HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-30-2017 ARC - Item #1 (71 Palomar) Staff Report + AttachmentsARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic
Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 71 Palomar Avenue BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2193-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant LR Development Group
Representative Thom Jess, Architect
Historic Status Master List
Submittal Date 10/16/2015
Complete Date 5/20/2016
Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential)
General Plan High Density Residential
Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres)
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to reposition, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse the Master List Historic
Sandford House as part of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project. The project includes the
repositioning of the Historic Sandford House for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity
space (study room, fitness room, etc.) and constructing six apartment buildings (four, 2-story
structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total
of 33 residential units (five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom
apartments). The project is also proposing to remove 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and
replanting 34 trees on the project site and 76 off-site. The project includes 63 parking spaces within
a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue and
66 bicycle parking spaces. Per the City’s current General Plan policies and conditions of the
Meeting Date: January 30, 2017
Item Number: 1
RC
ARC1 - 1
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 2
subdivision, the project is also proposing to connect Luneta Drive to Palomar Avenue. Other
alternatives are being considered in place of the road connection and conditions of approval are
included to allow for implementation of these alternatives in the event such policies are modified in
the near future.
The project has been designed to be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and has
already been given direction from the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC). The project includes a 25% density bonus and includes four, very-low
affordable studios which is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations and State Law. The
applicant is not requesting any exceptions or concessions to the development standards for a R-4
zoned lot.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission is tasked with the following:
1. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 4, CHC Resolution)
and take final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards.
2. Review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
applicable City policies and standards.
3. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7).
2.0 BACKGROUND
March 28, 2016: The CHC reviewed a proposal
for a 41-unit multi-family development with four
multi-level buildings. The proposal also included
the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic
Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and
provided the following direction to the applicant:
1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape
of the Sandford House by reducing the
extent to which it is relocated and increase
the distance between the historic house and
the right-of-way and the new development;
and
2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the
scale and massing and detailing of the new
development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the
historic residence;
Figure 1: View of the Sandford House from Palomar
Avenue
ARC1 - 2
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 3
3. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration,
window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of
the Sandford House.
June 27, 2016: The CHC reviewed a revised proposal for the subject site that included the
rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and proposed a newly designed 33-unit
multi-family development in response to the CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the
ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of
Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment 4, CHC Resolution). The CHC
provided the following recommendations to ARC:
1. The ARC shall evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development
does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give great
consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees.
2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and
specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials,
windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent
to an architecturally significant historic structure.
3. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on
Buildings A and B.
August 1, 2016: The ARC participated in a conceptual review on the proposed project in order to
provide feedback to the applicant (Attachment 6, ARC Conceptual Review Minutes). The ARC
provided the following list of directional items:
Tree Removal and Landscaping
The ARC deferred directional comments on tree removal and landscaping until they have
more information. The ARC requested the following information be included for their review:
1. Provide a tree survey, biological report, wildlife habitat information, bird survey and
an aesthetics analysis.
2. Review the trees individually and collectively.
3. Discussion on the historic siting and location of plantings.
4. Vintage of the trees (Were they planted during the period of significance?).
5. Carefully consider the use or need of water as a part of the new landscaping plan.
6. Provide details on the landscape plans that show exactly how vegetation will be
planted along the northern property line.
Materials and Architectural Elements
1. Provide durable materials – include details on plans of the fit and finish of all the
materials on all (4) sides of the project.
2. Provide details of the exterior light fixtures.
3. Consider using lighter colors.
ARC1 - 3
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 4
Scale and Massing
1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta.
Consider putting single level structures at Luneta.
2. Provide individuality between the buildings.
3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford
House.
4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes.
5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project,
especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner, sheet A3.5).
6. Pedestrian circulation between buildings appears too close. Provide wider walkways
between the buildings.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
Table 1: Site Information
Site Size 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres)
Present Use & Development Residential; Master List Historic Sandford House
Land Use Designation High Density Residential (R-4)
Topography Elevation: Min. 245 feet; Max. 270 ft.
Slope: ~11% slope
Current Access From Luneta Drive
Surrounding Use/Zoning North, East & West: R-4 (High Density Residential)
South: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
3.2 Project Description:
The applicant is proposing the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans):
Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;
Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;
Repositioning the house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current
location;
Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s
leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
Removal of 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 34 trees;
Construction of six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures
built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units
five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments);
63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the
two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.
Materials include: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, and wood balcony railings.
ARC1 - 4
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 5
3.2 Project Statistics
Table 2: Project Comparison to R-4 Zoning Standards
Item Proposed R-4 Zoning Standards
Setback
Front Yard 16 feet 15 feet
Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 10 feet 10 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 35 feet 35 feet
Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43% 60%
Density Units (DU) 36.561 28.56 (24 DU per acre)
Parking Spaces 2
Vehicle 63 61
Bicycle (long-term) 66 66
Bicycle (short-term) 22 4
Notes:
1. 28.56 DU x 25% density bonus for providing 7% very -low affordable housing units (4 studio units)
2. Chapter 17.90.040 (Standard Incentives for housing projects) includes parking ratio of 1 space per studio and 1 -
bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units.
3.4 Historic Background
In 1983, the Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the
basis of architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of
American architecture (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic
Resources Report). The report notes the “Sandford House retains several of the notable
characteristics which reflect Colonial Revival style, including symmetrically placed window
features with a prominent main entryway and neoclassical portico.” The Historic Evaluation
Report has identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930.
Figure 2: East elevation (top) and South elevation (bottom) views
ARC1 - 5
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 6
The Historic Sandford House was likely constructed in 1895 (no records have been found with
the exact date of construction). Reginald Wills-Sandford, (for whom the house is named), and his
wife Mary Woods Sperry owned the property from 1895 to 1899.
In 1930 the solarium was added and integrated into the south side of the Historic Sandford House
see Figure 2). The addition of the solarium is considered to be historically significant as it
contributes to the architectural style and character of the house (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative
Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Section 6.2.1).
In the 1950’s other additions and accessory structures were added to the property. These non-
historic alterations included: two single-story stucco clad additions to the rear (north side) of the
main structure, a 2-story addition, a detached garage, and a secondary residential building. In
1970, the garage was converted into sleeping quarters and a carport was added (Attachment 7,
Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Sections 5.2 and
6.2.1).
3.5 Policy Background
3.5.1 Land Use Element
The subject property has been identified in the Land Use Element (LUE) as High Density
Residential. High Density Residential is defined as attached dwellings in two and three story
buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of
development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near
employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes (Table 1: General Plan Land
Use Designations and Development Standards, Land Use Element).
LUE Policy 2.2.6. states that the City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all
residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood,
but often include one or more of the following characteristics:
A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability.
Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale.
Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug
store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other public facilities.
A tree canopy and well-maintained landscaping.
A sense of personal safety (e.g., low crime rate, short police and emergency response
times).
Convenient access to public transportation.
Well-maintained housing and public facilities.
Additionally, the LUE states the City shall promote infill development, redevelopment,
rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and
surrounding areas (LUE Policy 2.2.7).
3.5.2 Housing Element
The Housing Element (HE) includes several policies that encourage infill residential
development, housing for all financial strata, and the promotion of higher residential density
ARC1 - 6
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 7
where appropriate.1 The City has outlined in HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 3). The
project is proposing to construct four very-low income units which are some of the more
challenging units to be provided within a private development. The HE further states that
affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status and
encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families,
single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking
congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing
universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing Element further states:
That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state
density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and
extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and
That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density
bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial
assistance (Program 6.19).
Table 3: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved, under
construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016)
Income Category
A B A-B
New
Construction
Need (RHNA)
Dwelling Units Approved,
Under Construction or
Built
Remaining RHNA
Need, Dwelling Units
Extremely-Low (< 31% of
AMI) 142 5 137
Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90
Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107
Above Moderate (>120% of
AMI) 478 4781 0
TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016
1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units =
1,350.
3.5.3 Major City Goal
Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element,
1 Housing Element Policies:
Policy 2.2: Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown
in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period.
Policy 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote
higher residential density where appropriate.
Policy 7.1: Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and
quality that respects the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on -site
amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design
solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed -use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core.
ARC1 - 7
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 8
facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support
for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share.
3.5.4 State Housing Density Bonus Law
California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density
bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density bonus,
by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in Section
17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or
concessions for the project such as exceptions to height limits, setback and parking requirements
and deferral or waiver of fees. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very-
low income (7%) which equals a State mandated 25% density bonus in accordance with State law
and the City’s Zoning Code. The developer has not requested any incentives or concessions and,
except for density limits, the proposed project is fully consistent with all development standards.
Government Code section 65915(e)(1) states, in pertinent part: In no case may a city, county, or
city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding
the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with
the concessions or incentives permitted by [the Density Bonus Law].
3.5.5 Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects.” “Housing
development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:
Residential units only.
Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which
nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of
buildings that are two or more stories.
Transitional housing or supportive housing.
Section 65589.5(d)(2) of the Act states that:
d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project…for very low, low-, or
moderate-income households…or condition approval in a manner that renders the project
infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income
households…including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written
findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
2) The development project…as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public
health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income
household…a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute
a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
ARC1 - 8
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 9
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Multi-family and Clustered Housing
Design.2 Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and is discussed in
the following analysis.
4.1 General Plan – Luneta Drive
Under the General Plan Luneta Dr. is currently planned to provide connectivity between Verde
Dr. & Palomar Ave. The last section of the roadway needed to implement this plan is 71 Palomar’s
frontage on Luneta drive. Per subdivision regulations this project is required to complete their
frontage improvements allowing the roadway to be connected.
During the public review process neighborhood residents raised concerns about having Luneta
drive opened and subsequently the City Council directed staff to evaluate a general plan
amendment to keep Luneta closed and return to Council with a recommendation. This separates
the Luneta Dr. closure issue from the development project, allowing the development review
process to continue on a separate track regardless of the outcome of the Luneta Dr. configuration.
The projects public improvements on the Luneta frontage will still be the applicant’s
responsibility, however those will be deferred until the Council reaches a decision on the potential
general plan amendment and new design for the road.
4.2 Zoning Regulations Development Standards
The proposed project complies with all of the development standards for an R -4 zoned lot as
shown in Table 2 above. Below is a specific discussion on the proposed density bonus and
parking.
4.2.1 Density: The site is zoned R-4 which allows 24 units per acre. The net size of the site is
1.19 acres which allows for 28.56 total density units (d.u.). The applicant is proposing to
include 7% of the total units as affordable for very low-income which provides the
development with a 25% density bonus. Per state law, projects that provide affordable housing
are allowed up to a 35% density bonus (Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040, Standard
incentives for housing projects). 25% of 28.56 is 7.14 (which rounds up to 8) for a total
density calculation of 36.56. 7% of the original density is 1.99, and the applicant is proposing
to set aside 4 studios (2 d.u.) for very-low income. As proposed, the density is consistent with
State law and the City’s Zoning Regulations.
4.2.2 Parking: The Affordable Housing Incentives Parking Requirements (Zoning
Regulations, Section 17.90.040.K) allows projects that include affordable units the following
parking ratios: 1 space per studio and 1-bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom
residential units. Using this parking ratio, the project requires 61 spaces and the project
provides 63. The proposed parking is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations.
2 CDG Section 5.4.
ARC1 - 9
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 10
4.3 Community Design Guidelines (CDG)
As noted above in Section 2.0, the CHC and the ARC provided feedback regarding design
elements of the proposed project. These comments as well as the CDG were used to evaluate the
project (Attachment 3, Project Plans). Staff’s analysis is provided below.
4.3.1 Site Plan: The CDG’s state that multi-family projects should create a pleasant,
comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents, without the project "turning its back" on
the surrounding neighborhood. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent
residential uses through appropriate building orientation, structure height, and should
separate the units into structures of six or fewer units.3 The proposed project design consists
of six separate multi-family structures; five of the buildings contain four units and one
building has thirteen units. The structures along Luneta Drive maintain similar setbacks to the
adjacent multi-family complex (Valencia Apartments) to the west of the site and are designed
with architectural elements such as window placement and shed and gabled roofs that keep
the project from turning its back to the neighborhood (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets
A2.2, A3.5, A3.6, A4.1, & A4.3). Clear paths to each of the units are highlighted by their
placement in relation to the public right-of-way, landscaping and the Historic Sandford House
Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). The proposed setbacks, height and landscaping
provide privacy for the site as well as eliminate overlook into private space of neighboring
property. The project’s parking area does not visually dominant the site because two levels of
parking are provided under Buildings A and B. All parking for the project is accessed from
Palomar Avenue eliminating vehicular access to the site along Luneta Drive adjacent to single
family residences.
