The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 1 - ARCH-2699-2016 (570 Higuera) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of the remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot commercial building with off-site parking within the Downtown Historic District. PROJECT ADDRESS: 570 Higuera BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH 2699-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director DD RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Creamery, LLC Representative Nancy Hubbard Historic Status Master List Submittal Date 1/29/2016 Complete Date 5/23/2016 Zoning C-D-H (Downtown-Commercial with Historic Overlay) General Plan General Retail Site Area 38,420 square feet (.88 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to remodel and rehabilitate the Master List Historic Golden State Creamery (The Creamery) and construct a new 2,880 commercial building, add an addition to Spike’s, and create a pedestrian plaza. The applicant is also requesting to provide 8 of the required parking spaces for the site on adjacent property. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Commission is tasked with the following: Meeting Date: July 18, 2016 Item Number: 1 ARC1 - 1 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 2 1. Review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards; and 2. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 5, CHC Resolution (June 27, 2016)) and take final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards. 2.0 BACKGROUND April 27, 2015: The CHC reviewed a proposed remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery, and a new, two-story mixed-use structure within the Downtown Historic District. The CHC recommended the Architectural Review Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. November 13, 2015: The applicant modified the original proposal which removed the two-story mixed use building from the project. As such, the Director determined that the project qualified for a minor or incidental architectural review. The Director reviewed and approved 769 square feet of additions and the remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery in accordance with the CHC’s recommendation. June 27, 2016: The applicant submitted a new project for the Creamery. The CHC reviewed the new proposal to remodel and rehabilitate the Historic Creamery that included a new 2,880 square foot commercial building, a pedestrian plaza and 686 square feet of addition commercial space. The CHC recommended the Architectural Review Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. July 11, 2016: The Director reviewed and approved a modification to the previously approved addition to the Creamery. The new proposal reconfigures the design and layout of the proposed addition (the Taqueria) and adds a new 400 square foot patio area in accordance with the CHC’s recommendation. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting: The subject property is within the Downtown Historic District (C-D-H) and located near the intersection of Nipomo and Higuera Streets (see Attachment 2, Vicinity Map). The project site is approximately 38,420 square feet (.88 acres) and contains four buildings, a 15 space parking lot (located behind Building 4) and is accessed by pedestrians and vehicles from Higuera Street and from a parking lot off of Nipomo Street, east of the site (see Figure 1 below). The project site is adjacent to Residential (R-3-H (Medium-High Density)) and the San Luis Creek to the north and by Downtown Commercial (C-D-H with a Historic Overlay - Ciopinot’s Restaurant, Sandy’s Liquor, a vacant lot, an office building, and a beauty salon) to the south, east and west. ARC1 - 2 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 3 3.2 Historic Background A Historic Preservation Design Review of the proposed alterations to The Creamery, performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. describes that the current arrangement of the existing structures was completed in 1926 (Attachment 6, Historic Preservation Design Review). Over time, there have been various modifications, additions and alterations to the buildings. The property received an extensive remodel in the 1970s. In 1983, as part of a City-wide effort to recognize historic resources, the site was added to the Master List of Historic Resources because of its role and significant contribution to the growth and development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. 3.3 Project Description The proposal is to remodel and renovate the Creamery and to construct a new 2,880 square foot commercial building on the site of the Historic Creamery. Project components are summarized below: Figure 2: View of the propose pedestrian plaza and the new Farmer’s Building from the entrance to the plaza off of Higuera Street. Figure 1: The Creamery site plan with building identification numbers; the proposed additions are highlighted in turquoise. 1 2 3 5 4 ARC1 - 3 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 4 Description of work Site Location Project Plan Page # Proposed modifications to existing structures Reorganize interior spaces with new interior walls under the existing roof structures of Building 2 and 3 and construct new restrooms in Building 3. Buildings 2 & 3 10 & 11 Repaint and reside existing walls with board and batten siding, wide panel metal siding, and distressed, wide plank wood. All Buildings 17, 20, 24, & 38 Repair and/or replace windows; Install metal awnings; Replace storefront doors; Remove current planters with a new landscape design. All Buildings 37, 38, 39 & L-1 Remove brick walkways and replace with decorative concrete paving. Entire site 39 Retain and repair several historic, character defining features including the prominent rooftop historic-era condenser tower (repair and repaint); and the historic-era skylight and clerestory arrangement (repair and repaint). Entire site 4-7 Repaint over the non-historic mural (new mural to be proposed at a later time). Building 4 5 Cover and secure the existing electrical meters on Building 3 with a new door resembling the existing freezer doors and remove empty and abandoned conduits on the ceiling. Building 3 6 Proposed additions or new structures Demolish a non-historic addition at the rear of Building 4 and construct an 864 square foot replacement addition. Building 4 12 & 21 Construct a new trash enclosure adjacent to Building 4; colors and materials to match. The west wall of Building 4 will be retained and the window fenestrations preserved. Building 4 30 & 36 Construct a new 2,880 commercial building (Building 5) along the west property line between Buildings 1 and 4. Behind Building 4 13, 16, 17 & 18 Create a courtyard between Building 3 and the new Building 5 which includes the removal of existing trees and installation of new trees and landscaping; and removal of the fountain. Western parking lot 9 Trees The project proposes to remove 7 trees and replant 4 large shade trees and 3 smaller accent trees. Western parking lot L-0, L-1 Parking The project proposes to turn the exiting parking lot into a pedestrian plaza. As such they are proposing to place 8 parking spaces off-site and pay in- lieu fees for 16 parking spaces. ARC1 - 4 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 5 3.4 Project Statistics Item Proposed 1 Standard 2 New Commercial Building Setback 0 feet 0 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 21 feet, 8 inches 50 feet Spikes Addition Setback 0 feet 0 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 11 feet, 6 inches 50 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 74% 100% Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 4/29/2016 2. Zoning Regulations 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed development was reviewed for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and historic preservation standards. Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found it to be in substantial compliance, as discussed below. 4.1. Site Layout The project proposes to renovate the current western parking lot with a new commercial building and a pedestrian plaza. The CDG encourage pedestrian oriented site planning such as pedestrian plazas.1 Creating a plaza is specifically encouraged for a commercial site that contains multiple buildings to not only to provide pedestrian scale, but also to create a visual and functional relationship between all the buildings within the project.2 The new plaza will provide pleasant a private/public space for patrons of the Creamery and integrate the new commercial building into the existing Creamery. 4.2 Design The Creamery is a unique site and the project proposes to enhance and update the site by repainting, repairing and renovating various features of the existing buildings. Details of the specific changes are outlined in the Project Description above (Section 3.3). The rehabilitation includes a mix of materials (metal siding, metal roofing, metal awnings, distressed wood siding, and smooth 1 Community Design Guidelines, Section 1.4(B)1: Emphasize pedestrian oriented buildings and site planning (for example, commercial storefronts at the back of the sidewalk, pedestrian plazas, and front porches on dwellings). 2 Community Design Guidelines, Section 3.1(C)2g: Multiple buildings in a single project should be designed to create a visual and functional relationship with one another. Whenever possible, multiple buildings should be clustered to achieve a "village" scale. (See Figure 3-8.) This creates opportunities for plazas and pedestrian areas while preventing long rows of buildings. When clustering is impractical, a visual link should be established between buildings. This link can be accomplished through the use of an arcade system, trellis, colonnade, landscaping and trees, or enhanced paving. Figure 3: North elevation of the proposed Spike's (Building 4) addition ARC1 - 5 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 6 stucco) and colors that are consistent and compatible with the historic Creamery. The overall update will enhance the attractiveness and functionality of the site, consistent with the CDG Downtown Design Goal to preserve and enhance the attractiveness of Downtown to residents and visitors.3 The project also proposes to remove the non-historic addition on Building 4 (Spikes) and construct a new addition and trash enclosure. The new addition will be differentiated from the historic building by its new construction and the use of board and batten siding that is different from the smooth stucco finish of Building 4. The addition also features roll-up doors that open to a patio that is part of the new pedestrian plaza. The trash enclosure will have a smooth stucco finish and be painted to match the existing building. The proposed new commercial structure (Building 5 or also called the Farmer’s Building) includes a blend of material elements and architectural features that are compatible with the existing structures within The Creamery. The agrarian-industrial design of Building 5 is similar in form and shape to Buildings 1 and 2, but differentiated by scale, height and the proposed use of rust colored corrugated siding, window patterning and the use of roll-up storefronts. The building has a maximum height of 21 feet 8 inches. The tallest structure on the site is approximately 30 feet in height. The location of the Farmer’s Building behind existing Creamery structures also reduces the ability to view the building from the street or obscure views of remaining historic architectural features (such as the roof form, the condenser tower, and freezer and delivery doors), and will be complementary to existing buildings in the Creamery. 4.3 Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation An analysis of the project’s consistency with Historic Preservation standards is provided in the June 27, 2016 CHC staff report (Attachment 5). The CHC reviewed the project and found the proposed new structure and additions to be compatible and complementary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of the existing structures and project site, and consistent with historic preservation standards. The CHC recommends approval of the project to the ARC per CHC Resolution No. CHC-1010-16 (Attachment 5). 