Park) 3.2 Background Documentation LSA prepared a Project Impact Analysis Report (Attachment 6, PIA Report) which details each resource, identifies character defining features, describes proposed modifications, and evaluates said modifications. Appendix A to the LSA PIA Report (Attachment 6) includes the properties historic preservation agreement from August 1998. Appendix B to the LSA PIA Report (Attachment 6) includes a historic evaluation prepared by Judy Triem of San Buenaventura Research Associates in February of 1990. The report was associated with a proposed project that was not constructed. Appendix C to the LSA PIA Report (Attachment 6) includes a historic “limited site plan review” prepared by Chattel Architecture Planning & Preservation in April of 2008. The report was associated with a proposed project that was not constructed (the site plan of said project is provided as Attachment 4, 2010 ARC Approved Site Plan). 3.3 Project Description The applicant proposes a public market-type project with a mix of one and two-story buildings designed to accommodate various potential uses such as restaurants, vendors, a brewery, produce stands, and a market hall building with numerous specialty purveyors, local food products, and a demonstration kitchen. The new structures are proposed to be located adjacent to the historic Long Bonetti Ranch complex. A summary of significant project features include the following (Attachment 2, Project Plans & Attachment 6, PIA Report): 1) Proposed modifications to existing structures (see detailed description in Attachment 6, PIA Report, “Project Description” on page 13): a. Relocation of the existing farmhouse (including entry pathway, water feature and landscaping), water tower, windmill, granary, and barn (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-2a) Attachment 11 ARC1 - 269 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 4 b. Rehabilitation of the existing farmhouse and granary c. Reconstruction of the existing barn and water tower d. Preservation of the windmill, and entry sign e. Restoration of the landscape features 2) Proposed addition of new structures among the historic Long Bonetti Ranch complex (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-4) a. Building 5: Contemporary Agrarian Design - 498 square feet b. Building 6: Agrarian Design - 5,008 square feet c. Building 7: Contemporary Agrarian - 30,438 square feet d. Building 8: Agrarian Design – 5,757 square feet 3) Other associated site improvements including outdoor plazas, landscape, gardens and orchards, and central parking areas (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-5). 4) Conceptual signage (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet D2) and conceptual public art (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet D1) 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources and provide for compatible development among historic resources. 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 (SOI) for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” The Attachment 11 ARC1 - 270 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 5 subject property is a Master List historic resource located outside of a historic district and is afforded “the same protection and regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts,” per Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.3.1. 4.1 Proposed Modification to Existing Structures A Project Impact Analysis Report was prepared by LSA (Attachment 6, PIA Report). The report provides a detailed resource description and identification of each resource’s character defining features (Attachment 6, PIA Report, “Resource Description”, Pages 7 – 12) and provides a detailed description of proposed modifications to the existing resources. The report goes on to provide an in-depth evaluation of each resources consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards using the rehabilitation, reconstruction, preservation, and restoration treatments as appropriate (Attachment 6, PIA Report, Section 5.2 Pages 15 – 61). The PIA report finds the proposed repositioning and modification of the existing structures to be consistent with relevant standards and guidelines. Staff has highlighted a few discussion items below which are important topics for CHC consideration in providing a recommendation to the ARC. 4.1.1 Items for CHC Discussion (Modification to Existing Structures) 1. Proposed Relocations: The PIA Report indicates that the spatial relationship of the farm structures to one another, arranged as a ranch complex, is of primary significance and that relocation of said structures in concert with one another would not detrimentally alter the historic significance (for example see Attachment 6, PIA Report, Section 5.2.3 beginning on page 29). The CHC should discuss the appropriateness of the proposed relocations; in particular the proposal to move the barn 42-feet to the west, and the proposal to move the water tower to the south of the windmill (currently located east of the windmill). The barn, for example, is proposed to move further from its original location than the other structures (42-feet toward South Higuera Street). It appears to still maintain a relevant spatial relationship to the other farm structures, but may be considered uncharacteristically close to South Higuera Street. 2. Farmhouse Replacement Roof: The applicant proposes to use a “Certainteed Symphony Slate” simulated slate roofing material to replace the existing roof; a sample will be provided at the CHC Hearing (see Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 1-5). This material appears uncharacteristic of the architectural style of the farmhouse (a conjectural element inconsistent with SOI Rehabilitation Standards1) and should be replaced with a more appropriate roofing material. 3. Granary Building: The PIA Report (Attachment 6, PIA Report, Page 54) identifies the proposal for the granary building as a rehabilitation, however, this building is 1 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Standards for Rehabilitation: 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.” Attachment 11 ARC1 - 271 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 6 significantly deteriorated and a rehabilitation per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards appears unlikely. The CHC should discuss the PIA report approach of evaluating modifications to the granary building with the Rehabilitation Standard. Staff recommends that this aspect of the project should instead be evaluated under the Secretary of Interior Standards Reconstruction Treatment which should be applied toward projects which are replicating the appearance of a building at a specific period of time. It has been recognized by the PIA Report, including the Triem Report (Attachment 6, PIA Report, Appendix B: “Conclusion” on Page 6) that the primary significance is the ranch complex as an assemblage of buildings rather than individual structures. It appears that reconstruction of the granary, as proposed, would still be consistent with historic preservation standards if evaluated under reconstruction since the form and massing of the granary would be retained (upon reconstruction) and continue to contribute to the significance of the complex. Based on the current condition of the granary building, a reconstruction approach may be the only feasible method to retain and incorporate this structure into the project while retaining the historic assemblage of the farm complex. 