4.3.2 Building Design and Architecture: The CDG states that the exterior design of multi-
family projects should be derived from architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood.
Often, these types of projects are adjacent to single family neighborhoods, and care in design
should ensure that the height and bulk of the higher density projects do not impact adjacent
lower density residential areas.4 The CDG further discuss that multi-family structures
consider façade and roof articulation, scale, and balconies, porches, and patios. Another
important component of architectural compatibility is use of authentic and quality finish
materials and architectural details. The applicant has submitted detail sheets of the finishes
and architectural details of the project (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A7.0, A8.0, &
CB-1). In addition to the CDG, the CHC and the ARC also provided comments related to the
Building Design and Architecture. Below is an analysis and response to the guidelines and
advisory body comments.
Façade and Roof Articulation5: The project is consistent with the CDG and provides
3 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 A&B: Site Planning and Parking
4 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C: Multi-family project architecture.
5 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(1): Façade and Roof Articulation. A structure with three or more
attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall
planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables
can avoid the barracks-like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire
mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge.
Structures (including garages and carports) exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged.
ARC1 - 10
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 11
significant wall and roof articulation. The proposed architecture of the project incorporates
agrarian elements such as gabled and shed roofs that complement the Sandford House and
provide a more authentic architectural form. The peaked roof design reflects the rooflines of
the Sandford House and creates more open space between the Historic House and the new
structures.
Scale and Massing6: The project is consistent with the CDG and includes several smaller
buildings as opposed to a few large buildings. The individual structures are similar in height
and massing to the single family residences located south of the site and have similar setbacks
from the street. The six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures
built into the hill) have a maximum height of 35 feet from average natural grade. The Sandford
House remains the prominent structure on the site because the four-story structures sit below
the Sandford House due to its location on the downslope and the 2-story structures provide
well-articulated roofs with a setback of approximately 40 feet from the historic house.
The CHC directed that the ARC should consider a reduction in scale and massing to ensure
the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House.
Additionally, at the conceptual review, the ARC provided feedback that the applicant should
consider various architectural modifications. Below are ARC’s comments and brief
discussions on how the applicant responded.
1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta
and putting single level structures at Luneta.
The ARC may discuss options of how the project may be further reduced in scale,
but cannot require a reduction in the number of units per the State Housing Density
Bonus Law (see Section 3.5.4 above). The closest single family structures include
many two-story structures. Additionally, the project is immediately adjacent to other
high density development that is two-stories in height. As such, the applicant has
maintained two-story buildings as part of their design to be compatible with the
adjacent structures.
2. Provide individuality between the buildings.
6 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(2): Scale. Because multi-family projects are usually taller than one
story, their bulk can impose on surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects should be considered within the
context of their surroundings. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level
and/or upper levels (stepped-down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually
dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures, and large single structures
should be avoided.
Figure 3: Examples of the façade and roof articulation within the project
ARC1 - 11
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 12
The applicant has included modifications to the architectural design of the buildings
per the comments provided by the ARC. Building F has been modified to include
hipped roofs at a 3:12 slope rather than the gable roofs at a 4:12 slope on building E,
changed window patterns, bump-outs, trim patterns and colors to add individuality
between the buildings facing Luneta Drive (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.3
A4.1).
3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford
House.
By modifying the roof design of building F, the actual height of the building was
lowered 2.5 feet. The highest point of the roof shifted from the face of the building to
the center of the building, thus reducing the height of the face of the building
significantly from approximately 28 feet to approximately 18 feet (Attachment 3,
Project Plans, Sheets A4.3 & A4.1).
4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes.
The modification to the design of building F also reduced the width of the two-story
element from approximately half the elevation to roughly 10 feet wide. Throughout,
the applicant added trim/bellyband, switched to horizontal siding and changed colors
to reduce the visual height of the two story elements.
5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project,
especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner).
Figure 4: Added trim, horizontal siding and color changes break up the two-story plans
of the unit; previous (left); revised (right)
ARC1 - 12
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 13
The project includes significant changes to the north elevation in order to increase the
setbacks, break up large planes and address the northeast corner. These changes
include, splitting building B into two separate masses, increasing the number of
setbacks in order to avoid any long unbroken planes. The northeast corner was revised
to create two separate elements on either side of the corner (Attachment 3, Project
Plans, Sheets A3.5 & A3.6).
6. Provide wider walkways between the buildings.
No changes were proposed for the walkways. The distance between building C/D &
E/F is approximately 17 feet. The covered porches project into this width by
approximately 5 feet on each side which still leaves 7 feet between the faces of the
two porches. The distance between buildings B & C/D is a minimum of 13 feet.
However, since the porch only projects 5 feet into the width on one side, there is 8 feet
of uncovered space between the buildings.
Figure 6: Revised north elevation (top); Previous north elevation (bottom). The revised façade and
eaves of the structure are more articulated. Dashed lines highlight some of these changes.
Figure 6: Revised east elevation (left); Previous east elevation (right). Dashed lines highlight
changes.
ARC1 - 13
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 14
Balconies, Porches and Patios7: The project includes front porch entries, common space patios
and buildings A and B include a few balconies. These elements add architectural interest to
the design of the structures and help to break up the massing and add human scale. As
proposed the project is consistent with the CDG.
Materials and Architectural Features: The ARC provided feedback on the colors, material and
architectural features of the project. The applicant has included additional information within
the project plans that shows the use of durable materials with details on plans of the fit and
finish of all the materials, shows the proposed exterior light fixtures and has updated the plans
to give a better representation of the proposed colors.
4.4 Tree Removal
As noted in the project description (Section 3.2 above), the project is proposing the removal
of 55 trees in order to develop the project. Removal of the trees is to allow the repositioning
of the historic Sandford House, the construction of 33-residential units and to connect Luneta
Drive to Palomar Ave. If the Luneta Drive connection is revised (as discussed above in Section
4.1), some of the proposed trees slated for removal may be retained.
4.4.1 Tree Regulations
Chapter 12.24 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Tree Regulations. Included
within these regulations is the procedure for requesting the removal of trees as part of a
development project. The Code states:
E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit.
1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by
subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly
delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and
approval process.
All development applications which include tree removals shall include the
following documents:
a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for
removal;
b. All information to support the reason for removal;
c. Any other pertinent information required.
2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall
proceed as follows:
a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or
denying the application;
7 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(3): The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family
structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall
masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. Multi -family units with individual access to the street
sidewalk should have individual covered porches.
ARC1 - 14
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 15
b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree
committee shall approve or deny the application;
c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural
review commission shall approve or deny the application:
i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the
architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree
committee shall review the architectural review commission’s
decision;
ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation
to deny the application when the architectural review commission has
approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for
final action.
The Tree Regulations do not provide criteria or establish a list of tree types that are to be
preserved other than stating the city values trees as an important part of the natural and
economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and
feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage
removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a
last resort alternative for the applicant (Section 12.24.090.A). The City’s General Plan has a
goal to “Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of
significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species” (COSE 7.4)
and has the following policy for protection of significant trees:
Significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon the
recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural Review
Committee, are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or
to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees,
particularly native species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees
shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3.
Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and in open space areas shall
be protected.
The City Arborist supports the removal of 55 of the 59 trees and is recommending mitigation
and conditions of approval in exchange for their removal. Rincon’s Arborist Report identifies
that 41 trees on site are either dead or in poor or fair condition. In addition, as noted above,
the General Plan supports the protection of trees within the City. The General Plan also
supports infill development within the City. Historically the City has recognized the necessity
for tree removals for new development in order to support General Plan policies and Major
City goals such as housing. Removing older trees from the City’s urban forest and replanting
with new trees provides an opportunity to integrate younger age trees into the urban forest to
replace the older trees as they die off. The new tree planting will also allow for more diversity
of age, species, flowering, fruiting and habitat within the urban forest. The City Arborist
determined based on his review and the information provided by two certified arborists that
55 trees could be removed with sufficient mitigation that requires two trees to be replanted for
every one tree removed, due to the significant loss of canopy, and that the four remaining trees
be retained and considered for Heritage Tree designation.
ARC1 - 15
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 16
Staff is recommending Condition No. 10 which requires the project to retain a Blue Gum
Eucalyptus at the southwest corner of the site, the Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Palm
in front of the Historic Sandford House and the Mexican Fan Palm at the northeast corner of
the site as shown on the landscape plans (Attachment 3, Sheet L-1) and each shall be
considered for Heritage Tree designation. Additionally, staff is recommending Condition of
Approval No. 11 which requires that the applicant plant at a minimum three 36-inch box trees
and two 15-gallon trees on the project site or adjacent property on which the property owner
of 71 Palomar has an access and landscaping easement to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and the City Arborist.
The City Arborist has included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Review mitigation measures for the tree removals.8 Mitigation is as follows:
The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed
the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the
replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required
replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of
priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City
tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall
make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase
of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree
planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building
plans and approved by the City Arborist.
With a 2:1 planting, the project will not only replace the 55 trees that are removed but will
also add an additional 55 trees to the City’s urban forest for a total of 110 trees. The applicant
will plant at least 34 trees on-site and 76 trees off-site.
4.4.2 Heritage Trees
Section 12.24.160 of the Tree Regulations discusses that the City recognizes the important
role trees have played in the history and development of San Luis Obispo and recognizes that
a wide variety of trees can grow in its unique and temperate climate. As such there is a
voluntary program in which property owners may submit a tree to be considered for Heritage
Tree designation. Questions on the process of this program have been raised during the course
of the review of this project. In June 2017 the City’s Attorney’s office composed a memo that
provided an interpretation of the code and determined that the Heritage Tree designation
process requires property owner consent. In the case of 71 Palomar, the property owner has
not provided consent, and therefore pursuing the Heritage Tree designation is inappropriate
and not allowed by our adopted code (Attachment 9, Heritage Tree Memo).
4.4.3 Cultural Landscape
During the CHC review and the Tree Committee review, committee members and the public
brought up the Cultural Landscape/Setting of the site. A historic evaluation of the project was
8 City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 12.24.090.I: Approval Conditions. In approving an application for
tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require
planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained.
ARC1 - 16
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 17
completed that analyzed the Historic Sandford House and its setting. In that report it was
identified that, the setting for the Sandford House retains some but not all of its original
integrity. The immediate area around the residence remains open space, providing a
semblance of the historic setting associated with the property. The building maintains its
historic orientation atop a small slope facing east over the town of San Luis Obispo. While
there is no known formal garden or landscaping plan associated with the property, expansive
lawns remain around the residence to the east, west, and south. More broadly, the setting has
experienced significant urbanization. Since the 1960s, urbanization has slowly enclosed the
property with 1970s-era apartment buildings to the north and west and modern single-family
residences to the east and south. The size of the property itself has also been altered from
15.80 acres to today’s 1.17 acres. The integrity of setting is significantly diminished
Attachment 7, Initial Study – Historic Evaluation: Attachment 4). The CHC considered the
Historic evaluation and public comment in their deliberations and the majority voted in
support of the project and recommended the ARC give consideration to the City Arborist’s
recommendations for protection of trees.
4.4.4. Tree Committee Review
On December 12, 2016 the Tree Committee was asked to receive public comment and provide
individual input to staff and the ARC on the environmental document (MND) and two arborist
reports during the 30-day public review period for the proposed project. Comments provided
by the Tree Committee and the public are provided in the attached Draft Minutes (Attachment
11). Based on feedback received from the Tree Committee and the public, Rincon Consultants
was requested to review their Arborist Report and provide any corrections or changes. The
revised report is attached (Attachment 10). The revised Arborist Report did not recommend
any changes to the MND. A further discussion of the environmental review and response to
comments is provided below in Section 5.0.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended
for adoption (Attachment 7). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential
impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and
utilities/service systems will be less than significant.
A MND and Addendum was completed by Oliveira Environmental Consulting in March 2016 and
June 2016 following changes to the design of the project. New information was shared with staff that
resulted in the Community Development Director’s decision to revisit the MND.