3 Community Design Guidelines, Section 4.1: The primary goal of the following downtown design guidelines is to preserve and enhance its attractiveness to residents and visitors as a place where: people prefer to walk rather than drive; and where the pleasant sidewalks, shading trees, and variety of shops, restaurants, and other activities encourage people to spend time, slow their pace, and engage one another. The design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and public spaces in the downtown have, and will continue to play a crucial role in maintaining this character and vitality. Figure 4: East elevation of the proposed Farmer's Building (Building 5) ARC1 - 6 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 7 4.4 Parking and Off-site Parking Request The proposed project is within the Downtown Core, which provides different parking standards than other areas of the City. Uses such as restaurants and bars require one space per three hundred fifty square feet gross floor area. Commercial or retail space requires one space per five hundred square feet gross floor area. With the proposed additions, new commercial building, changes in use and the conversion of the existing parking lot, the project requires 24 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to pay in -lieu fees for 16 spaces and is requesting to provide 8 spaces off-site on the adjacent parcel at 560 Higuera Street. The Zoning Regulations state that off-site parking shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, be within 300 feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. Staff recommends approval of the off-site parking with the following conditions: • Condition No. 7: prior to approval of the building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the off-site parking area is not separated from the Creamery by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous and record an off- site parking agreement for 8 parking spaces. The site on which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use. In the event that off-site parking is not provided, the applicant shall be required to pay in-lieu fees for parking, and; • Condition No. 32: The creation of any new parking area and/or the alteration of an existing parking area shall require a separate parking lot (building) permit for the proposed improvements. The development of the off-site parking shall be subject to all zoning codes, building codes, ordinances, and the Parking and Driveway Standards as applicable. Project site Proposed off-site parking Figure 5: Proposed location of the off-site parking ARC1 - 7 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 8 4.5 Bicycle Parking With the additional square footage proposed, the project is required to provide 2 bicycle parking spaces; 1 short-term and 1 long-term. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a minimum of 5 short-term bicycle parking spaces in lieu of providing the long-term bicycle spaces (Condition No. 34). 4.6 Trees The project proposes to remove seven trees and replant four large shade trees and three smaller accent trees. The proposed on-site compensatory tree plantings are supported by the City Arborist with Condition No. 33 that the large canopy shade trees be approved by the City Arborist and unless otherwise approved, shall be a minimum of 24” box trees. Three additional compensatory off-site street trees shall be planted in the Downtown area. These trees may be planted in existing open tree wells. The final location and tree species shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Planning Division. The compensatory street trees shall be planted and protected per City Engineering Standards. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW That the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of repairs and minor alterations of existing private structures and involves negligible expansion of an existing use. The proposed additions do not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements, where appropriate. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION 7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.2. 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. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Project Plans ARC1 - 8 ARCH-2699-2015 570 Higuera Page 9 4. CHC staff report (June 27, 2016) 5. CHC Resolution (June 27, 2016) 6. Historic Preservation Design Review by Applied Earthworks 7. Supplemental Memo by Applied Earthworks Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC1 - 9 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. ARC- -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING THE REMODEL AND REHABILITATION OF THE HISTORIC MASTER LIST GOLDEN STATE CREAMERY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,880 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH OFF-SITE PARKING WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 18, 2016 (570 HIGUERA STREET - ARCH 2699-2016) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #ARCH 2699-2016, Creamery, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 18, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2699- 2016, Creamery, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARCH 2699-2016), based on the following findings: 1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because 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. 2. 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 site and the neighborhood. 3. That, consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (Resolution No. CHC-1010-16), the proposed new structures are compatible and complementary to the size/scale, massing, and architectural features of ARC1 - 10 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 2 the Master List Historic Golden State Creamery and that proposed modifications to the structures and the site does not alter character-defining features. 4. 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. 5. That the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines because the project consists of repairs and minor alterations of existing private structures and involves negligible expansion of an existing use. The proposed additions do not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning 1. 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 the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 3. The locations of all exterior lighting, including landscaping 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 - 11 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 3 4. 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 proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof to confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-site diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. 6. The applicant shall pay in-lieu fees for 16 parking spaces. 7. Prior to approval of the building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the off-site parking area will not be separated from the Creamery by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous and record an off-site parking agreement for 8 parking spaces. The site on which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use. In the event that off-site parking is not provided, the applicant shall be required to pay in-lieu fees for parking. 8. 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. 9. The applicant shall provide an archeological monitoring plan prepared by a City-qualified archeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will conduct the monitoring and circumstances where a Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor is required. The plan shall recommend specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be submitted as a part of the building permit. 10. Any new proposed signage shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to ensure appropriateness for the site and compliance with the Sign Regulations. Signage shall coordinate with building architecture and the type of land use. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the project. 11. 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. 12. 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. ARC1 - 12 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 4 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 backflow 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. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 13. This project is located within the Mission Style Sidewalk District of downtown. Any new or replacement driveway approach, curb, gutter, sidewalk, or utility vaults shall be installed in the Mission Style per city standard #4220. 14. The building plan submittal shall show any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. New improvements shall conform to competent materials per City Engineering Standards. Non- complying sections of sidewalk, including ADA compliance/barrier removals will be considered. The existing damaged or displaced sections of Type 1 Mission Style sidewalk may need to be replaced. The City Engineer may approve the retention of the existing curb and gutter to limit the scope of improvements to replacement sidewalk only. The applicant shall schedule a separate site inspection to evaluate the extent of the required improvements across the property frontage prior to building permit plan submittals. 15. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 16. The building plan submittal shall note or dimension the 70’ right-of-way width of Higuera on the site plan. Show the 35’ dimension of the centerline to property line, 23’ centerline to face of curb, and 12’ from face of curb to property line dimensions for reference. 17. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed street parking along the Higuera project frontage. The plan shall include all existing and proposed parking meters, signage, and striping of L’s and T’s for the metered spaces. The restriping and relocation of existing metered spaces may be required to maximize the new street parking. The plan shall include any proposal for commercial and/or passenger loading areas. The final plan and parking layout shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 18. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Show the existing underground fire service on the building plan submittal (include PIV, double check, etc. if applicable). Existing fire sprinkler underground and appurtenances ARC1 - 13 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 5 shall be upgraded to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. All work in the public right-of- way shall be shown or noted. 19. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new or substantially remodeled structures shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the city’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 20. Elevating or dry floodproofing is required for the new Farmers Building 5. A floodproofing upgrade and/or the use of flood resistant construction materials is recommended and should be considered for the addition to and/or remodel of the master list historic Spikes Building 4. Flood insurance premium reductions could be realized for floodproofing and/or elevation certification for Building 4. 21. Any new building service equipment shall be protected or elevated above the BFE in accordance with the Floodplain Management Regulations and adopted Building Code. 22. Compliance with the current Floodplain Management Regulations is required as a condition of building permits for any remodel or 10-year cumulative remodeling that exceeds 50% of the value of the existing structure. Land value is not considered by FEMA. If not otherwise required, voluntary floodproofing is recommended for any façade or bulkhead construction or renovation. If not otherwise, exempt, floodproofing upgrades are required for the Taqueria building remodel. 23. This property is located in an AE and AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the base flood elevations have been established in the AE zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2’ above adjacent grade in the AO zone. New or upgraded floodproofing is required to 1’ above the BFE or AO (2’) flood depths. Any existing floodproofing shall be maintained and protected during construction. The city recommends voluntary floodproofing for any façade renovation area. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City’s Website. The water quality treatment strategy for PR2 shall consider Harvesting, Infiltration, and/or Evapotranspiration as the preferred BMP. This item will be reviewed and approved as part of the building permit submittal and when a project soils report has been provided. The soils engineer shall provide final project recommendations including the stormwater treatment strategy. 25. The project is conditioned to provide an upgrade to the drainage system to provide some water quality treatment for the existing untreated parking lot run-off related to the Taqueria project. The building plan submittal shall include a drainage report. The report shall include the final calculations and analysis for the proposed treatment of the parking lot ARC1 - 14 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 6 runoff in accordance with acceptable standards and Best Management Practices. The report shall show treatment for runoff for 28% of the 2-year storm event or from a 1”/24-hour storm event or equivalent treatment train. The plans shall show any by-pass structures or systems accordingly. A separate conveyance system to keep roof drainage from draining through the parking may be required. The treatment system shall include and consider runoff from the existing trash enclosure(s) per City Engineering Standard 1010.B. This system could be designed and bonded for future installation in conjunction with the proposed Nipomo Lofts redevelopment project. 26. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance or final inspection approvals depending upon the overall campus drainage strategies. 27. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan for this project. The plan shall show the existing and proposed contours and/or spot elevations to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. Show and label the high point elevation or grade break at the yard areas and drainage arrows to show historic drainage. Include the finished floor elevation of the several buildings, existing finish grade elevations, and existing yard drainage. Show all existing and proposed drainage courses, pipes and structures; indicate the size, type and material. 28. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. Tree removals and compensatory plantings not otherwise supported by the ARC and the City Arborist will require approval by the Tree Committee. The plan shall show all existing and proposed street trees for reference. 29. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist if applicable. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. 30. The proposed tree removals are supported by staff with the following on-site and off-site compensatory tree plantings. The proposed on-site compensatory tree plantings are supported with the condition that the large canopy shade trees be approved by the City Arborist and unless otherwise approved, shall be a minimum of 24” box trees. Three additional compensatory off-site street trees shall be planted in the Downtown area. These ARC1 - 15 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 7 trees may be planted in existing open tree wells. The final location and tree species shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Planning Division. The compensatory street trees shall be planted and protected per City Engineering Standards. A separate encroachment permit may be required for the off-site tree plantings located within the public right-of-way. 31. Parking in-lieu fees shall be paid for the new use(s) and building areas as established by the Planning Division unless an off-site parking agreement is proposed and approved for some or all of the required spaces. The creation of any new parking area and/or the alteration of an existing parking area shall require a separate parking lot (building) permit for the proposed improvements. The development of the off-site parking shall be subject to all zoning codes, building codes, ordinances, and the Parking and Driveway Standards as applicable. Transportation Division - Public Works Department 32. Improvements in the frontage along Higuera Street are required. Replacement of abandoned driveways with Mission style sidewalk, City Std. 4220, shall be made along frontage. 33. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 5 short-term bicycle parking spaces for the project in exchange for the long-term and short-term spaces required. This requirement may be accommodated within the project boundaries or along the frontage of Higuera Street where current no parking zones are located. Staff recommends this be accommodated with a Peak Rack installation. Details are to be provided on building plans. 34. Installation of additional parking meters, along Higuera Street frontage shall be provided as shown on plans. Additional meter parking shall conform to City Standard 7210 and 7410. Utilities Department Condition 35. The property’s existing sewer laterals to the point of connection at the City main must pass a pipeline video inspection (visual inspection of the interior of the pipeline), including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Additional information is provided below related to this requirement: • The pipeline video inspection shall be submitted on USB drive and shall be in color. • The inspection shall be of adequate resolution in order to display pipe. • Material submitted shall include the project address and a scaled plan of the building and the lateral location to the connection at the City sewer main. ARC1 - 16 Resolution No. ARC- -16 ATTACHMENT 1 ARCH-2699-2015 (570 Higuera) Page 8 • The inspection shall include tracking of the pipeline length (in feet) from the start of the inspection to the connection at the City sewer main. • It is optional to provide audio on the report to explain the location, date of inspection, and pipeline condition observations. Code Requirements 36. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. Information on the program is available at: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5909 37. During the declared drought emergency, the project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to support new landscaping shall not exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance (MAWA). 38. Prior to occupancy, applicant shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department that no connection exists between any existing roof drain or sump pump to the City’s collection system consistent with Municipal Code section 13.08.030. On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of July, 2016. _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Architectural Review Commission ARC1 - 17 C-D C-R C-D R-3-H O-H C-R O-H R-3-H O-H-PD PF-H C-D-S-H C-D C-D-H C-D-H R-3-S R-4 C-D-MU C-D-H-PD R-3 C-D R-3-H HIGUE R A DANA NI P O M O MARSH MONTE R E Y VICINITY MAP File No. 0913-2015570 Higuera ¯ ATTACHMENT 2 ARC1 - 18 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 19 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 20 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 21 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 22 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 23 1. C o n d e n s e r T o w e r c . 1 9 2 8 : T o r e m a i n - r e p a i r & re p a i n t 2. E x i s t i n g F r e e z e r D o o r , c . 1 9 2 8 ; T o r e m a i n 5. E x i s t i n g L o a d i n g D o o r s , c . 1 9 2 8 ; T o r e m a i n 4. E x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e u n d e r r o o f , c . 1 9 7 0 : T o r e m o v e d a n d r e p l a c e d w i t h n e w w a l l s un d e r t h e r o o f 6. E x i s t i n g L o a d i n g D o c k , c. 1 9 2 8 ; T o R e m a i n 3. E x i s t i n g C o n d e n s e r T o w e r , S k y l i g h t & C l e r e s t o r y , c . 1 9 2 8 : T o b e r e p a i r e d , r e p a i n t e d a n d hi g h l i g h t e d a s o r i g i n a l e l e m e n t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o j e c t . T h e P r o m e n a d e R o o f ( a s p h a l t sh i n g l e s b o t t o m o f p h o t o ) t o b e r e m o v e d t o e x p o s e o r i g i n a l h i s t o r i c a l e l e m e n t s 6 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 HI S T O R I C E L E M E N T S - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 24 1. E x i s t i n g F o u n t a i n , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o b e r e p a i r & r e s t o r e d 2. P l a n t e r , c . 1 9 7 0 ; t o r e m a i n 3. E x i s t i n g M u r a l , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o r e m a i n 4. C r e a m e r y L o g o S i g n a g e , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o b e u p d a t e d a n d u s e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o j e c t 5. E x i s t i n g F u n k i n e s s , c . 1 9 7 0 ; T o r e m a i n , r e p a i r & re p a i n t 7 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 FU N K Y E L E M E N T S - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 25 3. E x i s t i n g s u r f a c e e l e c t r i c a l p a n e l s t o b e c o v e r e d f o r s a f e t y & se c u r i t y 1. M a j o r r o o f f o r m s t o b e r e p l a c e d w i t h s t y l e a p p r o p r i a t e g a l v a n i z e d co r r u g a t e d r o o ﬁ ng t o u n i f y a p p e a r a n c e a n d s o l v e w a t e r i n t r u s i o n p r o b l e m s 4. R e m o v e p r o m e n a d e r o o f a n d r e p a i r e x p o s e d w a l l t o en h a n c e t h e c l e r e s t o r y s t r u c t u r e o n t h e e n d o f b u i l d i n g 2 (S e e P a g e 2 - P h o t o 3 ) 2. S p i k e s a d d i t i o n t o b e r e m o v e d & r e p l a c e d 8 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 WO R K S C O P E - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 26 1. N e w o p e n i n g s i n e a s t e r l y b r i c k w a l l 2. R e p l a c e 7 0 ’ s l e a s e s p a c e w i t h n e w l e a s e a r e a s o f a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l s 3. N e w l e a s e a r e a s u n d e r e x i s t i n g r o o f 9 gr e g w yn n ar c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 WO R K S C O P E - P H O T O S ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 27 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 28 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 29 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 30 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 31 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 32 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 33 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 34 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 35 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 36 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 37 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 38 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 39 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 40 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 41 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 42 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 43 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 44 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 45 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 46 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 47 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 48 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 49 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 50 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 51 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 52 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 53 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 54 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 55 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 56 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 57 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 58 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 59 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 60 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 61 10 gr e g w yn n a r c h i t e c t Ap r i l 3 , 2 0 1 5 EX I S T I N G T O P O M A P ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 62 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 63 ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1 - 64 Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Item Number: 2 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot commercial building within the Downtown Historic District. ADDRESS: 570 Higuera Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner FILE NUMBER: ARCH 2699-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) find the proposed project to be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Applicant Creamery, LLC Representative Nancy Hubbard Historic Status Master List Submittal Date 1/29/2016 Complete Date 5/23/2016 Zoning C-D-H (Downtown-Commercial with Historic Overlay) General Plan General Retail Site Area ~38,420 square feet (.88 acres) Environmental Status Categorically Exempt from environmental review under Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. 2.0 SUMMARY & CHC PURVIEW The applicant is proposing to remodel and rehabilitate the Master List Historic Golden State Creamery (The Creamery) and construct a new 2,880 commercial building. The applicant is proposing changes to the site that are significantly different from the originally proposed project ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 65 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 2 that the CHC reviewed in April 2015. There are two components of the project which require review by the CHC 1: (1) Evaluation of conformance with City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for modifications to a historic resource; and (2) Evaluation of conformance with the Historic Preservation Guidelines for new construction in an historic district and on a historic property. 3.0 BACKGROUND April 27, 2015: The CHC previously reviewed a proposed remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery, and a new, two-story mixed-use structure within the Downtown Historic District (Attachment 4, Staff report and project plans). The CHC recommended the Architectural Review Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. November 13, 2015: The applicant modified the proposal and removed the two-story mixed use building from the project. The Director approved the remaining elements of the project which included the remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery in accordance with the CHC’s recommendation. The applicant’s current proposal is described in Section 4.2 below. 4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 4.1 Site Information/Setting The subject property is within the Downtown Historic District and located near the intersection of Nipomo and Higuera Streets (see Attachment 2, Vicinity Map). The project site is approximately 38,420 square feet (.88 acres) and contains four buildings, a 15 space parking lot (located behind Building 4 (Spike’s Restaurant)) and is accessed by pedestrians and vehicles from Higuera Street and from a parking lot off of Nipomo Street, east of the site. The property received an extensive remodel in 1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.1.2: The Director shall refer a development project application for a property located within a historic district or on a property with a listed Historic Resource to the CHC for review. 1 2 3 4 Figure 1: The Creamery site plan with building identification numbers ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 66 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 3 the 1970s. In 1983, as part of a City-wide effort to recognize historic resources, the site was added to the Master List of Historic Resources because of its role and significant contribution to the growth and development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. A detailed historic description of the site is included in the previous staff report (Attachment 4) and within the Historic Preservation Design Review (Attachment 5). 