4.2 Addition of New Structures The Rehabilitation treatment of the SOI Standards provides guidance on new construction adjacent to historic resources as provided below: “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment (Standard 9).” “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 (Standard 10).” The Agrarian/Contemporary Agrarian architectural styles proposed for buildings 5, 6, 7, and 8 (see building labels on Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-4) provide an appropriate mixture of materials and colors for compatibility with the historic ranch complex while still remaining differential. The materials include metal siding/roofing, wood board and batten/lap siding, reclaimed barn-wood, exposed steel beams, exposed wood beams, and corten rusting steel, and clear Polygal polycarbonate sheeting as shade structures. Additionally, the proposed one and two story structures provide sufficient articulation, detailing/material change, and pedestrian scale elements to be compatible with the scale and proportion of the ranch complex, consistent with the SOI Standards. The majority of the proposed structures are situated behind (east) the ranch buildings and allow the same visible of the complex from the primary South Higuera Street view with landscaping (picnic lawn, gardens, and orchard) planted between the street and the ranch buildings (Attachment 2, Project Plans Sheet 0-8). Consistent with Standard 10, if the proposed new structures were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the ranch complex would remain intact. Staff has highlighted a couple discussion items below pertaining to the proposed new construction which are important topics for CHC consideration in providing a recommendation to the ARC. Attachment 11 ARC1 - 272 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 7 4.2.1 Items for CHC Discussion (New Structures) 1. Building 7 (Market Hall): At 35’ in height and 30,000 square feet the Market Hall is the anchor building for the public market proposal. The ARC previously provided direction for the applicant to reduce the scale of the Market Hall for compatibility with the barn, and to consider the relationship with the barn and views from the street (Attachment 3, ARC Direction, Items 7 & 8). The applicant modified the scale and proportions of the Market Hall and adjusted the setback of the Market Hall/Barn to provide improved visibility of the Barn from South Higuera Street (see image below). The applicant has also provided a street level perspective rendering which illustrates a small portion of the Market Hall visible behind (above) the barn from the corner of South Higuera and Tank Farm looking north (Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-9). The CHC should discuss the scale and distance separation of the Market Hall relative to the Barn. In particular, discussion should focus on the visibility of the barn from South Higuera Street (primary view) and the size of the Market Hall structure given its adjacency to the Barn (i.e. does the barn overwhelm/detract from the significant of the barn?) 2. Building 5: As illustrated in Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 0-4, Building 5 is located within the ranch complex between the water tower and granary building. The proposed structure is architecturally differentiated from the existing ranch buildings but has the potential to affect the integrity of the ranch by disrupting the relationship of the ranch complex structures to one another. The CHC should discuss the appropriateness of citing Building 5 at the proposed location in consideration of SOI Standard #9 (provided in section 4.2 above). Additionally, the CHC should discuss removal of Building 5’s awning that projects to within close proximity of the water tower as shown on Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet 4-5. The proposed awning’s proximity to the water tower detracts from the significance of the structure and should be removed or moved further from the water tower. 4.3 Conceptual Signage & Public Art The conceptual signage was prepared by Pierre Rademaker Design and includes two different monument-style signs, a historic plaque monument, and a project plaque concept. Signage will return to the CHC/ARC along with a complete signage package for the project site. The public art proposal was prepared by Michael Reddell and depicts life sized animals Previous Proposal Barn Barn Current Proposal Attachment 11 ARC1 - 273 ARCH-1219-2015 (120 Tank Farm & 3897 S. Higuera) Page 8 stacked upon one another fabricated from welded stainless steel rod. The proposed art will return to the CHC/ARC upon review from the public art jury. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff worked with Jeff Oliveira of Oliveira Environmental Consulting to prepare an Initial Study that resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); the MND will be reviewed by the ARC for final action (Attachment 7, Draft Initial Study). Pertinent evaluation within the Initial Study for CHC consideration can be found in the Cultural Resources section (Section 5). The cultural resources evaluation found the project in compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards and did not identify potentially significant impacts to the ranch complex. The cultural resources section found the project would result in less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with inclusion of monitoring requirements which will be incorporated into project conditions of approval. (Attachment 7, Initial Study). 6.0 RECOMMENDATION Review the discussion items in sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.2 and, upon finding the project consistent with Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, forward a recommendation of approval to the Architectural Review Commission as provided in the attached draft resolution (Attachment 1). 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Recommend denial of the project. Action recommending denial should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of the Interior’s standards. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Project Plans 3. ARC Directional Items 4. 