Rincon Consultants was selected by the City as a third-party consultant to peer review the MND and
to prepare an arborist report and focused evaluations on the aesthetic and biological impacts of the
proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report, Aesthetic Analysis and the Biological Peer Review are
included as attachments to the MND attached (Attachment 7, MND – Attachments 6, 7 & 8)). The
peer review and evaluations included policy analysis of potential impacts and made recommendations
for additional mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and recommended mitigation, staff updated
the MND. The MND was re-released for a 30-day public review period from November 15, 2016 to
December 19, 2016.
ARC1 - 17
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 18
Public comment was received on the analysis of the MND and, although not required for a MND,
responses to those comments are compiled in Attachment 8. Comments were also received on the
technical accuracy of the supplemental Arborist Report completed by Rincon Consultants. Rincon
has reviewed their report based on those comments and submitted a revised document (Attachment
10, Revised Arborist Report). The revised report does not recommend a change in the
recommendation provided in the MND.
Staff has provided summaries of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, as well
as a discussion on aesthetics below. All mitigation measures have been incorporated into project
conditions of approval (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution).
Aesthetics
A supplemental Aesthetics Analysis was provided by Rincon Consultants that analyzed various views
toward the proposed project site in conjunction with City policies and CEQA thresholds regarding
viewsheds. The Aesthetics Analysis determined that the project was consistent with General Plan
policies and would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its
surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant impact and does not require mitigation
Attachment 7, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6).
Pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, potentially significant aesthetic impacts
would occur if development of the project site would:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway;
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
and/or
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Below is a brief discussion of these points. A more thorough analysis is provided in the attached
Aesthetic Analysis (Attachment 7, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6).
a. The project site is located in an urban area of the City characterized by residential and
commercial development amongst natural features such as mature trees, and Cerro San Luis
and Bishop Peak. The project site is aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to
the existing historic structure and trees onsite, but is not within a City designated scenic vista
COSE Figure 11). When viewed from various other public viewpoints in the vicinity of the
site, including public trails on Cerro San Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site
blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out as visually
prominent or unique and the addition of the proposed apartment buildings, would conform to
views of the surrounding urban area. As such, the project would not result in a significant
adverse effect on a scenic vista and this potential impact would be less than significant.
b. The project is not located along any State designated scenic routes. According to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System (2011),
the closest officially designated State scenic highway to the project site is State Route 1. The
ARC1 - 18
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 19
project site is located approximately 0.4 mile west of State Route 1 and is not visible from the
highway. As such, the project would not damage any scenic resources within a scenic highway
and there would be no impact.
c. The Aesthetic Analysis identified that the proposed development would involve more intense
structural development on the site than existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most
of the existing mature trees from the site. Despite retaining some of the existing mature trees
on the site, the proposed development and overall amount of trees removed would result in a
less natural appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped
trees would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development unlike the
existing trees. Although the project would change the aesthetic character of the site, it would
not significantly degrade the character as it would include high-density residential
development with a maximum height of 35 feet that is consistent with adjacent high-density
development and would retain the visually prominent Sandford House. Additionally, the
project includes design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the
massing of the proposed multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped
trees, four existing trees, and other landscape features, and agrarian style architecture to
complement the Sandford House. With these design and landscape features, the project would
comply with City General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic views and the character of
prominent visual features within the City, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines
which are intended to ensure that future development is consistent with the City’s expectations
relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to protect scenic resources
and views, from public rights-of-way. As such, the project would not result in significant
degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be
less than significant impact.
d. The project would result in development of a site that contains minimal existing sources of
artificial light and where existing lights are shielded by vegetation on and around the site.
Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the site include streetlights along
Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive, spillover lighting from surrounding single- and multi-
family residential development, and light from the headlights of vehicles traveling on the
surrounding roadways. Development of the project site would result in an increase in ambient
nighttime lighting through the increased residential development and associated exterior
lighting and interior lighting spillover. The project is required to conform to the Night Sky
Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), the City’s Community Design
Guidelines as well as City General Plan Policies 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 which include provisions for
preventing light intrusion to preserve safety, and outdoor lighting stipulations to avoid light
and glare impacts. As such, impacts associated with the creation of new sources of light and
glare would be less than significant.
Air Quality
The project would generate construction-related emission exceeding San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds, and may create a dust nuisance.
Air Quality Mitigation: Comply with SLOAPCD recommended mitigation below identified
thresholds.
ARC1 - 19
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 20
Biological Resources
Mature landscaping present at the project site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential
to support wildlife habitat for urban-adapted avian or bat species. A Biological Assessment provided
by Rincon Consultants (Attachment 7, Initial Study – Biological Peer Review: Attachment 7)
identified that several large trees on the site are suitable habitat for various raptor species such as the
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (on the Federal Watch List and a species of local concern), the
common red-tailed hawk and the barn owl. Additionally, the State Fully Protected and local species
of concern white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the site while foraging in the open
grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White-tailed kite has been documented by the
CNDDB within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site. Most of the mature landscaping would be
removed prior to construction of the project, and impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially
significant but mitigable.
The project site also contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (a State
and Local Species of Special Concern). Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB
approximately one mile south of the project site and this species may utilize the structures on the
project site as roosting areas. Structures that occur within the project site that can be utilized by special
status bats include the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas. The
demolition of existing structures and the movement of the Historic Sandford house and the removal
of the mature landscaping would happen prior to the construction of the project, and impacts to pallid
bats are considered potentially significant but mitigable.
No significant trees or designated heritage trees have been identified on the portion of the site to be
developed. 55 small to fully mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed as
part of the proposed project development. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme that
includes evergreen shade trees, landscape median trees (Luneta Drive median), deciduous flowering
shade trees, hedges, shrubs, lawns and ground cover species. The City Arborist has reviewed the tree
removals and determined that there will be a less than significant impact in the total tree canopy for
the area with mitigation.
Biological Resource Mitigation:
Nesting Birds: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds,
construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September
15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered
by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal.
Roosting Bats: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures
within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during
the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior
attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be
conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.)
If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented
in close coordination with CDFW.
ARC1 - 20
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 21
Tree Removal: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the
replacement trees”). The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the
building plans and approved by the City Arborist.
Cultural Resources
The proposed project and the Applied Earthworks Evaluation was reviewed by the (CHC) on March
28, 2016 and on June 27, 2016 for compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance, the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. The CHC determined that the proposed repositioning, rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse of the Sandford House, and the construction of the new residential units with
incorporation of the mitigation measures, to be in conformance with SOI Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties and City standards. Therefore, impacts are considered to be mitigated to a level
of less than significant.
Cultural Resources Mitigation:
Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan will be prepared and approved
by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need to include a summary of the project
and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected
materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and
treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case
significant deposits are exposed.
Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non-
original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non -repairable or missing
materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be
replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during
demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.
Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site shall be
maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed
foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and
exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall
also be maintained.
Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows
shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original
openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located throughout
other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the
original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco
cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High -pressure water blasting;
sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode
metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.
Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The applicant
shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and
ARC1 - 21
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 22
the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the
property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw
attention away from the Sandford House.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and
location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Waterways Management
Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. With the
implementation of the BMPs identified in the project Stormwater Control Plan, water quality impacts
will be reduced. With the required incorporation of these measures, and adherence to the stormwater
facilities operations and maintenance recommendations provided in the Stormwater Control Plan,
impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation: The project will implement the Stormwater Control Plan
prepared for the proposed project including design features, recommended BMPs for water quality
control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via the
proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention.
Utilities and Service Systems
The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity constrained portion of the
City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s Wastewater Collection System
Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2.
Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer
is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in
quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin
A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase.
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 based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced Project Plans
4. CHC Resolution 6-27-2016
5. CHC Minutes 6-27-2016
ARC1 - 22
ARCH-2193-2015
71 Palomar Avenue
Page 23
6. ARC Conceptual Review Minutes 8-1-2016
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration with attachments
8. Response to Comments
9. Heritage Tree Memo
10. Revised Arborist Report by Rincon Consultants
11. Tree Committee Draft Minutes 12-12-2017
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
ARC1 - 23
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. ARC- -17
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION APPROVING THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND
REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE
PROPERTY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 30, 2017
71 PALOMAR AVENUE (ARCH 2193-2015)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and
WHEREAS, 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 January 30, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR
Development Group, 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 2193-2015), 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 project respects site constraints and will be
compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 8.1 and 2.17 because the
project provides infill, high-density residential for a variety of special needs and meets the
City’s RHNA need for very low units.
3. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the proposed
project incorporates similar materials and architectural features to the surrounding
neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme.
4. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by
ARC1 - 24
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 2
providing architectural design that complements the character, height and scale of the historic
Sandford House and the surrounding neighborhood.
5. The proposed modifications to the Master List Historic Sandford House and site which
includes rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning is consistent with the Historic
Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining features
will be retained, repaired, or replaced in kind.
6. That the proposed construction of the new, 33-unit apartment buildings is consistent with
Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new
construction is subordinate to and compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectu ral
features of the Master List Historic Sandford House.
7. That the proposed removal of the non-historic additions is consistent with the Secretary of
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because they have not acquired historic significant in
their own right.
8. 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.
9. That the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration
properly characterize the project’s potentially significant impacts and that the incorporated
mitigations measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are mitigated
to a less than significant level.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby
adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact that finds that with
incorporation of mitigation measures, environmental impacts will be less than significant.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that
a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will
be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA
is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos
Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook
includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological
evaluation is required prior to any grading.
More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-
regulations/asbestos.php.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
ARC1 - 25
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 3
APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines
shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance
with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10
business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified
Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-
regulations/asbestos.php.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust
off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than
3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods
of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction
and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any
soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered
until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
ARC1 - 26
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 4
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.
Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no
greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any
grading, earthwork or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control
program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site.
Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent
shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board
and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-
5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with
APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD
requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement
the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
ARC1 - 27
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 5
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California
Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor
vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed
for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles.
In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in
a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified
in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers
and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the
State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these
more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be
cut from the site, but the final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the
fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the
APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor that idling control
techniques are being implemented to reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel
vehicles and equipment during construction. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior
to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance
with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with
nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February
1 to September 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for
nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The
surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are
located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be
ARC1 - 28
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 6
determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird
species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the
status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer
area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are
no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is
completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.
Monitoring Plan, BIO-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of the Migratory bird monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The
plans shall call out the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey
the project site. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources
Manager for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly
visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of
existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall
be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have
access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further
surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day,
night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion
measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. These exclusion measures must
include one-way valves that allow bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may
not re-enter the structure. If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat
habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at an approved
location offsite. Prior to removal of any trees over 20-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (DBH),
a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for
removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost
is found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or
other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall
be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which
are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal
conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.
Monitoring Plan, BIO-2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of bat monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans shall call out
the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project site.
Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for
compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for
contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is
removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on
the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed
as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City
ARC1 - 29
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 7
tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation
to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting
projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans
and approved by the City Arborist.
Monitoring Plan, BIO-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of the tree replanting and replacement plan per the mitigation measure above.
Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Arborist for compliance with the
mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City
inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above
mitigation measures.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan
shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need
to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to
monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features,
protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data
recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.
Monitoring Plan, CR-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of the formal monitoring plan of the rehabilitation of the Historic Sandford House
and the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will
be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure, the City’s
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, and project conditions to ensure sufficient
details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect
the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure, including all
requirements of the formal monitoring plan.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken
during the removal of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls.
Any non-repairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached
to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-
sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where
appropriate.
Monitoring Plan, CR 2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the
removal of the non-original additions of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation
measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with
the mitigation measure for removals to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for
contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing
Sandford House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the
ARC1 - 30
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 8
original house. The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location
shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height
similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained.
Monitoring Plan, CR-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the
relocation of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Grading and
building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to
move the house to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City
inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for
the first-floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate
proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-
light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum
extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Monitoring Plan, CR-4: Building plans shall show and outline all details of replacing the first
floor solarium windows of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above.
Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to
replace the windows to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City
inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods
of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House.
High-pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers
that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.
Monitoring Plan, CR-5: Building plans shall show and outline all details of the method in
which the historic Sandford House will be cleaned and paint removed per the mitigation
measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the
mitigation measure to clean and remove paint to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for
contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New
Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new
construction and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect
the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction
shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Monitoring Plan, CR-6: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all architectural
details, location and massing of the new construction per the mitigation measure above.
Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure and
the approved architectural plans to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors
ARC1 - 31
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 9
and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with
the above mitigation measure.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering,
Inc. October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommended
BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining
stormwater quality via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater
detention. These measures shall become required components of project development and the
project proponent shall be required to implement these design features and recommendation as set
forth.
Monitoring Plan, HWQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the Stormwater
Control Plan as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or
construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site during construction for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather
capacity constrained portion of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the
City’s Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or
implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction
in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount
equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by: (A) Sufficient
reductions in wastewater flow within sub-basins A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3, commensurate with
the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project, to be achieved by the verified
replacement of compromised private sewer laterals, or public sewer mains, either by the developer,
the City, or any property owner located within the basins; (B) Participation in a sewer lateral
replacement program or similar inflow and infiltration reduction program to be developed by City,
which is in place prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or (C) Any other off-site sewer
rehabilitation proposed by the developer approved by the Utilities Director, which will achieve a
reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by
the project. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by
the Utilities Director.
Monitoring Plan, USS-1: A sewer rehabilitation plan shall be developed in cooperation with
Utilities Staff per the mitigation measure above. The rehabilitation plan shall be shown on the
public improvement plans and reviewed by Utilities staff as part of the Building Permit
application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure,
including all requirements of the sewer rehabilitation plan.
ARC1 - 32
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 10
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division – Community Development Department
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. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three years
if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant
a single, one-year extension.
3. 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.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application.
5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style
landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All
wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as
part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture.
The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed
lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall
be shielded to ensure 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.
6. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any
condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate
ARC1 - 33
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 11
screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will
be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building
modifications and improvements.
7. 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.
8. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and
specifications to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality
and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure.
10. The project shall retain the Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the southwest corner of the site, the
Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Palm in front of the Historic Sandford House and the
Mexican Fan Palm at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the landscape plans approved
by ARC and shall be considered for Heritage Tree designation.
11. The project shall plant at a minimum three 36-inch box trees and two 15-gallon trees on the
project site and/or adjacent property on which the property owner of 71 Palomar has an access
and landscaping easement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and
the City Arborist.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
12. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the
substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be
installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.05
13. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private
easements for reference. The building plan submittal shall include the dimensions and
bearings for all property lines for reference. The developer shall provide authorization for all
proposed improvements within the corner parcel known as 75 Palomar (052-162-015).
ARC1 - 34
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 12
14. The required public and private improvements may be completed with a separate public
improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department. As an alternate,
the building plan submittal may be used to show all required improvements. Improvements
located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and
associated inspection fees. A separate plan review fee payable to the Public Works
Department shall be required for the Public Works Department review of improvements
associated with the building plan submittal. Said review fee shall be in accordance with the
improvement plan review fee resolution in effect at the time of the building permit application
submittal.
15. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show and note any sections
of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach to be repaired or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
16. The existing driveway approaches shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk per City Engineering Standards.
17. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show all new driveway
approaches to comply with current standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a
4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp.
18. Luneta Drive shall be developed as a through public street per City Engineering Standards
unless otherwise waived or deferred by the City Council. If Luneta Drive is developed as a
public street, then the developer shall dedicate the required public right-of-way including PUE
and Street Tree easements to the satisfaction of the City.
19. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete street
improvement and curb grade plan for the build out of Luneta Drive, Luneta Drive sidewalk
extension, the bulb-out on Palomar Avenue, and/or street termination or cul-de-sac if
applicable. All grades, layout, staking and cut sheets necessary for the construction of street
paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer.
20. The developer shall underground the existing overhead wire utilities along the Luneta Drive
widening and extension from the existing westerly terminal end pole to the joint pole on the
easterly side of Palomar Avenue per City and PG&E standards. The preliminary and final
PG&E handout packages shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
21. The developer shall install one additional streetlight along the Luneta Drive frontage to the
satisfaction of the City. All associated facilities including but not limited to conduits,
sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires shall be installed per City Engineering
Standards. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required
along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary
improvements.
22. Record drawings shall be provided for Luneta Drive public street improvements prior to final
inspection approvals.
ARC1 - 35
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 13
23. The building plan submittal shall include all required parking lot improvements, dimensions,
space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage, pavement
marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway Standards and
disabled access requirements of the CBC.
24. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc.
shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in
not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed
covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle.
25. The building plan submittal shall show all parking spaces that are adjacent to a post, column,
or wall shall be one additional foot in width per City Engineering Standard 2220.
26. The building plan submittal shall include complete details showing the existing parking
easement area serving 555 Ramona to be preserved. The plan shall show and dimension the
planter area, vehicle overhang, and parking bay width per City Engineering Standards.
27. The existing neighboring parking easement area (555 Ramona) shall include tree plantings
within diamond planters or finger planters to support compensatory tree plantings, if allowed,
to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and City Arborist.
28. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality.
29. The building plan submittal or improvement 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. All wire services to the new structures shall be underground. All
work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted.
30. The final domestic and irrigation service configuration including the Luneta median irrigation
meter shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City. The engineer of record
shall schedule a meeting with the City prior to developing final plans.
31. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading,
drainage and topo plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and
grades located within 15’ of the property lines. The plan shall consider historic run-on or run-
off tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site
drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site.
The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining
property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing
waterways.
ARC1 - 36
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 14
32. The building plan submittal shall show and detail the neighboring storm drain easement and
improvements for reference.
33. The building plan submittal shall include a drainage report in accordance with the Waterway
Management Plan. The drainage report shall include a summary of the bulleted items found
in Section 2.3.1 of the manual.
34. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater
Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped
sites.
35. 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 final inspection
approvals.
36. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or
excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also requires
a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General
Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under
their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System
SMARTS).
37. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as
required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the
city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to
the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference.
38. The building plan submittal or improvement 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. The City Arborist supports the proposed tree removals with the
compensatory tree plantings shown on the landscape plan and identified in the mitigation
measures of the initial study.
39. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage.
The plans shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Tree species and planting
requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards.
ARC1 - 37
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 15
40. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 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.
Transportation Division - Public Works Department
41. Required project frontage improvements along Luneta shall be deferred until the Council
Takes action on the disposition of the Luenta Street connection.
42. Prior to building permit the applicant shall enter into a covenant agreement to design and
install their Luneta St. frontage improvements per the final configuration to be adopted by the
City Council.
Utilities Department
43. A separate meter shall be provided for the Sandford House as it is proposed to be used as
amenity space (non-residential uses).
44. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV 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.
45. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
control as required by 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.
46. Any private sewer services that cross one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall
provide evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been
recorded prior to final Building Permit.
47. Landscaping in the proposed median shall be irrigated from the project’s landscape meter.
48. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared
drought emergency (estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum
applied water allowance or (MAWA)).
49. The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private lateral repair/
replacement) consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the initial study.
ARC1 - 38
Resolution No. ARC- -17 ATTACHMENT 1
ARCH 2193-2015 (71 Palomar)
Page 16
Fire Department
50. Provide riser rooms with exterior door access for fire sprinkler risers in each building show
on floor plans.
Code Requirements
Building Division – Community Development Department
51. Any project submitted for building permit application after January 1st, 2017 will be subject
to the 2016 California Code series. Modify applicable code series notes on plans.
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 30th day of January, 2017.
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ARC1 - 39
R-1
R-1
R-4
C-C
R-1 R-4-PD
R-4-PD
R-1-PD
R-1
R-4
R-4
R-1
R-1
R-4
R-2
R-4-PD
R-1
R-1
C/OS-20
C-C-SFR-1
RAMONA
FOOTHILL
SERRANO
LUNETA
VE
R
D
EPA
L
O
M
A
R
B R E S S
IPE
N
M
A
N
EL
M
VICINITY MAP ARCH-2193-201571PALOMARAVENUE ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 40
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
W
W
W
W
AshleyVanceGC1413MontereyStreetSanLuisObispoCA9340180554500103237440010wwwashleyvancecomCIVILSTRUCTURAL
0
20
2
040
HO
RIZONTAL
SC
ALE
FE
ET
N
26
4
4
F
F
PO
DIU
M
D
E
CK
25
3
0
FF
2N
D
L
E
VEL
PA
RKING
D
ECK
24
4
0
FF
1S
T
LE
V
EL
PA
R
KING
D
ECK
26
4
2
F
S
26
8
5
F
F
26
7
3
FG
26
7
8
FG
26
4
3
FS
PALOM A R A V E N U E
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
2
5
8
7
EG
2
53
0
E
G
244
4
EG
51
9
0
0
S
F
A
R
E
A
EA
R
T
H
W
O
R
K
16
0
0
0
C
Y
C
U
T
50
C
Y
F
IL
L
20
M
A
X
C
U
T
5'
M
A
X
F
IL
L
LI
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
RE
Q
U
IR
E
M
E
N
T
S
T
IE
R
2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
U
T
IL
IZ
E
S
x
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
IO
N
x
DI
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
x
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
S
W
A
L
E
S
x
OP
E
N
C
E
L
L
B
L
O
C
K
P
A
V
IN
G
27
3
1
T
W
FS
26
4
3
TW
26
4
3
E
G
26
4
3
T
W
2
5
8
6
EG
26
4
2
TW
SI
T
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
TIO
N
N
O
T
E
S
LI
M
IT
S
OF
PODIUM
DECK
PARKING
A
REA
ROOF
RE
M
OV
E
EX
ISTING
R
ETAININ
G
W
A
LL
PR
OPO
SED
5
M
AX
RET
AIN
ING
W
ALL
EX
ISTING
RET
AINING
W
ALL
TO
REMAIN
NO
T
US
ED
NO
T
USE
D
EX
ISTING
POW
ER
POLE
T
O
REM
AIN
EX
ISTING
AC
PAVE
M
ENT
A
ND
AC
DIKE
LA
ND
SCAPE
MEDIAN
RE
LO
CATED
HISTORICAL
STR
UCTU
RE
PR
OPO
SED
DRAIN
IN
LET
SEE
S
H
EET
C3
1
FO
R
UND
E
RGROU
ND
IMPROVEM
ENTS
EX
ISTING
RES
IDENTIAL
D
RIVEW
A
Y
PR
OPO
SED
PRO
PERTY
LINE
BI
O
F
ILTR
A
TION
RAIN
GARDEN
SI
DEW
ALK
UND
ERDRAIN
P
ER
CITY
OF
S
AN
LUIS
O
BIS
PO
STAN
DARD
341
0
DR
IVEW
AY
PE
R
SA
N
LUIS
O
B
ISP
O
CITY
S
TANDA
RD
2110
2120
AND
2130
EX
ISTING
PAR
K
IN
G
LOT
EX
ISTING
DROP
IN
LE
T
TO
R
EMA
IN
20
W
IDE
DR
IVEW
A
Y
RAM
P
PE
R
SA
N
LUIS
O
BISP
O
CIT
Y
S
T
ANDARD
2110
AND
2120
LI
M
IT
S
OF
INTER
IO
R
P
ARKING
G
A
RAGE
RAM
P
EX
ISTING
TRE
ES
T
O
REM
A
IN
TR
ANSFO
RME
R
P
AD
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
9
10
12
12
12
12
12
6'S/
W
12
TR
A
V
EL
L
AN
E
12
ME
D
IA
N
12
TR
AV
EL
L
ANE
6'EX
IS
T
S/
W
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
A
D
S
E
C
T
IO
N
SC
A
LE
1
4
H
O
R
IZONTA
L
1"
4
V
ERTICA
L
13
272
3
T
C
MA
T
C
H
EX
IS
T
2
74
3
T
C
27
3
7
T
C
27
1
6
TC
27
0
5
TC
2
7
1
2
TC
26
7
6
TC
268
3
TC
2
64
9
TC
26
3
3
T
C
MA
TCH
E
XIST
25
1
7
B
SW
25
0
3
BSW
24
8
5
B
SW
24
7
1
BSW
24
6
2
FS
@
DW
Y
24
6
2
FS
@
DW
Y
25
3
0
FS
@
DW
Y
25
3
0
FS
@
DW
Y
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
6.
0
1
3
8
12
14.