4.2 Project Description The proposal is to remodel and renovate the Creamery and to construct a new 2,880 square foot commercial building. Project components are summarized below: Site Location Project Plan Page # Description of work Buildings 2 & 3 10 & 11 Reorganize interior spaces with new interior walls under the existing roof structures of Building 2 and 3 and construct new restrooms in Building 3. Building 4 12 & 21 Demolish a non-historic addition at the rear of Building 4 and construct an 864 square foot replacement addition. Building 4 30 & 36 Construct a new trash enclosure adjacent to Building 4; colors and materials to match. The west wall of Building 4 will be retained and the window fenestrations preserved. Building 3 11, 22 & 23 Demolish non-historic addition to Building 3 and construct a new addition for a restaurant (The Taqueria) and outdoor patio adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot and Ciopinot’s Restaurant. Western parking lot behind Building 4 13, 16, 17 & 18 Construct a new 2,880 commercial building (Building 5) along the west property line between Buildings 1 and 4. Western parking lot 9 Create a courtyard between Building 3 and the new Building 5 which includes the removal of existing trees and installation of new trees and landscaping; and removal of the fountain. All Buildings 17, 20, 24, & 38 Repaint and reside existing walls with board and batten siding, wide panel metal siding, and distressed, wide plank wood. All Buildings 37, 38, 39 & L-1 Repair and/or replace windows; Install metal awnings; Replace storefront doors; Remove current planters with a new landscape design. Entire site 39 Remove brick walkways and replace with decorative concrete paving. Entire site 4-7 Retain and repair several historic, character defining features including the prominent rooftop historic-era condenser tower (repair and repaint); and the historic-era skylight and clerestory arrangement (repair and repaint). Building 4 5 Repaint over the non-historic mural (new mural to be proposed at a later time). ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 67 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 4 Building 3 6 Cover and secure the existing electrical meters on Building 3 with a new door resembling the existing freezer doors and remove empty and abandoned conduits on the ceiling. Figure 2: Rendering of the Building 5 and the new plaza 5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION The role of the CHC is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation and to provide recommendations to the ARC. 5.1 Secretary of Interior Standards An evaluation and supplemental memo regarding the proposed alterations was performed by Applied Earthworks, Inc. The report and memo provide recommendations to ensure rehabilitation plans are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Guidelines (Attachment 5, Historic Preservation Design Review and Attachment 6, Supplemental Memo). The Historic Preservation Design Review found that the most appropriate treatment is best characterized as “rehabilitation” under the SOI Standards of Treatment since the project proposes a continuation of a compatible use for the property, restoration of key elements of the building’s exterior to approximate its appearance during the historic era, and new additions to the building and a new building that did not exist historically. The Historic Preservation Design Review and supplemental memo found the proposed project consistent with all 10 standards for rehabilitation based on adherence to the proper removal of non-historic wood additions and the use of modern materials in order to not create a false sense of history. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Design Review recommends rehabilitation of deteriorated historic features to their likely appearance, preservation of historic window openings and establishing archeological monitoring associated with new construction. All recommendations of the Historic Preservation Design Review are included as recommended ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 68 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 5 conditions of approval (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). Staff has included analysis of three of the most relevant standards below. SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Staff Analysis: As described above, the applicant will be removing non-historic additions on Buildings 3 and 4. In order to comply with SOI standards, the Applied Earthworks review states that the applicant must remove the wood additions “with the minimum amount of impact to original construction and new, planned additions shall be constructed with the same level of care to avoid impacts to the original buildings.” Staff has added a condition of approval to ensure that the applicant indicate on building plans the process of removal of the wood additions in order to avoid damaging the original building walls and replace any non-reparable or missing material to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction (Condition No. 1). SOI Rehabiliation Standard #9: New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. SOI Rehabiliation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Staff Analysis: The applicant is proposing to add an addition and a trash enclosure adjacent to Building 4. The new addition on Building 4 will replace a non-historic addition located at the rear of the building. The 864 square foot addition will be differentiated from the historic building by its new construction and the use of board and batten siding which is different from the smooth stucco finish of Building 4. The trash enclosure will be located on the west side of Building 4 and obscure four of the window openings along that elevation. As proposed, the trash enclosure complies with SOI Standards #9 and #10 because the historic window fenestrations will be preserved and become a highlighted feature within the interior of the building (Condition No. 2) (Attachment 5, Project Plans, pg. 36). Figure 3: Historic photo of Buildings 3 & 4 as viewed from Higuera St. ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 69 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 6 The Applied Earthworks analysis notes that the new additions and alterations to Building 3 also comply with the SOI standards. The report states the “proposed new additions and new building construction are such that if removed, the essential form and remaining integrity to the Creamery complex would be unimpaired.” The proposed “Taqueria” addition (Figure 4) will be located in the place of non-historic additions along the east side of Building 3 (Attachment 5, Project Plans, pgs. 26 & 27). The proposed architecture is designed to complement and reflect historic elements of Buildings 3 and 4 (as viewed from Higuera Street) (see Figure 3 above) and includes smooth stucco finish and a notched parapet design with a tile accent. The design of the Taqueria also incorporates new, distinct architecture that sets the building apart from the Creamery but is compatible with the existing historic features (the original roof trusses, doors and condenser tower), scale, and massing. The proposed 2,880 square foot commercial structure (Building 5) complies with SOI standards #9 and #10 because it is compatible with the Creamery’s historic environment and its location (behind Building 4) protects the integrity of the historic site. The agrarian designed building incorporates elements and materials from Buildings 1 and 2 while also incorporating more modern elements such as the garage door storefronts, metal awnings and the rusted red paint color. 5.2 Historic Preservation Guidelines The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts. 5.2.1 Architectural Compatibility within Historic Districts 2 New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic architecture as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the districts historic structures. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic. 2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1: Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts Figure 4: Rendering of the front facade of the Taqueria ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 70 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 7 Staff analysis: The proposed new commercial structure (Building 5, Attachment 3, Sheets 9 & 31) includes a blend of material elements and architectural features that are compatible with the existing structures within The Creamery. Section 5.2.2 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines notes that The Creamery does not exhibit the significant signature architectural elements found within the Historic Downtown District, but contributes its own, unique architectural style and historic association. Historic elements of the Creamery include those features that are associated with the dairy industry such as the basic massing of the buildings, dairy freezer and delivery doors and the original condenser tower (Attachment 5, Historic Preservation Design Review, Sections 2 & 4). The agrarian-industrial design of Building 5 is similar in form and shape to Buildings 1 and 2, but differentiated by scale, height and the proposed use of rust colored corrugated siding, window pattern and the use of roll-up storefronts. The new commercial structure will be located behind existing Creamery structures, will not affect the historical streetscape view from Higuera Street or obscure views of remaining historic architectural features (such as the roof form, the condenser tower, and freezer and delivery doors), and will be complementary to existing buildings in the Creamery. 5.2.2 Exterior building changes Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context...3 Staff analysis: As noted in the Historic Preservation Design Review (Attachment 5), the buildings associated with the Creamery have have been modified extensively and are not considered architecturally significant. The project proposes to remove the existing, plywood siding and replace with distressed wood, board and batten and metal siding. In order to not create a false sense of history, the supplemental memo provided by Applied Earthworks recommends that smooth, wide-width distressed wood siding and a smooth board paired with wide flattened battens be used to create a modern take on the materials (Attachment 6, Supplemental Memo). Staff has included this recommendation as Condition No. 3 within the draft resolution. The 3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.4.4: Exterior building changes: …Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replace character defining features shall be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character-defining features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape, quality and appearance. However, original materials are not required. Figure 5: Building 5, the new Farmer's Building ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 71 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (470 Higuera Street) Page 8 proposed façade alterations are consistent with Section 3.4.4 of the Historic Preservation Guidelines because the proposed materials complement the unique architectural style and preserve the historic features of The Creamery. 5.3 Archaeological Resources The proposed project involves the construction of a new commercial structure (Building 5) located behind Building 4 and in front of Building 1 and new smaller-scale additions to Buildings 1 and 3. The Historic Preservation Design Review notes that The Creamery, a City Master List Historic Resource, is within the Downtown Historic District and is located within 200 feet of the top bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Due to the status of the subject property on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, and its location in an archeologically sensitive area, staff has added Condition No. 4 which requires an archaeological monitoring plan. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In -fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) find the proposed project to be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, based on findings, and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. 8.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards. 2. Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Project Plans 4. Previous staff report 5. Historic Preservation Design Review by Applied Earthworks 6. Supplemental Memo by Applied Earthworks ATTACHMENT 4 ARC1 - 72 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-1010-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION FIND THE NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING, REMODEL AND REHABILITATION TO THE MASTER LIST GOLDEN STATE CREAMERY AT 570 HIGUERA STREET CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF IDSTORIC PROPERTIES; 570 HIGUERA STREET (ARCH 2699-2016) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #ARCH- 2699-2016, Creamery, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings . 1. The proposed modifications to the Master List Golden State Creamery site which includes remodeling and rehabilitation is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining features will be retained. 2. The proposed construction of the new commercial building is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the property and with development in the vicinity within the Downtown-Historic District. 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines since the project will be required to include an excavation monitoring and data recovery plan to document and preserve any artifacts found during construction. 4. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element Policies of the General Plan by providing a commercial infill development project in the downtown core consistent with design principles for development in the downtown. ATTACHMENT 5 ARC1 - 73 Resolution No. CHC-1010-16 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (570 Higuera Street) Page 2 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. SECTION 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) find the proposed project to be consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. As recommended in the Applied Earthworks Evaluation, plans submitted for a building permit shall include details and the procedure for removal of the wood additions of Buildings 3 and 4 in compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation in order to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-reparable or missing material shall be replaced to match in-kind and in-alignment with the original construction. 2. As recommended in the Applied Earthworks Evaluation, plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly indicate the window openings in Building 4 shall be preserved and become a highlighted feature within the interior of the building. 3. As recommended in the Applied Earthworks Supplemental Memo, plans submitted for a building permit shall show all proposed exterior siding; the project design should avoid creating a false sense of historical development by using smooth, wide-width distressed wood siding and smooth board paired with wide, flattened battens. 4. The applicant shall provide an archeological monitoring plan prepared by a City qualified archeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will conduct the monitoring and circumstances where a Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor are required The plan shall recommend specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be submitted as a part of the building permit. ATTACHMENT 5 ARC1 - 74 Resolution No. CHC-1010-16 CHC ARCH-2699-2016 (570 Higuera Street) Page 3 On motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee Member Papp, and on the following roll call vote: A YES: Committee Members Kincaid, Papp, Larabee, Walthert, Baer and Vice-Chair Brajkovich NOES: None. REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Hill The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 2ih day of June, 2016. Brian Lekilie; Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee ATTACHMENT 5 ARC1 - 75 Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California James Jenks Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 743 Pacific Street, Suite A. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Submitted To Covelop, Inc 1159 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 2015 ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 76 Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street ii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ..................................................................................................2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY .............................................4 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY ......................................................5 4.1 BUILDING #1 .........................................................................................................6 4.2 BUILDING #2 .........................................................................................................7 4.3 BUILDING #3 .........................................................................................................8 4.4 BUILDING #4 .......................................................................................................10 SUMMARY OF PLANNED MODIFICATIONS .........................................................12 5.1 BUILDING #1 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.2 BUILDING #2 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.3 BUILDING #3 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.4 BUILDING #4 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................12 5.5 BUILDING #5 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................13 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ..............................................14 6.1 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CREAMERY COMPLEX ......................15 6.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ......................................15 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES ..................................................................................19 7.1 PERCENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE PRESERVED. .........................19 7.2 RETENTION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ................................19 7.3 EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES ....................................................................19 7.4 INTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES .....................................................................19 7.5 ACQUIRED HISTORIC APPEARANCE ............................................................20 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ...............................................................................21 8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................21 8.2 REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC WOOD ADDITIONS ....................................21 8.3 ROOF REPAIR ......................................................................................................21 8.4 STOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT ...............................21 8.5 INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................22 ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 77 Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street iii CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................23 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX A Conceptual Designs for the Proposed Creamery Rehabilitation FIGURES 4-1 1909 Sanborn map illustrating the first Creamery building, a garage at 570 Higuera Street. ...............................................................................................................5 4-2 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map, demonstrating the general footprint of today’s Creamery complex. ...........................................................................................6 4-3 South elevation of Building #1, built in 1928 as a garage for creamery vehicles. .........................................................................................................................7 4-4 East elevation of Building #3, illustrating the 1928 masonry wall and 1970s retail space to be removed and replaced. .............................................................8 4-5 The first creamery building, a converted garage. Image from Janet Penn Frank’s San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. ....................................................9 4-6 Building #3, The Creamery façade along Higuera Street, 1939. .......................................10 4-7 Building #4 façade along Higuera Street, 1939. ................................................................11 4-8 Today’s Building #3 and Building #4, with modified façade. ...........................................11 ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 78 1 INTRODUCTION CoVelop (Collaborative Development) Inc. proposes to rehabilitate the historic Golden State Creamery Buildings (the Creamery), located at 570 Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo, California. The Creamery complex is comprised of a handful of buildings which date to the early and middle twentieth century but which experienced substantial remodel in the mid-1970s. Generally, the proposed project will reorganize non-historic interior spaces under an existing roof structure, demolish two non-historic additions and construct replacement buildings in the same locations, construct a new small-scale retail space adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot, construct a new mixed-use building in the west side of the existing Higuera Street parking lot, and modify the east side of the Higuera Street parking lot into a courtyard. Existing buildings will be painted and resided, and existing storefront doors and windows will be replaced. Current planters will be removed in favor of a new landscape design and brick walkways will be removed and reset. The proposed project will retain and repair several historic, character- defining features (see Appendix A for the Conceptual Designs). The Creamery is included on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources and the property is located within the City’s Downtown Historic District. According to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Master List includes only “The most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important person or events in the city’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070.” Accordingly, restoration or rehabilitation of the building must comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (updated November 2010) and must be approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). Because development of the project will require a discretionary permit from the City, it is also subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); under CEQA and the City Guidelines, a project will not have a significant impact on historical resources if it complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 79 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH Three prior historical investigations of the Creamery property have occurred. In 1982, the Creamery was recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Form 523. The brief document provides little information on the history or the historical development of the property. However, the recorder examined the property following 1970s-era alterations to buildings, concluding that “…the Creamery is now a colorful complex of shops and restaurants. Major alterations to the original structure have left very few elements of the original creamery” (State of California DPR Form 523, 1982). In 1990, the City of San Luis Obispo and the City Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed an application to demolish five of the six buildings associated with the Creamery and construct a 60,000 square foot mixed use center. At that time, the CHC determined the structures to be historically, architecturally, and culturally significant. Per City requirements, San Buenaventura Research Associates prepared and submitted a Phase I Cultural Resource Study in April 1990 (Triem 1990a). The Phase I study included an overview of the original construction, use, and subsequent 1970s- era alterations to each Creamery building. The study recommended that the complex was significant, but likely not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to a loss of integrity. However, the CHC found the Phase I study to be inadequate, noting that it did not adequately address the historical, cultural, or architectural significance of the site. The CHC concluded that it would not consider the demolition request until a revised cultural resources survey was completed. In October 1990 San Buenaventura Research Associates completed a Phase II Cultural Resource Study (Triem 1990b). The Phase II report included the following: • The historical background of the Creamery, its relationship to other creameries and the role it played in the development of the dairy business in San Luis Obispo County; • Discussion of the architectural significance of the present Creamery complex, including changes to structures over time and significant remaining features; and, • Impact mitigation recommendations. The Phase II study concluded by noting that: “The complex of buildings known as the Creamery were simple utilitarian buildings of medium to poor construction when they were first built. The first attempt to unify the ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 80 3 appearance of the buildings was made in 1928. The façade constructed across the front of the buildings was designed using elements of Spanish Colonial Revival style seen in the stepped parapet with tile cap, the use of wood lintels over drive through entries and some windows and the concrete and stucco siding. Many of these features have been changed or removed. All that remains is the basic original massing and form of the buildings” (Triem 1990b: 13). And, “Of the five buildings in the Creamery complex, building #1 [Building #3 for the purposes of the current project] the Processing Plant is the most historically significant because it was the first building used as a creamery and housed the office and laboratory. The building also has the most distinctive features including the original truss roof, original doors where milk was delivered, and the cooling tower” (Triem1990b: 14). The Phase II study employed National Register of Historic Places significance and integrity criteria to evaluate the Creamery, noting that the Creamery is significant under National Register Criterion A for its significant contribution to the growth and development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. However, the study also noted that integrity of the Creamery, it’s retention of the essential physical features which allow it to transmit its historical significance, was questionable. The study reported that: “Because of extensive changes to the historic materials of the buildings over time, they have lost the essential physical features and workmanship that were part of their character when the building’s operated as a creamery…At present [1990], the group of buildings appear to only have integrity of location, association, and perhaps feeling” (Triem 1990b: 15–16). ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 81 4 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY Triem’s Phase II study (Oct 1990) included an overview of the historic development of the Creamery; the following the summary is drawn from that narrative. The dairy industry in the San Luis Obispo area commenced with the arrival of the Steele Brothers in 1866. Dairymen from the San Francisco Bay Area, the brothers purchased 45,000 acres of land in the southern Edna Valley. In the 1870s, the Steele’s operated five dairy farms, owning the second highest number of dairy cows in the state. By the 1890s three creameries operated in San Luis Obispo County, but by the turn of the century each had ceased operation. In 1907, Swiss immigrant Marius G. Salmina filled the vacuum, establishing a cooperative cheese factory in the Harmony Valley, along with new creameries in Harmony and Cayucos. In 1910 August Jensen, a dairyman who established the Central Creamery Company in Humboldt County in 1905, arrived in San Luis Obispo. That year Jensen opened another Central Creamery operation in a preexisting garage and machine shop at the Higuera Street property, the second creamery to be established in the City of San Luis Obispo. In 1912 the successful creamery changed its name to California Central Creamery, and in 1926 the company changed its name yet again to Golden State Milk Products Company. In 1930, the firm shortened its name to Golden State Company Ltd., a name it retained until the company was purchased by Foremost Dairy in 1954. At its peak, Golden State operated creameries throughout California, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Long Beach, as well as its local concern. Foremost became the last operating creamery in San Luis Obispo. In 1972, the small Higuera Street plant and its aging equipment became too costly to operate and the creamery was closed. The shuttered property was nearly sold to the City for demolition and use as a parking lot. However, the complex was purchased by Jim Swift and John Korelich, who in 1974–1975 converted the Creamery into a 20-shop restaurant and retail complex. Today, the Creamery buildings continue to function as a commercial destination in downtown San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 82 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY The Creamery is located at 570 Higuera Street, between Higuera Street to the south, Nipomo Street to the east, and San Luis Obispo Creek to the north. On the west side, a modern fence runs the length of the property. The July 1909 Sanborn map (Figure 4-1) is the first such map to illustrate a building on the subject property, labelled as a garage. The garage along Higuera Street, which remains at the property today in a modified condition, became the first creamery building. Figure 4-1 1909 Sanborn map illustrating the first Creamery building, a garage at 570 Higuera Street. By the April 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2), the Creamery assumed the general layout recognizable today. By then additional land was acquired on the east side of the complex, which included the 1929 brick building at 1043 Nipomo Street, used by the creamery for drying and storage (the 1043 Nipomo Street property is not part of the proposed project). The Sanborn map illustrates the two Creamery buildings which stand along Higuera Street today, as well as the large building at the rear of the property, constructed as a garage. As the map illustrates, the building immediately east of the garage was constructed to accommodate ice cream production and a clay-tiled addition along the east elevation was used as cold storage. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 83 6 The following section describes Creamery buildings in greater detail. Numbers assigned to Creamery buildings in this report correspond to building numbers used in the proposed project’s conceptual plans. Figure 4-2 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map, demonstrating the general footprint of today’s Creamery complex. 4.1 BUILDING #1 The building was constructed in 1928, when the Golden State Milk Products Company received a City Building Permit to erect a 40 x 130 foot garage to house creamery delivery vehicles. The simple, utilitarian style building initially featured wood-frame construction and corrugated metal siding. The 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2) also illustrates that the east elevation of the building was originally connected to the Ice Cream Manufacturing Building (the project’s Building #2) through an opening or large vehicle door. Today’s continuation of the roof over the two buildings illustrates the original arrangement. The map also demonstrates that the west elevation of the garage was open or included a door along the entire elevation, while the south elevation consisted of vehicle bay openings. The building underwent significant alterations in 1974–1975, when siding was changed from corrugated metal to wood and new windows and entryways were added to accommodate retail spaces along the south and north elevations. The garage door connection between Building #1 and Building #2 was enlarged with the construction of a north/south breezeway between the buildings. This allowed the placement of retail spaces along each side of the breezeway. A second floor was apparently added at the time, with the stairwell located along the east elevation ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 84 7 of the breezeway. The interior of Building #1 was substantially altered to accommodate separate commercial spaces. Figure 4-3 South elevation of Building #1, built in 1928 as a garage for Creamery vehicles. 4.2 BUILDING #2 As noted above, today’s Building #2 originally formed the east portion of Building #1. The 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2) demonstrates that between 1926 and 1950, the building, used for ice cream manufacturing, was enlarged to include a sizeable addition on the original south elevation. A masonry addition, which featured clay tile walls, was also added to the east elevation of the building. With the exception of the clay brick walls, the Phase II study notes that the rest of the building was clad with corrugated metal siding. During the 1974–1975 remodel, most of the metal siding was either removed or covered with wood, though some remnants of the corrugated metal siding remain on the wall near the southwest corner of the building. The clay tile wall still forms the east elevation of the building and it appears that what was once a first floor window on the east elevation of the masonry addition, demonstrated on the 1926 (Revised 1950) Sanborn map (Figure 4-2), was expanded into an entryway and breezeway built east/west through the building. Retail spaces were added along the north and south sides of the breezeway, along with a small addition along the east elevation (Figure 4-4). A second entryway also pierced the masonry wall, allowing access to the rear of restaurants located in Building #3. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 85 8 The north elevation, along San Luis Obispo Creek, also experienced the addition of retail-related fenestration in the 1970s. Original interiors were altered or new construction was undertaken to accommodate new commercial spaces. Figure 4-4 East elevation of Building #3, illustrating the 1928 masonry wall and 1970s retail space to be removed and replaced. 4.3 BUILDING #3 Built between 1905 and 1909, the first building constructed at the property faced Higuera Street and originally featured a high truss roof, cement floor and corrugated metal siding. The 1909 Sanborn map (Figure 4-1) describes the interior building components as an office and garage, with a machine shop in the rear area of the building. The following year, the building was in use as the Central Creamery (Figure 4-5). In 1910, the Creamery received a City Building Permit to erect a new storage building, also illustrated in Figure 4-5. The building mirrored the form and monitor-style of the original building, and was built behind the original building. In 1928 the building’s façade was remodeled, an alteration that was included in a 1928 City Building Permit issued to the Golden State Milk Products Company. Then, the creamery remodeled the front of the original building using cement. The new façade connected the main building with a new building (the project’s Building #4) to the south. The new façade featured a stepped parapet. Plain concrete walls were interrupted by wood frame window openings and wood doors. A second floor was added to the front portion of the building; the Phase II study notes that the small space was used as a laboratory. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 86 9 Figure 4-5 The first creamery building, a converted garage. Image from Janet Penn Frank’s San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. A 1939 photograph of the Higuera Street façade illustrates the 1928 alterations (Figure 4-6). Plain concrete walls are evident. Five wood-frame window opening and a wood double-door entrance with a wood-frame transom are demonstrated. A wood door that is partially visible along the west elevation has since been filled in, though the seams are visible. A wing wall over the vehicle entrance connects the building with Building #4; the wall supports prominent signage advertising Golden State Milk Products. The 1928 façade was again altered during the 1974–1975 remodel (Figure 8). A projecting section was added below the cornice that contains lights, and pilasters were added. While the arrangement of the fenestration remained intact, windows were changed to multi-paned reflective glass, with aluminum frames and mullions. Wood doors were replaced with modern recessed doors, and openings were altered. Much of the northerly west elevation of the building, originally used as a loading dock for the delivery of milk to the creamery, was also modified at that time to accommodate new retail space. The space between the original and 1910 building was also filled in, creating a single large building. The rear of the building, where it meet’s today’s Building #2, was altered to accommodate the construction of the breezeway, with interior commercial spaces added along the corridor. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 87 10 Figure 4-6 Building #3, The Creamery façade along Higuera Street, 1939. 4.4 BUILDING #4 The construction of this building was approved as part of the 1928 Building Permit. The 33 1/3 x 41 foot building was built as an office adjacent to Building #3 and connected by a decorative wing wall that supported creamery signage. The wood-frame building was constructed with the same style façade as its neighbor, Building #3. The 1939 photograph of the Higuera Street façade illustrates this building (Figure 4-7). Four window openings are along the front elevation, with what appears to be a wood and glass entryway on the east side of the façade. All front fenestration features awnings. Four wood-frame double-hung windows are visible along the west elevation. A wing wall over the west-side driveway continues the façade. The 1974–1975 remodel altered the fenestration arrangement along the façade (Figure 4-8). While three window openings remain in their original locations, a fourth window and the entryway were reconfigured. The window was eliminated and a new recessed entryway was built along the elevation. A wood-frame and glass addition was also constructed on the rear of the building. A large colorful mural, which chronicles the dairy-based history of the creamery, covers the east elevation of the building. The wing wall over the west side driveway has been removed. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 88 11 Figure 4-7 Building #4 façade along Higuera Street, 1939. Figure 4-8 Today’s Building #3 and Building #4, with modified façade. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 89 12 SUMMARY OF PLANNED MODIFICATIONS 5.1 BUILDING #1 MODIFICATIONS • There are no planned modifications to Building #1. 5.2 BUILDING #2 MODIFICATIONS • Modifications include the reconfiguration of interior space on the north side of the breezeway for new public bathrooms. • New storefront doors and windows will be installed along the north side elevation, facing San Luis Obispo Creek. • New storefront doors and window will be installed along both sides of the breezeway and walls will be repainted and/or reclad with corrugated metal. • The narrow deteriorating roof over the breezeway will be removed. 5.3 BUILDING #3 MODIFICATIONS • The Higuera Street façade of the building will not be modified. • The central and northern portion of the west elevation will receive new storefront windows and doors, with new painting and/or new corrugated metal siding. • 1970s-era wood-frame additions along the east elevation, currently used for retail, will be demolished and replaced with new retail spaces in the same location. • An existing walkway connected to the south elevation of the breezeway will be filled in with a small retail space. Existing restrooms will be reconfigured in their current locations. • Two small retail spaces will be constructed adjacent to the Nipomo Street parking lot, adjacent to the east elevation of the building. 