2010 Approved Project Site Plan 5. 2013 Approved Project Site Plan 6. Project Impact Analysis (PIA) Report (LSA 2016) 7. Draft Initial Study Included in Committee member portfolio: project plans Attachment 11 ARC1 - 274 Minutes - DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, June 6, 2016 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, June 6th, 2016 at 5:32 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, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, CARRIED 7-0, to approve the Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of March 28, 2016. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. 120 Tank Farm Road. ARCH 1219-2015; Cultural Heritage Committee review of a project located at the Long Bonetti Ranch property including modifications and rebuilding of historic structures and the addition of four new buildings (including four residential units) located among the existing historic structures, totaling 42,000 square feet, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; M-SP zone; PB Companies, applicant. (Marcus Carloni) Senior Planner Leveille requested the CHC allow a deviation from the normal procedure to allow the applicant team an opportunity to provide a presentation and overview of the project prior to the staff analysis. Chair Hill concurred that the additional information from the applicant team would be helpful. DR A F T Attachment 12 ARC1 - 275 Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 2 Associate Planner, Marcus Carloni, provided a brief overview of the background and prior approvals on the site. Project applicant, John Belsher, provided a detailed project description and background on the project. He outlined previous approvals and described the concept of creating a public market on the site. Jim Dummitt, applicant team, stated he worked on the early conceptual plans for the project. He discussed his discovery of the historical significance of the site and his desire to have a project that reflects its cultural significance. He stated the public market concept is a sustainable economic use for the site. Mark Woolpert, applicant team, stated he would be running the project as the master lease holder. He stated the project would be a good addition to the community and fill a need for locally sourced foods. He provided examples from other Cities where public markets have been in existence for generations. John Belsher and Mark Woolpert described the project concepts along with a “fly through” video showing views of the project. Michael Hibna, applicant team, stated he was the Architectural Historian that authored the LSA consultants historical evaluation. He provided an overview of the historical significance of the property and how the project was consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards. Lief McKay, applicant team, and RRM Design Group, Landscape Architect, provided an overview of the landscape design and site planning. Tyler Thomas, applicant team, and Isaman Design Group Architect, described the project architecture intent to have buildings reflective of their purpose. Jon Belsher provided examples of other larger buildings in the area and stated the main public market building is substantially smaller than most other commercial buildings. Marcus Carloni, staff planner, provided an analysis of various components of the project and raised issues for Committee member discussion. The Committee discussed the various components of the project and went through each of the discussion items raised in the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENT Michelle Gibbs, Orcutt, CA stated she felt the project maintains integrity of the setting and supported the project. Corin Koren, San Luis Obispo, noted her support for the project. DR A F T Attachment 12 ARC1 - 276 Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 3 Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, discussed how much the project has improved since when he was on the CHC and reviewed a previous proposal. He noted he did not like the proposed slate roof on the farmhouse and that the awning next to the water tower feels cramped. He voiced overall support for the project. Courtney Mellblom, Atasacadero CA, noted that as an organic farmer she would like to see the project go forward and that the project supports agriculture and its importance to the community. ---End of Public Comment--- The CHC discussed components of the project and went through each of the discussion items raised by staff in the staff report and presentation including the repositioning of buildings, awning proximity to the water tower, massing of the market building, and compatibility of architectural features to the historic buildings. ACTION: ON A MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Committee adopted a resolution finding the project consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guideline. The motion passed 7-0 on the following consensus vote with the following recommended conditions: 1. The slate roofing material shall be replaced with a more historically appropriate material such as wood shingle, subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Historic plaques/displays shall be placed among the site providing historical background of the property and evolution of the project including identification of reconstructed buildings. The historical site plan should be included in the historic plaques. 3. The ARC shall consider the Building 5 awning element and its relationship (i.e. proximity) to the water tower. 4. The railings associated with the Building 6 balconies shall be enclosed to screen materials associated with the residential units. 5. The signage plan does not need to return to the CHC for review and may be approved as part of a sign program reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The signage for the site shall include signage that is compatible with the historic ranch including non- illuminated, externally illuminated, halo illuminated, and neon signage. Motion passed 7-0 on the following vote: AYES: Hill, Baer, Kincaid, Walthert, Larrabee, Brajkovich, Papp NOES: ABSENT: DR A F T Attachment 12 ARC1 - 277 Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Page 4 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Agenda Forecast: Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast for the June 27, 2016 meeting: Mills Act application for 690 Islay Street, continued review of 71 Palomar, and review of modifications to the Historic Creamery at 570 Higuera Street. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. DR A F T Attachment 12 ARC1 - 278 Attachment 13 (CHC Resolution) ARC1 - 279 Attachment 13 (CHC Resolution) ARC1 - 280 Attachment 13 (CHC Resolution) ARC1 - 281 A R C 1 - 2 8 2 A R C 1 - 2 8 3 A R C 1 - 2 8 4