8
19
19
18.00'
24
4
0
FS
@
D
W
Y
24
4
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
20
53653535
PR
O
P
OS
E
D
4
M
A
X
RE
T
A
IN
IN
G
W
A
L
L
C
U
T
W
AL
L
PR
O
PO
S
ED
5
M
AX
RE
T
AINING
W
AL
L
FILL
W
A
L
L
2'
SA
W
C
UT
VA
RIES
V
A
R
I
E
S
VA
R
IE
S
35
21
22
26
8
4
F
S
26
8
0
F
F
26
8
0
F
F
26
8
5
F
F
26
8
5
FF
26
4
8
F
G
26
4
3
F
G
26
7
8
F
G
26
7
9
F
G
11
11
11
1111
1111
11
11
11
11
26
8
4
F
S
26
5
4
F
S
26
6
9
FG
BU
IL
D
IN
G
C
BU
IL
DING
D
BU
IL
DING
F
BU
ILDING
E
BU
IL
DING
A
BU
ILD
IN
G
B
BU
ILD
IN
G
G
1 ~
26
6
5
FG
26
4
3
FG
26
4
0
FS
26
5
4
FG
26
6
7
FG
ATTACHMENT 3
S
S
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSAshleyVanceGC1413MontereyStreetSanLuisObispoCA9340180554500103237440010wwwashleyvancecomCIVILSTRUCTURAL
0
20
2
040
HO
RIZONTAL
SC
ALE
FE
ET
N
PALO M A R A V E N U E
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
RE
TE
N
T
IO
N
CH
A
M
B
E
R
S
S
IZE
AN
D
T
Y
P
E
T
B
D
T
Y
P
TI
E
IN
TO
E
X
IST
6"
S
E
W
ER
1
N
E
W
2
D
O
M
ES
TIC
ME
T
ER
S
ITE
TO
B
E
SU
B
M
E
TE
R
E
D
B
EY
O
N
D
TH
IS
P
O
IN
T
TI
E
IN
TO
EX
IS
T
10
W
A
TE
R
CL
E
A
N
O
U
T
T
YP
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
IN
OV
E
R
FLO
W
S
TO
ST
R
E
E
T
VIA
SI
D
E
W
A
LK
UN
D
E
R
D
R
A
IN
4"
F
IR
E
W
A
T
E
R
DD
C
V
A
N
D
FD
C
AS
S
E
M
B
L
Y
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D
E
X
IS
T
FIR
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
75
F
R
O
M
P
L
150
FR
O
M
P
L
E
X
IS
T
FIR
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
RE
U
S
E
1
EX
IS
T
DO
M
ES
TIC
M
E
TER
A
N
D
1
EX
IS
T
IR
R
IG
ATIO
N
ME
TE
R
NE
W
PA
D
MO
U
N
T
E
D
TR
AN
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
IV
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
IR
R
IG
A
T
IO
N
N
O
TE
S
IN
S
T
ALL
W
ATER
M
ETER
FO
R
CIT
Y
REG
ULAT
ED
LAN
DSCAPE
IRR
IG
ATIO
N
IN
S
TA
LL
IRR
IGA
TIO
N
S
ERVICE
ASS
EMB
LY
P
ER
CIT
Y
ST
AND
ARD
DET
AIL
8560
IN
S
TA
LL
IRR
IGA
TIO
N
C
ON
TRO
LLE
R
P
ER
CITY
S
TAND
ARD
DET
AIL
8520
LOCATION
APP
ROX
IMATE
IR
R
IGA
TIO
N
S
ERVICE
EX
IST
IN
G
P
G
E
PO
W
ER
P
OLE
EX
IST
IN
G
W
AT
E
R
MAIN
PR
OP
OSED
FIRE
W
ATER
LINE
EX
IST
IN
G
S
EW
ER
M
A
IN
4"
PVC
SLEE
VE
2
1
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
HD
P
E
S
TO
R
M
D
R
A
IN
SI
Z
E
S
V
A
R
Y
T
Y
P
HD
P
E
S
TO
R
M
D
R
A
IN
SI
ZE
S
VA
R
Y
TY
P
SD
R
3
5
P
V
C
SE
W
E
R
S
IZE
VA
R
IE
S
T
Y
P
26
4
4
FF
P
O
DIU
M
DE
C
K
25
3
0
F
F
2
N
D
L
EV
E
L
P
AR
K
IN
G
D
ECK
24
4
0
F
F
1
S
T
L
EVE
L
P
A
RKING
DE
C
K
26
8
5
FF
26
8
0
FF
26
8
0
F
F
26
8
5
FF
26
9
0
F
F
BU
IL
DING
C
BU
ILD
IN
G
D
BU
ILD
IN
G
F
BU
ILD
IN
G
E
BU
ILD
IN
G
A
BU
ILD
IN
G
B
BU
IL
D
ING
G
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 27, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday,
June 27th, 2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Vice-Chair Brajkovich.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah
Walthert, and Vice Chair Thom Brajkovich
Absent: Chair Jaime Hill
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Community
Development Director Michael Codron, Transportation Deputy Director Tim Bochum,
and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, established that the City lacks sufficient response to climate
change despite its prominent impacts that are discussed globally and incessantly.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH-2193-2015; Continued review of the rehabilitation,
adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House
property as part of a 33-unit multi-family residential project; and, review of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with addendum for
project modifications since initial review; R-4 zone; LR Development Group,
applicant.
Committee Member Kincaid proposed making a motion to table discussion on Item 1
until report from Tree Committee is rendered.
Associate Planner Cohen offered the Staff Report overview. Deputy Director Bochum
provided specific historical background on the area’s circulation before focusing
specifically on the completion of Luneta Drive.
Director Codron clarified that there was not another Tree Committee Hearing on this
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT Minutes Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27,2016 Page 2
project scheduled at present but upon consulting City’s Ordinance, Staff found that
review of Heritage Tree Designation can only be initiated and authorized by a property
owner. Director Codron further stated that in the case of a development proposal, tree
removal goes through specific procedures outlined in Municipal Code and, in this case,
the City Arborist will make recommendations to the Staff and the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) on the disposition of trees.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following spoke at length as members of the Applicant team:
Loren Riehl, Principal
Thom Jess, Architect
Truitt Vance, Structural Engineer
Barry Price, Historic Preservationist
Chip Tomati, Arborist
Jim Burroughs, Landscape Architect
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, related several facts about the Sandford House that contradict
information provided in Staff Report.
Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Director of SLO Housing Trust Fund in recommendation
of approval for project.
Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo, requested preservation of the property in its entirety and not
allow the historic site to be destroyed or modified.
Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, presented slide show and urged Committee to view property
in totality as a cultural landscape.
Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the viewpoint of the Agenda Correspondence
which refuted facts presented in the Staff Report.
Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of denying the project outright due to its
obtrusiveness.
Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of CHC action at prior Review Hearing in finding
project had contained too much massing to approve.
Al Lipper, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of fellow neighbors’ comments and addressed the
issue of Luneta Drive as a through-street being of fuller consideration independent of the project.
Kit Gould, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of maintaining the Sandford House’s stately
presence and its open space’s mature trees.
David Scarry, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the development’s intention to improve the
quality of the Sandford House.
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT Minutes Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27,2016 Page 3
Gary Nichols, San Luis Obispo, voiced support of project’s preservation of House and the
opening of Luneta Drive.
Roberto Monge, San Luis Obispo, commented on the increase in density of this specific
neighborhood to be an intolerable scenario for its residents.
Elizabeth De Haan, San Luis Obispo, indicated that even though the project is beautifully
designed, the altered neighborhood would resemble another Isla Vista; commented that 71
Palomar would be of high significance to the Cal Poly Architecture Department as an academic
feature.
Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, informed that the Sandford House was the founding
cornerstone of the Broad Street & Foothill neighborhoods; stated that both Housing and
Preservation of Cultural Resources share equal footing in importance within General Plan
community goals.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced full support of the research and the assertions
regarding the historical significance of the Sandford House and remains convinced that the
structure should not be relocated.
Kirk Lemon, San Luis Obispo, spoke as president of Delta Tau Alumni Corporation on the past
efforts to restore House and its Foundation having exhausted funds; voiced support of current
proposal.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, opined that the project is over-planned and over-built for the
specific site and does not befit the quality of the Sandford House’s historic architecture or
setting; advocated for modifying the project further, maintaining as many of its trees as possible
and not moving the structure.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, voiced satisfaction with the project’s design and support for
further housing but stated that cutting down 47 of 51 existing trees is immoral.
Danny Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, supports the building of more housing for those following
same path.
Mike Clark, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a candidate for City Council who has been approached
by various neighborhood groups to discuss preservation and wellness topics; shared experiences
on 71 Palomar, and his distress in learning trees would be cut down and house relocated to pave
way for student housing.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, spoke as owner and resident of home in neighborhood since
1974; voiced opposition to relocating the Sandford House from its foundation; urged the
Committee to vote in favor of both denying the project and for the site’s designation as a cultural
landscape.
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT Minutes Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27,2016 Page 4
Tambra Morgan, spoke from perspective of visitor to San Luis Obispo; presented historical
narrative of her own extensive familial lineage as it was affiliated with the Sandford House;
spoke in opposition to the site being altered in any fashion.
End of Public Comment
Acting Chair Brajkovich called for a short recess.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp, in response to unfounded accusations surfacing and circling around
the various issues of this project, reiterated the four-part primary responsibility of Committee: 1.)
To provide logical and evidence-based decisions over emotional ones; 2.) To stay within its
purview; 3.) To follow universe of practice in both region-centric regulations and national
preservation practices; and 4.) To respond to established precedent in consistent fashion.
Committee Member Papp further stated that the fate of the Sandford House would either be its
de-listing, which could be a justifiable conclusion to make, or demolition-by-neglect, unless a
developer offered to rehabilitate it; stated that there is no compelling reason that the site could
currently be considered a Cultural Landscape in the context of the Historical Significance.
In response to Committee Member Kincaid’s inquiry, Director Codron informed that it was
planned for the City Arborist to make a presentation of the findings following a collaborative
review of historical perspective of property with the Project Arborist.
Committee Member Larrabee shared a viewpoint that surrounding the Sandford House with a
large-scale development would denigrate the site to such an extent that it would be impossible to
unwind the action, and then yet another cultural resource would vanish forever; voiced
disagreement that the only way to preserve the House would be to approve this particular project
at this time; opined that the property had not been properly marketed to a buyer with vision to do
something creative with it during a time when owners were enjoying low property taxes, and
now that their organization is no longer affiliated with Cal Poly, it is now attempting to strictly
capitalize on a real estate market.
In response to Director Codron’s determination of Committee’s stance on the Applicant’s
reduction in massing for House to achieve prominence, Committee Member Larrabee stated
dissatisfaction and indicated a preference for a more respectful treatment of property which
honored the community by providing more of a buffer between a high-density neighborhood and
an established one.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to find the proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and
repositioning of the Master List Sandford House Property as part of a 33-unit multi-family
residential project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; with the added
Condition #1: The ARC should evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new
ATTACHMENT 5
DRAFT Minutes Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27,2016 Page 5
development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give great
consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees; on the following
4:2:1 roll call vote:
AYES: Committee Members Baer, Kincaid, Papp, and Vice-Chair Brajkovich
NOES: Committee Members Larrabee and Walthert
ABSENT: Chair Hill
Acting Chair Brajkovich called for short recess.
2. 570 Higuera Street. ARCH-2699-2016; Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of
the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new
2,880 square foot commercial building within the Downtown Historic District with
a Categorical Exemption from environmental review; C-D zone; SLO Creamery
LLC, applicant.
Associate Planner Cohen provided Staff Report.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp inquired whether there was historical record of board and batten use
on the site.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Applicant Representative Damien Mavis indicated that revisions had been made to improve
project with some degree of detailing.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Acting Chair Brajkovich read excerpts from the single received piece of Agenda Correspondence
regarding noise issues. Committee Member Papp reminded Chair that these issues were not in
Committee’s purview.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to find the new commercial building, remodel and
rehabilitation to the Master List Golden State Creamery at 570 Higuera Street consistent with the
City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties; on the following 6:0:1 roll call vote:
AYES: Committee Members Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert,
and Vice-Chair Brajkovich
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chair Hill
ATTACHMENT 5
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, August 1, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
August 1, 2016 at 5:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Chair Greg Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll,
Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chair Greg Wynn
Absent: None
Staff: Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording
Secretary Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the process of City staff using
agenda correspondence to submit additional materials to the Agenda Packet and prior to the Public
Hearing.
Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, made two requests for the Commission to consider, namely to
cancel tonight’s Hearing or at least limit the scope toward gathering more information from
interested parties. Mr. Crough argued that any Conceptual Review process should refrain from
providing guidance to the Applicant until all relevant data has been collected as part of the record.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, requested that the Commission urges those who speak on an item
to identify themselves and their affiliation with the project. Ms. Small stressed protection of the
neighborhoods and residents as her primary objective.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, questioned prematurity of any project that comes before ARC
purview without CEQA in place.
Chair Wynn commented that staff has instructed Advisory Bodies in the past that any request for
having speakers identify themselves at the podium is issued out of courtesy and not out of a
demand. Chair Wynn provided the background on how Agenda Correspondence is entered into
the record and how staff is highly diligent in this respect.
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 2
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Consideration of Minutes for the ARC Regular Meeting of June 6, 2016:
NOTE: Per July 21, 2016 correspondence from City Clerk to ARC, the June 6, 2016
Minutes approved on July 11, 2016 contained an unintentional omission of the
Consideration of Minutes section; hence, Action was required to re-consider and
Approve the amended minutes.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
NEMCIK, the ARC Minutes of June 6, 2016 were approved with aforementioned amendment
following 6:0:1:0 vote:
AYES: Root, Nemcik, Curtis, Soll, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Andreen
ABSENT: None
Consideration of Minutes for the ARC Regular Meeting of June 20, 2016:
AMENDMENT: Page 1, Consideration of Minutes, Amendment, to read “…expressed
concerns regarding potentially significant traffic impacts…” and “…water supply in
the long-term, given recurring drought conditions.”
AMENDMENT: Page 1, Consideration of Minutes, Action, insert statement under
votes to read: “Commissioner Curtis stated that he was abstaining due to his objection
to the new action minutes approach.”
AMENDMENT: Page 3, third paragraph, to read: “…”objections to the project’s height
based on view shed obstructions and voiced a litany of further number of other
objections, including the Applicant’s once again not responding to Commission’s
majority direction, concerns regarding traffic impacts and water supply &
availability.”
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ROOT, the ARC Minutes of June 20, 2016 were approved as
amended on the following 6:0:1:0 vote:
AYES: Soll, Root, Curtis, Nemcik, Ehdaie, Wynn
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Andreen
ABSENT: None
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH-2193-2015; Conceptual architectural review and preliminary
feedback for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic
Sandford House and the construction of a 33-unit multi-family residential project. No final
action is being requested; R-4 zone; LR Development Group, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
Commissioner Andreen acknowledged that she had consulted with the City Attorney’s Office to
determine that she had no conflict of interest on Item #1, considering she had previously resided
on Serrano Drive. Planner Corey clarified that the Commission will not make a final action
fortheproposed project.
Planner Cohen presented the staff report and requested feedback for the Applicant on the multi-
family project; summarized the background, following the June 27th CHC Recommendations for
the revised project; displayed a PowerPoint presentation with an aerial view of the site and other
project highlights, including the three directional items pertaining to scale & massing, material &
architectural elements and the landscaping plans.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Andreen questioned whether the Commission should consult the Community
Design Guidelines for infill projects in addition to Multi-Family Design Guidelines; requested that
the balconies, porches and patios be indicated on the PowerPoint presentation.
Commissioner Curtis commented on the Commission’s difficulty in proceeding on the conceptual
level without possessing complete information; expressed concern that he’d been denied access to
correspondence e-mails received by staff; questioned whether, relocated structures qualify as
historic landmarks.
Planner Cohen responded that supplemental information regarding the relocation of the Sandford
House and the project’s architectural materials would be included in the final review packet.
Commissioner Nemcik inquired about any existing parking requirements; Vice-Chair Ehdaie
raised question pertaining to the potentiality of subterranean parking in the project’s layout.
Chair Wynn cited the City Attorney’s response memorandum, regarding any overt suggestions
that scheduling a Conceptual Review Hearing would violate purpose of CEQA; concurred with
Commissioner Curtis that any specific discussion on landscaping and tree removal at this Hearing
would be premature.
Commissioner Andreen opined that providing any analysis, discussion, or meaningful feedback
on structure placement and scale borders on impossible without the input of a Tree Report.
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 4
Commissioner Soll made a Motion to delay the Public Hearing until further notice from arborists
and receipt of other environmental information; Commissioner Curtis seconded; discussion
ensued.
Commissioner Soll mentioned that the City Arborist had contributed a memorandum to the record,
Commissioner Andreen agreed that the tree removal issue was a predominant concern, but she was
also having uncertainties regarding the structure’s architectural style; Commissioner Root
concurred in regards to the Public Hearing being premature and agreed to continuing to a date
uncertain; Commissioner Nemcik opined that she would be comfortable providing
recommendations on two directional items other than landscaping, in part because future
deliberation of final plans; Vice-Chair Ehdaie shared that the purpose of any Public Hearing is to
provide a forum where all sides are aired as part of the information collection process; Chair Wynn
concurred with Commissioners Nemcik & Ehdaie and stated that the public process in this case
would be best served through testimony with no formal action taken, suggesting that any
discussion on landscape issues could be postponed.
A motion made by Commissioner Soll, seconded by Commissioner Curtis, to continue to a date
uncertain until relevant information is gathered for which ARC can make final decision failed on
the following 3:4:0:0 roll call vote:
AYES: Soll, Curtis, Andreen
NOES: Root, Nemcik, Ehdaie, Wynn
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Root indicated he was swayed to change his vote by the three Commissioners who
voiced the reasons behind their motion-dissenting opinions.
Commissioner Andreen disclosed that ex partie correspondence had been sent directly to only
some of the Commissioners from Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Member James Papp which
paraphrased what had occurred at pertinent CHC Hearing from his perspective; disclosed that she
had also received ex partie communication from Alan Cooper lobbying against the project. Chair
Wynn voiced that he had received the same ex partie communiques.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Thom Jess, Founding Partner, Arris Studio Architects, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the
applicant’s responses to the scale & massing, architectural elements, and directional items.
Vice Chair Ehdaie inquired about the unit number reduction toward reducing scale and its relation
to R-4 land use.
Commissioner Andreen inquired whether the applicant agreed that the Sandford House is
representative of an Agrarian-style architecture and whether the applicant felt that they had
adequately complied with the In-Fill Compatibility Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 5
Commissioner Root inquired whether the Applicant would be requesting exceptions for the
project.
Chair Wynn inquired about bedroom sizes and the number of leases expected in regards to the
floor plan layout.
Commissioner Soll inquired about rental properties related to affordable housing and if the
proposed project meets density requirements.
Commissioner Curtis inquired about the number of affordable housing units in the complex.
Commissioner Andreen inquired about the consistency of traditional setback patterns within the
neighborhood; inquired about setbacks of upper floors in the Building Height Guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Executive Director of SLO County Housing Trust Fund in
support of project.
Lydia Mourenza, Peter Crough, Bob Mourenza, Roberto Monge, Jody Vollmer, Elizabeth
DeHaan, Al Lipper, Kit Gould, Johna Vacanti, Betsy Schwartz, Diana Schmiett, Richard Schmidt,
and Mary French, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighboring residents to, and in opposition of the
project; voiced various concerns including: the overburdened parking situation in neighborhood;
the dormitory-style design and the fallacy that it’s designed as a multi-family dwelling; the general
ruination of the cultural landscape; the magnitude of the proposal for historic site doing nothing to
retain residential environment; and the impacts to neighborhood wellness through severe influx of
student traffic.
Corliss Campbell, San Luis Obispo, wished to speak on wildlife habitats impacted by tree removal.
Ms. Campbell indicated she would provide commentary at the next Public Hearing.
Victor Johnson, San Luis Obispo, spoke as President of Delta Tau Corporation; shared the
backstory of a longtime ownership and increased preservation efforts during the tenure, and the
non-factual popular narrative regarding the history of the trees.
Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the high rate of party noise complaints filed with
SLOPD every year; urged for in-depth noise study to be rendered on project; advocated for on-site
resident manager to be conditioned as requirement for project.
Joseph Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, spoke of his own residential neighborhood being fortunate
enough to contain a student population amenable to civilized living; shared the statistic that student
housing units now tend to become overcrowded with students who own automobiles.
James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, spoke about the scheduling process regarding Public Hearings,
specifically to the faulty reporting of the unit number reduction between the respective CHC and
ARC Reviews; advocated for reducing density to R-2 or R-1.
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 6
Farid Shahid, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the proposed project, as means of bringing
more adequate supply of housing due to the current demand.
Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Cal Poly alumnus and local employer who on behalf of
college graduates desire to evolve out of college rentals and into more professional domiciles.
Lisa Combs, San Luis Obispo, shared that, although appreciative of the Palomar neighborhood
concerns, is cognizant of the desperate need for housing in City; voiced that the project meets all
criteria and complies with City standards; indicated support of the proposed project.
Tayler Simpson, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the proposed project as a local professional,
whose biggest challenge to date is finding an adequate place to live.
Suzanne Knapp, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the idea of cutting down the 45 heritage trees and
against a student population.
Bob Nastase, San Luis Obispo, shared insight from multiple years as a developer that with Cal
Poly continuing to grow, and with no provision for student housing, students will continue to
gravitate toward established residential communities to live.
Tyler Beaty, San Luis Obispo, spoke on the increasing rent for local housing and the need for
affordable housing for college alumni who wish to stay in the community.
Salem Ahmed, San Luis Obispo, commented on the standard of living being in decline, while
market rates rise for residences in the City; spoke in support of the proposed project.
Enrique Ivers, San Luis Obispo, indicated that untruths exist related to the comments being made
about the proposed project, specifically to Cal Poly’s obligation to build housing for its students.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced that she had hoped for the hearing to have been
continued; commented on the lack of transparency for the proposed project; encouraged
developers to pursue public-private partnerships with Cal Poly; noted the lack of water availability
given climate change.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke as the neighborhoods’ advocate in support of Ramona-
Luneta families and against developers’ misleading practices.
Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, opined that the site serves as a buffer between student, senior
and family demographics that need to be preserved as a cultural landscape.
Danny Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, indicated that longtime City homeowners do not comprehend
the complexities which Cal Poly graduates undergo in search of affordable housing.
Chair Wynn offered ten-minute recess.
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 7
COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION
Chair Wynn reiterated the Commission consensus, noting that it was premature for direction for
landscaping, without adequate information.
The Commission provided added direction which suggested conducting analyses with a broader
perspective beyond tree removal and would specifically address the area’s habitat, biology, its
view sheds, wildlife corridor, and the proposed green screen wall in an area without planters.
Chair Wynn suggested that any changes to the development would return to a Cultural Heritage
Committee Meeting and allow for recommendations prior to any review by the Commission.
The Commission discussed the general material palette, whether materials and combinations were
appropriate, and their overall relation to the compatibility with the Sandford House.
Commissioner Root provided direction in regards to the Applicants, considering the durability and
maintainability of the presented selected materials.
On a Motion by Commissioner Soll, Seconded by Commissioner Root, the Commission voted
unanimously to conduct the Hearing past 9:00 P.M.
Chair Wynn provided direction in regards to reducing the bedroom count and building height,
especially closest to Luneta Drive.
The Commission discussed the articulation of north wall requiring variation beyond the smooth
stucco between windows, wider walkways for increased room for pedestrian circulation, and
maintaining the symbiosis created when the lower buildings are subservient to the Sandford House.
Applicant Jess indicated he received all informational direction and required no further
clarification.
By consensus, the Commission provided no formal action and feedback to staff and Applicant
through previously mentioned deliberations and discussion.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
Commissioners Andreen and Root commented respectively on the Hearing process being less than
ideal at certain points, but that it was ultimately invaluable, balanced, collaborative, and well-
conducted by Chair Wynn.