5.4 BUILDING #4 MODIFICATIONS • The Higuera Street façade of the building will not be modified. • Modifications to Building #4 include the demolition of the 1970s addition to the rear of the building and the construction of a new dining area, garden and trash enclosure which will occupy a portion of the rear (north) and the entire side (west) elevations. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 90 13 5.5 BUILDING #5 MODIFICATIONS Construction of a new building is intended in the west side of the Higuera Street parking lot. The building is conceptually planned as a two-story with a 2,190 square foot footprint. Four retail spaces are planned for the first floor and four residential loft units on the second floor. The building will feature metal cladding. The east side of the Higuera Street parking lot will be converted into a courtyard. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 91 14 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS To effectively evaluate compliance of the proposed alterations to the Creamery with the SOI Standards, it is important to appropriately define the specific category of treatment that is being proposed. The following definitions are cited verbatim from the “Introduction to Standards and Guidelines” provided online by the National Park Service: The four treatment approaches are Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction, outlined below in hierarchical order and explained: The first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made. Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.) Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods. Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non- surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials [Weeks and Grimmer 2001]. One intent for alterations to the Creamery is to retain and repair as much as possible the important historic features of the building and remove some non-historic materials and additions. However, the proposed work does not appear to be consistent with a restoration treatment as defined under the SOI Standards given the proposed small new additions and new building to the Creamery complex. The proposed treatment of the Creamery is, therefore, best characterized as rehabilitation under the SOI Standards as it proposes continuation of a compatible use for the property, proposes restoration of key elements the building’s historic exterior (corrugated metal cladding) to approximate its appearance during the historic era, and proposes new additions to the building, and a new building, that did not exist historically. Consequently, this design review is conducted with reference to the Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as presented in the updated version provided online http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm, accessed March 30–31, 2015. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 92 15 6.1 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CREAMERY COMPLEX The 1990 Phase I and Phase II cultural resource studies concluded that the Creamery is significant under National Register of Historic Places Criterion A. Under Criterion A, significant resources are those that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of United States history. The Creamery is also significant under California Register of Historic Resources Criterion 1, where a significant resource must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. National Register and California Register resources may be significant at either the local, state, or national level. The Phase I study noted that: “The complex of buildings, known as the Creamery, are significant because of the role they played in the development of the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo. From 1901 to 1970, there were approximately 11 creameries that operated in San Luis Obispo…[T]he Creamery at 570 Higuera Street is the oldest existing creamery in San Luis Obispo, although it operated from ca 1910 until 1970 under three different names….[I]t would appear that the Creamery buildings [have] significance because of its long standing reputation as the oldest and largest Creamery in San Luis Obispo in its original location” (Triem 1990a: 4-5). However, the 1990 studies did not provide a period of significance for the Creamery. Based on available data, it appears that a period of significance from 1928 to 1972 (the year the creamery ceased operation) is appropriate. While the Creamery began operations in 1910, the complex did not assume its present architectural form until 1928, when today’s Building #1, Building #2, and Building #4 were constructed. That same year, the façade of Building #1 was modified with a cement finish. 6.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIORS STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The proposed alterations to the Creamery as communicated in the conceptual drawings by Greg Wynn, Architect are consistent with the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation, though adherence to recommendations regarding removal of non-historic wood additions is required. Additionally, archaeological monitoring associated with new construction at the Creamery may be required. Deteriorated historic features, identified Standards #6, will be rehabilitated to their likely appearance during the Creamery’s recommended period of significance of 1928–1972. Discussion of each of the standards and assessment of the proposed alterations for consistency is presented in this section. 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The Creamery has been used as a retail complex since the mid-1970s. The proposed project is not a new use but series of modifications designed to enhance the complex’s continued use as a commercial space. The continued use of the historic Creamery as a commercial space will require minimal further change to historic materials that have already experienced substantial alteration. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this Standard. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 93 16 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Much of the historic character of the Creamery was altered during the mid-1970s during the conversion from use as a creamery to reuse as a retail complex. Today’s historic character is expressed in the intact location and general forms of the historic buildings, which will not be modified by the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project has identified several historic features, described in Standard’s #6, which will be retained and repaired. The proposed project complies with this Standard. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. There are no proposed changes that would create a false sense of historical development. The proposed project complies with this Standard. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Existing modifications to the Creamery were made in the mid-1970s. Under CEQA Guidelines, buildings, structures and objects that are less than 50 years of age are generally not considered to be historical resources. As such, property modifications dating from the mid-1970s to the Creamery, such as small building additions, exterior wood siding, reorganization of interior spaces and installation of storefront doors and windows have not achieved historic significance in their own right. However, the proposed project retains conspicuous features that are emblematic of the 1970s-era alterations of the property, such as the existing fountain, which will be integrated into the new courtyard, and Building #4 mural. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this Standard. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be maintained. The Creamery is significant due to its role in local patterns of historic development as the second creamery established in San Luis Obispo and as the last creamery to operate within the city. The simple, utilitarian buildings that became the Creamery and subsequent 1970s-era construction at the property are not architecturally significant or examples of particular craftsmanship. However, care must be taken to preserve original materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques while removing the non-significant wood additions adjacent to Building #3 and Building #4. Additions must be removed with the minimum amount of impact to original construction and new, planned additions shall be constructed with the same level of care to avoid impacts to original buildings. Recommendation are provided in the next section regarding how best to address this concern; adherence to the recommendations will result in compliance with the Standard. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 94 17 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Project proponents have identified several historic, character-defining features that will be retained and rehabilitated in a historically-appropriate manner that adheres to the Creamery’s recommended period of significance. These features include: • The prominent rooftop historic-era condenser tower, to be repaired and repainted; • Two large historic-era freezer doors, to be refinished; • Historic-era Clerestory arrangement, to be repaired and repainted; • Two existing historic-era dairy loading doors, to remain; • Existing historic-era loading dock area, to remain; and, • Iconography associated with historic signage will be used throughout the property. Conceptual plans rehabilitate the historic features appropriately. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with this Standard. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. The conceptual plans do not indicate any planned chemical or physical treatments. As long as none will be undertaken that could cause damage to historic materials, the proposed project complies with the Standard. 8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposed project involves the construction of a new building in the Higuera Street parking lot and new smaller-scale retail space adjacent to the Nipomo Street Parking lot. The Creamery, a City Master List Historic Resource, is within the Downtown Historic District and is located within 200 feet of the top bank of San Luis Obispo Creek. Depending on the depth of required trenching, the construction of the new buildings may require preparation of an archeological monitoring plan. Preparation and approval of such a plan by the City of San Luis Obispo, if required, will allow the proposed project to comply with the Standard. 9. New additions, alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships which characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 95 18 According to the conceptual plans, a new addition along the rear and west side elevations of Building #4 will replace a non-historic addition currently located behind Building #4. The addition consists of a modernized dining area, two restrooms, a trash disposal area and small garden area. The trash disposal area and garden area are planned along Higuera Street, and will be fenced and gated. While the appearance of the addition will differentiate from the adjacent historic Building #1, the addition will obscure the two northerly, original window openings along the west elevation. However, the window openings will not be filled in but preserved in place through a designed cover. Most of the addition will not be visible from Higuera Street due to associated fencing for the trash area and garden located immediately adjacent to Higuera Street, in the driveway west of Building #1. The proposed project also calls for the construction of a new addition along the east elevation of Building #3, in place of an existing non-historic addition. Further, new small-scale construction will occur immediately south of the new addition, projecting again from the east elevation. The non-historic roof connection between Building #2 and Building #3, above the breezeway, will also be removed. Conceptual plans demonstrate that no historic materials will be damaged or destroyed by the modifications. Conceptual plans for the new mixed-use building (Building #5) planned for construction on the west side of the Higuera Street parking lot demonstrate that the building is compatible with the Creamery’s historic environment. The height of the new construction does not exceed Building #1 and its location, behind the Higuera Street buildings, minimizes its appearance along the primary street frontage. Further, the sawtooth form of the roof mimics, with appropriate differentiation, Building #1’s roof shape. Cladding will feature metal siding and metal roof material, which is compatible with new cladding to be applied to other Creamery buildings as part of the rehabilitation. Metal cladding is appropriate, and reflects the type of exterior cladding used at the Creamery during the period of significance. Accordingly, the proposed project is consistent with this Standard. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Proposed new additions and new building construction are such that if removed, the essential form and remaining integrity to the Creamery complex would be unimpaired. The proposed additions and new construction will not occur in complex locations where their removal may damage adjacent historic buildings. The proposed addition adjacent to Building #4 will obscure the two northerly windows along the west elevation. However, the window openings will be enclosed with a designed cover and not permanently filled. This will preserve the historic fenestration arrangement for future use if planned additions are eventually removed. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this Standard. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 96 19 CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES The City of San Luis Obispo requires that alterations to listed historic resources be evaluated for consistency with SOI Standards for Treatment as well as additional requirements set forth on the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010). 7.1 PERCENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE PRESERVED. City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines require that alterations to historically listed building must ensure retention of at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding. While it is difficult to place a percentage on the remaining historic building fabric following the 1970s alterations, the proposed project does little to alter intact historic features and will return metal cladding to Creamery buildings. The proposed project appears to meet this requirement. 7.2 RETENTION OF CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Character-defining features are addressed in the previous section in Standards No. 6. The proposed alterations to the building will retain and repair many of the Creamery’s remaining character-defining features. The proposed project appears to meet this requirement. 7.3 EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that “Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replace character- defining features shall be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character-defining features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape, quality and appearance. However, original materials are not required” [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:13]. The proposed alterations to the Creamery are consistent with this guideline. 7.4 INTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state that “interior changes to publicly- accessible listed historic building whose architectural or historic significance is wholly or partially based on interior architectural characteristics or features shall preserve and restore significant architectural features” [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:14]. While the Creamery is today publically-accessible commercial space, this guideline does not apply. The complex does ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 97 20 not derive its significance from original interior architectural features, virtually of which were removed in the mid-1970s when the property transitioned from a creamery to retail and restaurant use. Additionally, Triem’s Phase II study (Oct 1990) includes an interview with Joe Crescione, the architect for the mid-1970s modifications. Regarding the interior, Mr. Crescione recalled that: “The interior was basically barns with timbers going straight up…[I]t was like a barn with no walls, only columns, trusses and sheet metal roofs” (Triem 1990b: appendix). Accordingly, the proposed alterations to the Creamery are consistent with this guideline. 7.5 ACQUIRED HISTORIC APPEARANCE The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state, “[c]hanges to listed historic resources that the Director or CHC determine to have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:14). To the best knowledge of the project proponent and historic preservation consultant, no changes to the building have been identified by the Director or CHC to have acquired historic significance in their own right. This and prior studies conducted in 1990 to not identify any post-historic era changes that would be historically significant. Accordingly, the proposed alterations to the Creamery are consistent with this guideline. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 98 21 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The following recommendations are designed to aid in the sensitive rehabilitation of the Creamery. The recommendations are provided to guide future development and rehabilitation of the Creamery. 8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES New building construction at the Creamery may impact archeological resources. The status of the subject property, on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, and its location in an archeologically sensitive area of the City may require submission and approval of an archeological monitoring plan, depending on the depth of construction-related ground disturbing activities. The need for an archaeological monitoring plan shall be determined by the City. 8.2 REMOVAL OF NON-HISTORIC WOOD ADDITIONS 1. Extreme care should be taken during the removal of the wood additions to avoid damaging as much as possible the original building walls. 2. Any non-reparable or missing material should be carefully replaced to match in kind and alignment with that which is still present. 8.3 ROOF REPAIR 1. The retention of non-original skylights is acceptable, as they are not visible from the nearby streets. 2. The project proponent shall consider the use of corrugated metal roofing material, which was historically present at the Creamery. 8.4 STOREFRONT WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT The National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services issues Preservation Briefs, which are guidelines on preserving, rehabilitating, and restoring historic buildings. While current storefront windows and doors at the Creamery are not of historic-age, the proposed project will rehabilitate existing fenestration. Preservation Brief 11 examines the rehabilitation of historic storefronts; below are excerpted guidelines for the design of replacement storefronts, an important component of the proposed project. All 47 Preservation Briefs are viewable at http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs.htm. 1. Scale: Respect the scale and proportion of the existing building in the new storefront design. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 99 22 2. Materials: Select construction materials that are appropriate to the storefronts; wood, cast iron, and glass are usually more appropriate replacement materials than masonry which tends to give a massive appearance. 3. Cornice: Respect the horizontal separation between the storefront and the upper stories. A cornice or fascia board traditionally helped contain the store's sign. 4. Frame: Maintain the historic planar relationship of the storefront to the facade of the building and the streetscape (if appropriate). Most storefront frames are generally composed of horizontal and vertical elements. 5. Entrances: In order to meet current code requirements, out-swinging doors generally must be recessed. Entrances should be placed where there were entrances historically, especially when echoed by architectural detailing (a pediment or projecting bay) on the upper stories. 6. Windows: The storefront generally should be as transparent as possible. Use of glass in doors, transoms, and display areas allows for visibility into and out of the store. 7. Secondary Design Elements: Keep the treatment of secondary design elements such as graphics and awnings as simple as possible in order to avoid visual clutter to the building and its streetscape. 8.5 INTERPRETIVE OPPORTUNITIES The creation of a courtyard in a portion of the Higuera Street parking lot and the retention of the 1970s fountain creates an opportunity for a new interpretive display chronicling the unique history of the Creamery. The display, prominently located in the new courtyard, should include historic photos of the Creamery, historic Sanborn maps which illustrate the development of the complex, its renovation in the 1970s, and the proposed project’s historically-appropriate improvements. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 100 23 CONCLUSIONS The proposed rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street will be consistent with the SOI Standards for Treatment and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010). Under CEQA and the City Guidelines, a project that complies with the SOI Standards for Treatment will not have a significant impact on historical resources. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 101 24 REFERENCES City of San Luis Obispo 2010 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California. 2001 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. Updated online version, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/, accessed March 30–31, 2015. Franks, Janet Penn 2004 San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, South Carolina. Greg Wynn 2015 Creamery Project Plan, conceptual designs provided March 2015. Greg Wynn Architect, San Luis Obispo, California. Triem, Judith 1990a “The Creamery: Phase I Cultural Resources Study.” By San Buenaventura Research Associates for the Planning Mill. San Luis Obispo, California. 1990b “The Creamery: Phase II Cultural Resources Study.” By San Buenaventura Research Associates for the Planning Mill. San Luis Obispo, California. Unknown Author 1982 State of California Historic Resources Inventory Forms, DPR 523. Prepared for the Creamery Building, San Luis Obispo, California. ATTACHMENT 6 ARC1 - 102 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8943 O: (805) 594-1590 | F: (805) 594-1577 ARCHAEOLOGY CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Rupley, PE Project Manager Covelop, Inc. FROM: Aubrie Morlet, M.A. Senior Architectural Historian Applied EarthWorks, Inc. DATE: April 15, 2016 SUBJECT: Redesigned Golden State Creamery Rehabilitation Project, San Luis Obispo, California. _________________________________________________________________________________ At the request of Covelop, Applied EarthWorks (Æ) prepared this memorandum to address comments regarding the redesign of the Golden State Creamery Rehabilitation Project (project). Our previous study, Historic Preservation Design Review for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Creamery at 570 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California (2015), analyzed the project’s compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Rehabilitation (SOI Rehabilitation Standards) and the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. This memorandum is an addendum to our previous study. Following submission the redesigned project, San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff requested additional information on two items: Comment #4: In the original submittal and historic evaluation, all the replacement siding on the Master List Creamery buildings was to be replaced with metal siding (Section 6.2 #5 of the Historic evaluation). A memo evaluating the distressed wood and board and batten siding will be required. Comment #5: Section 6.2 #4 of the Historic Evaluation discusses the 1970s fountain and the mural. Since they were not originally going to be removed the evaluation did not give an opinion about their removal. The memo needs to comment on these changes as well. Æ Senior Architectural Historian Aubrie Morlet reviewed the design plans that illustrated the use of distressed wood and board and batten siding and removal of the fountain and mural. The alterations were assessed against the SOI Rehabilitation Standards for compliance. The Golden State Creamery is significant for its historical association with the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo and as the last example of its kind within the city. The buildings associated with the historical resource are utilitarian in design and construction and are not considered architecturally significant. Due to the mid-1970s remodel, the buildings are not considered a good example of the industrial type. However, the project design should avoid creating a false sense of historical development. Use of a smooth, wide-width distressed wood siding would appear modern and not create a false sense of history. The same standard shall be applied to the proposed board and batten siding. A smooth board paired with wide, flattened battens would look modern and not create a false sense of history (Figures 1 and 2). Adherence to the materials recommendations will comply with the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. ATTACHMENT 7 ARC1 - 103 2 Figure 1 Example of historical board and batten siding that should not be duplicated. Figure 2 Modern example of board and batten siding with wide, flattened battens is appropriate for the proposed project. ATTACHMENT 7 ARC1 - 104 3 The period of significance established for the Golden State Creamery is 1928 to 1972. The fountain and mural were installed during the remodel of the property for retail use in the mid to late 1970s. As the fountain and mural were installed after the period of significance, these elements do not contribute to the historical significance of the resource. Therefore, the fountain and mural could be removed without reducing the integrity of the historical resource. Additionally, the retail complex and associated fountain and mural are less than 50 years of age and do not appear to have acquired historical significance in their own right. Therefore the removal of the fountain and mural complies with the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. In conclusion, the removal of the fountain and mural and use of distressed wood and board and batten siding, adhering to the materials recommendation, appear to comply with the SOI Rehabilitation Standards. ATTACHMENT 7 ARC1 - 105