Principal Planner Corey provided the Agenda Forecast:
August 15th: Southtown 18 (560 Higuera), a mixed-use project at former site of Hometown
Nursery and next to Creamery on flag lot parcel; a mixed-use project at 1259 Laurel Lane; and the
Sign Regulations Update & Study Session
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission for August 1, 2016 Page 8
September 12th: Serra Meadows, the Affordable Housing site at 408 Prado Road proposed by
Housing Authority
September 19th: Joint CHC & ARC Hearing on Bishop Street Studios, the rehabilitation proposal
of the Transitions Mental Health Association; ARC Review of 22 Chorro Street, a mixed-use
project t corner of Foothill Boulevard.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2016
ATTACHMENT 6
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ARCH-2193-2015/EID-4091-2016
November 15, 2016
1. Project Title:
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 71 PALOMAR AVENUE
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
805-781-7574
Prepared By: Oliveira Environmental Consulting LLC & Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4. Project Location:
71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052-161-007)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
LR Development Group, LLC
400 Continental Boulevard, 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Project Representative Name and Address:
Arris Studio Architects
1306 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Residential
ATTACHMENT 7
2
7. Zoning:
R-4 (High Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
An initial study was originally prepared for the proposed project on March 18, 2016. The
applicant modified the project and an addendum was prepared in June 2016 because no new
impacts were identified with the modified project. The City received a significant amount of
public input and determined additional information was needed to supplement the original
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the addendum. The MND and the Addendum have
been combined into one document – this MND – that has been updated with the modified project
description and additional information.
The proposed project is located at 71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052 162 007), in the City of San
Luis Obispo, CA. The project parcel is 1.32 acres in size and is zoned “R 4” (High Density
Residential). Please refer to Figure 1 (Attachment 1), Site Vicinity/Site Location, for a detailed
depiction of the project location. The applicant is proposing the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse,
and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 33-unit multi-
family residential project.
The project includes:
Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;
Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;
Repositioning the house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current
location;
Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s
leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
Removal of 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 34 trees;
Construction of six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures
built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential
units (five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom
apartments);
63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the
two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.
Please refer to Figure 2 (Attachment 2), First Floor Site Plan/Aerial Overview, for a detailed
depiction of the project development footprint.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The subject property is located at the corner of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive just south of
Foothill Boulevard and west of Broad Street. The project site contains three buildings: a main
residence, a secondary residential building, and a remodeled garage with adjacent carport.
Expansive lawns and mature trees are present throughout the site. The site is accessed by two
driveways along Luneta Drive and a pedestrian access from Palomar Avenue.
ATTACHMENT 7
3
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West: Developed with multi-family residential uses (Valencia Apartments), zoned R-4-PD, High
Density Residential.
North: Developed with multi-family residential uses (Valencia Apartments), zoned R-4-PD,
High Density Residential.
East (across Palomar Avenue): Developed with multi-family residences/senior housing, zoned
R-4-PD.
South: (across Luneta Drive): Developed with single-family residential homes, zoned R-1-PD,
Low Density Residential.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
None.
ATTACHMENT 7
4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X Air Quality X Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources X Utilities / Service Systems
X Geology / Soils Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 7
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been x
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
s;gn~ t1!1s/10
Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron
Print Name Community Development Director
5
ATTACHMENT 7
6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
24, 31
X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
5, 11,
31
X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31
X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
17, 31
X--
Evaluation
The City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: The Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains to the south -southwest
into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the city and its surroundings is
generally defined by several low hills and ridges such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also known as
Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits
of the area and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a hard urban edge
where development has remained in the lower elevations.
The project site vicinity within the residential neighborhoods south of Foothill Boulevard exhibit a more suburban character
than those in the downtown core. The street pattern is a rectilinear grid, providing a degree of formality and long visual
sightlines along some streets. As elsewhere in the City, these neighborhoods enjoy the benefits of mature street trees and the
unique visual backdrop provided by Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop Peak. Please refer to the project site plans for
elevations showing views of the project development from public vantage points along neighboring streets.
a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City on an elevated site that has generally flat topography, sloping
gradually toward the north and east. Although the project site exhibits a fairly open lot configuration dominated by the
Sandford House and associated outbuildings, the project site is surrounded by high-density (R-4) multi-family residential
development to the north, west, and east and a single-family neighborhood to the south. The site is distinguished from the
surrounding area because of the historic Sandford House and many large trees. The site is not located within a designated
scenic vista.
Even though the site is not part of a designated scenic vista, public testimony was received during a public meeting on the
project conducted by the Cultural Heritage Committee that the removal of trees from the project site would be a substantial
change in character of the area when viewed from several offsite locations. This public input and a variety of other factors
were evaluated in an aesthetic analysis conducted by Rincon Consultants. The analysis identified that “the project site is
aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to the existing historic structure and trees onsite. However, according to
Figure 3 of the General Plan Circulation Element and Figure 11 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
the site is not within a City designated scenic vista and, therefore, the threshold for aesthetics impacts is higher than if the site
was within a vista protected by additional, specific City policies. When viewed from various other public viewpoints in the
vicinity of the site, including public trails on Cerro San Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site blends in with the
surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out as visually prominent or unique” (Rincon Consultants, Inc., October
2016, Attachment 8). While the project proposes to eliminate tall trees and other vegetation on the site, subject to a replanting
plan, these changes will not substantially degrade the quality of the site or its surroundings. Notwithstanding public testimony
to the contrary, this assessment is consistent with City policy with respect to scenic vistas. Based on this analysis, the
conclusion is that the project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to
existing conditions regarding scenic vistas or scenic resources. Impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Located approximately 0.33 miles to the east, Highway 1 is the closest state-designated scenic highway to the project site.
The project site, which contains a historic resource, is not visible from the highway or on/off ramps (see section (c) below
and Section 5 – Cultural Resources). There are no state scenic highways in the project area from which the project is visible.
Impacts are considered less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
c) Visual resources in the vicinity of the site are discussed above and include views of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop
Peak. The City of San Luis Obispo regulates aesthetics of buildings and public spaces through implementation of adopted
policies and programs. The City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update, Conservation and Open
Space Element, as well as the implementing statutes of the Municipal Code/Zoning Code and Community Design Guidelines
are the core of this mechanism.
The applicant proposes development of a multi-family residential apartment complex on a site with a Master List Historic
House and accessory structures (discussion of impacts on the Historic Resource are discussed in Section 8 below). Adjacent
parcels to the site are developed with multi-family development to the north, east and west and single-family units to the
south. Residential structures range in height between one and two-stories. The site is zoned for high-density residential
development and was previously disturbed with buildings and site development associated with the Historic Sandford House.
The Aesthetic Analysis identified that “the project site is currently developed with the historic Sandford House and associated
outbuildings, and contains 59 mature trees. From the adjacent roadways and viewpoints, the abundance of trees gives the site
a somewhat natural appearance amongst single - and multi-family residential development surrounding the site. The project
would include development of multi-story apartments with a maximum height of 35 feet, with associated landscaping and
parking on the project site. The proposed development would involve more intense structural development on the site than
existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most of the existing mature trees from the site.
According to the landscape plan, the project would involve planting of over 30 new landscape trees throughout the proposed
apartment development and the retention of two existing trees near the southeast corner of the site along Palomar Drive , one
tree in the northeast corner of the site and one existing tree in the southwest corner of the site. Despite retaining some of the
existing mature trees on the site, the proposed development and overall amount of trees removed would result in a less natural
appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped trees would be scattered throughout and
would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development unlike the existing trees which are large, dense,
and block existing structures from view.
The project, as proposed, would also involve moving the historic Sandford House, which possesses high aesthetic quality,
from the central area to the southeast portion of the site. This would result in the Sandford House being closer to the adjac ent
roadways, less obstructed by trees, and, thus, more visually prominent in the neighborhood. Although the pr oject would
change the aesthetic character of the site, it would not significantly degrade the character as it would include high -density
residential development with a maximum height of 35 feet consistent with adjacent high-density development to the east,
north, and west of the site would retain the visually prominent Sandford House.
Additionally, the project includes design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the massing of
the proposed multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped trees, four existing trees, and other landscape
features, and agrarian style architecture to complement the Sandford House. With these design and landscape features, the
project would comply with City General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic views and the character of prominent visual
features within the City, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines which are intended to ensure that future
development is consistent with the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to
protect scenic resources and views, from public rights -of-way. However, the project would require a final determination of
project consistency with the Community Design Guidelines by the ARC. As such, the project would not result in significant
degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant impact ”
Rincon Consultants, Inc., October 2016, Attachment 8).
e) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as
well as light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the
site include streetlights along Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive, spillover lighting from surrounding single- and multi-
family residential development, and light from the headlights of vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadways.
Development of the project site would result in an increase in ambient nighttime lighting through the increased residential
development and associated exterior lighting and interior lighting spillover. This would include parking garage and
security/safety lighting, and fixtures associated with the proposed structural development. In addition, windows, exterior
building materials, and surface paving materials used for the proposed development may generate glare that could affect
surrounding residential uses.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
The project is required to conform to the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) and
General Plan Policies 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 which sets operational standards and requirements for lighting installations, including
requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing. The project applicant would also be required to provide an
overall lighting plan that demonstrates that the project complies with the requirements of City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance
No. 17.18.030, which prohibits lighting or illuminated devices that would create glare which results in a hazard or nuisance
on other properties (City of San Luis Obispo, Zoning Regulations). This plan would be reviewed by the ARC prior to
issuance of building permits. Adhering to these existing regulations and ordinances, as well as the City’s Community Design
Guidelines, would ensure that exterior lighting and finish is designed to minimize impacts on neighboring properties and
other light and glare sensitive uses. As such, impacts associated with the creation of new sources of light and glare would be
less than significant.
Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 19,
31
X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
31 X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
18
X--
Evaluation
The city is located in the heart of San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast Region, both of which are important key
agricultural centers within the State of California. The region’s agricultural industry is an important part of the local
economy. It provides employment and income directly for those in agriculture, and it helps drive growth in the tourism
industry, which in turn generates further economic activity and consumer spending.
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps pr epared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for
Residential uses in the General Plan and is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The project site is surrounded by
developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 21,
13, 31 X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
X--
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
9, 21,
13, 31
X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
9, 21,
13, 31 X--
Evaluation
Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e.,
the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), although the physical features that divide them provide only
limited barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one hour California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The County
is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality from the
monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions.
a) The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2002. The
2001 CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLOAPCD and other local agencies,
including the City, on how to attain and maintain the state standards for ozone and PM10. The CAP presents a detailed
description of the sources and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current
growth trends, and an appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. The
proposed project is consistent with the general level of develop ment anticipated and projected in the CAP. The project is
consistent with the CAP’s land use planning strategies, including locating high density multi-family residential within an
urban area proximate to an existing roadway, near transit services and shopping areas. Therefore, potential impacts would be
less than significant.
b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently
designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour State standards for ozone and the 24-hour State standard for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which is provided by the
APCD for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial
and industrial development. Under CEQA, the APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that
have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air
quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities. As such, impacts are considered significant but mitigable.
The project will include demolition of non -historic additions and extensive grading, which has the potential to disturb
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
asbestos that is often found in older structures as well as underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or
insulation on pipes). Demolition can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper
handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various
regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant s
40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). Impacts related to the proposed demolition of existing structures on the subject
site are considered to be significant but mitigable.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, impacts related to
fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction activities are considered potentially significant.
Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, and may be subject to California Air
Resources Board or APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other
equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4 -4. Truck trips associated with the
16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) that will be cut from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to
APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-
idling/13ccr2485_09022016.pdf and https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm. Impacts related to vehicle
and heavy equipment emissions are considered potentially significant.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of an apartment building (low rise)
with less than 109 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold
MT CO2e). The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the
proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 94 dwelling units). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts
are considered less than significant.
e) The project includes the development of a multi-family residential apartment complex, as anticipated in the R-4 High
Density Residential zone, and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce
objectionable odors in the area.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation
should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an
exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all
requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an
Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of
zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading.
More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines
shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which
include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the
APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal
requirements of identified ACM.
More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contracto r
shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not
be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust -
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, and shall
contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce the sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to
construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of
more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California
based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
5-minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel
idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be cut from the site, but the
final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per
day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31 X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31 X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
5,17,
18,
26, 31 X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
X--
Evaluation
The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: The Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and the San Luis Valley which drains to the south
southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Prefumo, and
Brizzolara Creeks, and numerous tributary channels pass through the city, providing important riparian habitat and migration
corridors connecting urbanized areas to less developed habitats in the larger area surrounding the City.
Much of the area outside the city limits consists of open rangeland grazed year round, along with agricultural lands
dominated by annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present
within the City, and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species,
some of which are considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and
native habitats are located in the larger and less developed areas outside the city limits.
The following discussion, as outlined in the LUCE Update EIR, provides a general overview of the habitat type found on the
project site:
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the property, the site exhibits the
characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed” habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the
developed portions of the City, and in discrete areas adjacent to Highway 1 and Broad Street/Highway 227. The LUCE
update EIR discussed that these areas typically provide low potential to support native plant or animal species occurrences.
Within the City limits, occurrences of sensitive natural habitats are present in low lying areas (riparian and wetland areas),
and on undeveloped hills and steep slopes above the Urban Reserve or development limit lines (coastal scrub, chaparral,
woodlands, and grasslands). Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas typically consists primarily of urban adapted
avian species such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the
abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources, common animal species adapted to human presence such as raccoon
Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and aquatic, semi aquatic, and
terrestrial species resident in or utilizing riparian areas.
a-d) The project site was visited by Oliveira Environmental Consulting (February 10, 2016) and by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
September 20, 2016) and observations indicated that the site does not support riparian or wetland areas, undeveloped hills or
steep slopes associated with a higher potential for the presence of native plant or animal species. It is not anticipated that any
areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project . The project site is void of undisturbed
native habitat and open spaces across the site are dominated by mature landscaping including trees, shrubs and lawns,
including a stand of mature eucalyptus trees near the existing Sandford House. The mature landscaping present at the project
site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat for urban-adapted avian species as
discussed above as well as listed species or species of local concern (Conservation and Open Space Element Appendix A). A
Biological Assessment provided by Rincon Consultants (October 2016, Attachment 5) identifies that several large trees on
the site are suitable habitat for various raptor species such as the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (on the Federal Watch
List and a species of local concern), the common red-tailed hawk and the barn owl. Additionally, the State Fully Protected
and local species of concern white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the site while foraging in the open
grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White -tailed kite has been documented by the CNDDB within 3.5 miles
of the proposed project site. Most of the mature landscaping would be removed prior to construction of the project, and
impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant but mitigable.
The project site also contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (a State and Local Species of
Special Concern). Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB approximately one mile south of the project site and this
species may utilize the structures on the project site as roosting areas. Structures that occur within the project site that can be
utilized by special status bats include the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas. The demolition of
existing structures and the movement of the Historic Sandford house and the removal of the mature landscaping would
happen prior to the construction of the project, and impacts to pallid bats are considered potentially significant but mitiga ble.
e) No designated heritage trees exist on the portion of the site to be developed. 55 small to fully mature native and non-
native landscaping trees would be removed as part of the proposed project development. This includes trees such as
mulberry, pine, olive, decorative palms, oak, ash, eucalyptus and redwood (see attachments 5 & 8, Arborist Reports). The
proposed project includes a conceptual landscape plan showing the removal of all of the existing vegetation with the
exception of four trees: a 38-inch Canary Island Pine, a 19-inch Mexican Fan Palm, an 18-inch Painted Eucalyptus, and a 29-
inch Norfolk Island Pine. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme that includes evergreen shade trees,
landscape median trees (Luneta Drive median), deciduous flowering shade trees, hedges, shrubs, lawns and ground cover
species. In total the project proposes to plant 37 new trees; 9 of these will be larger 36” box specimens. Multiple shrubs and
ground cover are also included in the landscape plan which will provide some greenery and other environmental benefits.
Please refer to the project Conceptual Landscape Plan for a detailed list of proposed landscaping scheme and planting palate.
The City Arborist has reviewed the tree removals and determined that there will be a less than significant impact in the tota l
tree canopy for the area with mitigation.
f) The project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and therefore would have not have an
impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction
activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15). For construction activities
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds of local concern or covered by the California Fish and Game
Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation
removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located, all
construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The
buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may
be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The
buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on
the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to
removal of the buffer.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within
the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non -breeding season
November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found
roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roo st
day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be
implemented in close coordination with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to
exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure. If a bat colony is excluded from the project
site, appropriate alternate bat habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at a n
approved location offsite. Prior to removal of any trees over 20-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat
species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW
shall install one-way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box
shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which are removed,
including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be
disturbed.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement
trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required
replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the
neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial
donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final
tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist.
Conclusion: With the recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5, 23,
24,26,
31
X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
24,
26, 31
X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 26,
31 X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 24,
31 X--
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native
American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years, and that Native
American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C., demonstrating
that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. The City of San Luis Obispo
is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of
California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Gr ande area, and from
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes
from archaeological sites along the coast.
Historic Resource Setting: The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with
the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
established. By the 1870’s (after the earliest arrivals of Chinese immigrants in 1869), a Chinatown district had been
established in the downtown area near Palm and Morro Street. By 1875, 2,500 residents were documented in a 4 -square mile
area around what is now the City of San Luis Obispo. By 1901, the City was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and
mainline Southern Pacific, and in 1903 the California Polytechnic State University was established. The last era of growth
generally lasted from 1945 to the present. Many of the residential subdivisions in the Foothill and Laguna Lake area were
developed between 1945 and 1970 and the city’s population increased by 53% during this time.
According to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, the subject property at 71 Palomar Drive is referred to as the
historic Sandford House. A cultural resources evaluation was provided by Applied Earthworks (October 2015). Historical
research identified that the subject property was originally patented in 1870.
a) The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property, specifically the
main two-story residence. The Historic Sandford House, located at 71 Palomar, was added to the Master List of Historic
Resources on the basis of architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American
architecture. Public comment provided during a Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) hearing included statements that the
Sandford House was an example of Italian Renaissance style and not Colonial Revival. The CHC determined that the Historic
Evaluation (Applied Earthworks, Inc., October 2015, Attachment 4) provided sufficient evidence that the House is an
example of Colonial Revival architecture.
A historic and archaeological evaluation identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930 (Applied
Earthworks, Inc., October 2015, Attachment 4). Additions and accessory structures were added to the site in the 1950s and
1970s and are not considered historic resources (Applied Earthworks, Inc., October 2015, Attachment 4). The applicant is
proposing an adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford house as part of a 33-unit multi-family
residential project. The project proposal includes repositioning of the Historic Sandford House approximately 33 feet east and
16 feet south of its current location, removing non-original rear additions and accessory structures and construction of new
structures around the Historic Sandford House. The Applied Earthworks Evaluation (Attachment 4) reviewed the proposed
project under the Rehabilitation treatment of the Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI) for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and under local City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and found the project to be in
conformance with the recommended mitigation.
The proposed project and the Applied Earthworks Evaluation was reviewed by the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC) on March 28, 2016 and on June 27, 2016 for compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance
City Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 14.01), the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The CHC determined that the proposed repositioning,
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, and the construction of the new residential units (described below) with incorporation of the
recommended actions included herein as mitigation measures, to be in conformance with SOI Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and City standards. Therefore, impacts are considered to be mitigated to a less than a significant level
under CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)).
Repositioning
The original setting of the site has experienced substantial change since construction of the house in 1895 with the
development of Palomar Avenue, Luneta Drive and the adjacent homes and apartments. The historic character of the subject
property is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. The Applied Earthworks evaluation
found that the proposed repositioning of the house on the site will preserve the prominence of the structure on the site and its
historic orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of San Luis Obispo. The Sandford House will retain the ability
to convey its historical significance and repositioning of the Sandford House will not materially alter the physical
characteristics or immediate surroundings such that its historic significance would be materially impaired.
Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse
The overall visual character of the residence, and historically significant features, which includes building shape, the
principal and secondary entries to the building, roof and related features, prominent portico projection, two-story solarium,
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
and historic-age materials such as stucco cladding, will remain intact. The stucco cladding of the Sandford House will be
repaired and painted an appropriate color and reroofed with appropriate composition shingle material. Prominent architectural
elements, such as the distinctive portico with its Tuscan columns, entablature, original multi -light wood-framed sash
windows, and wood paneled front door with fanlights and sidelights will be maintained. The deteriorated two -story solarium
addition will be repaired and its windows and door replaced with appropriate in kind materials. With incorporation of
recommendations of the Applied Earthworks Evaluation (Mitigation Measures CR1 -6) the proposed rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse will not result in adverse impacts to the historical significance of the Sandford House.
New Development
As noted above, the surrounding setting of the Historic Sandford House has experienced significant urbanization with the
development of apartment buildings and modern single-family residences all around the property. The new apartment
buildings on the site are designed to assume a secondary position to the Master List Structure. The buildings are clearly
differentiated from the Master List Sandford House through their low-profile hipped roofs, subdued neutral colors, and lower
heights. The new apartment buildings share similar architectural features, such as the rhythm of their facades and use of
stucco finishes and multi-light windows. The new buildings would not overwhelm the scale of the Sandford House and would
not obscure views of the primary elevations of the structure. As discussed in the Applied Earthworks Report while spatial
relationships would be altered, the distinctiveness of the Historic Sandford House would remain intact and would continue to
convey its historic significance.
b, d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained
resource maps, but is considered an archaeologically and historically sensitive area. A cultural resources inventory prepared
for the project included a Phase I archaeological survey of the subject property to determine the presence or likelihood of
archaeological historical resources. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological
materials or of human remains. The Phase 1 archaeological survey found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural
resources which could be impacted during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than
significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
c) The geologic formation underlying the project site is Franciscan Complex Melange (KJfm) (Cretaceous to Jurassic), which
has the potential to produce fossils. Based on the limited area of disturbance, and past grading and development that has
occurred in the areas proposed for grading, the potential for significant paleontological discovery is low. Therefore, potent ial
impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall be prepared in
compliance with the City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines and approved by the City prior to
building permit approval. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose
and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features , protocols for
stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case
significant deposits are exposed.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non-
original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non -repairable or missing materials revealed upon
removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any
historical wood-sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where
appropriate.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site
shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and
platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house
exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium
windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi -
light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used
to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
Mitigation Measure CR-5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and
stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High-pressure water blasting; sand or other
hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used.
Mitigation Measure CR-6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The
applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and the design for
the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing.
New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
14,
29, 31
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
4,10,
14,
29, 31 X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4,10,
14,29,
31
X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4,10,
14,27,
29, 31
X--
IV. Landslides? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
4,10,
14,
29, 31 X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
4,10,
14,29,
31
X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic
Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends from Oregon to
northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex, and is comprised of sub parallel
northwest southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and
greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive
and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation
are also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary
aged volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all comprised of these volcanic plugs.
Faulting and Seismic Activity: The predominant northwest southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are
related to the San Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. Other faults in the San Luis Obispo area that are considered active or
potentially active include the San Juan Fault, the East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Oceano Fault,
the Oceanic Fault, Cambria Fault, the Edna Fault, the Hosgri Fault, and the Los Osos Fault. The East and West Huasna
Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Cambria Fault, and the Edna Fault have not yet been officially classified by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
The Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone) is an area within 500 feet from a
known active fault trace that has been designated by the State Geologist. Per the Alquist Priolo legislation, no structure for
human occupancy is permitted on the trace of an active fault. The portion of the Alquist Priolo fault zone closest to the city is
located near the southern flank of the Los Osos Valley, northwest of Laguna Lake, but lies just outside of the city limits.
Seismically Induced Ground Acceleration: Seismically induced ground acceleration is the shaking motion that is produced by
an earthquake. Probabilistic modeling is done to predict future ground accelerations, taking into consideration design basis
earthquake ground motion, applicable to residential or commercial, or upper bound earthquake ground motion, applied to
public use facilities like schools or hospitals.
Landslides: Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a
slope failure. Ground shaking and landslide hazards are mapped by the City and are shown in the General Plan. Much of the
development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. However, the city contains
extensive hillsides. Several are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope
instability. The actual risk of slope instability is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface samp ling,
by qualified professionals. The building code requires site specific investigations and design proposals by qualified
professionals in areas that are susceptible to slope instability and landslides.
Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buri ed
structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefact ion include
lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with t he
depth of groundwater below the site and the types of sediments underlying an area.
The soils in the San Luis Obispo area that are most susceptible to ground shaking, and which contain shallow ground water,
are the ones most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction. The actual risk of settlement or liquefaction is
identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. Previous investigations
have found that the risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site
preparation and proper foundation design, and that the actual risk of liquefaction is low.
Differential Settlement: Differential settlement is the downward movement of the land surface resulting from the
compression of void space in underlying soils. This compression can occur naturally with the accumulation of sediments over
porous alluvial soils within river valleys. Settlement can also result from human activities including improperly placed
artificial fill, and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This phenomenon can alter
local drainage patterns and result in structural damage. Portions of the City have been identified as possibly being underlain
by soft organic soils, resulting in a high potential for settlement (General Plan Safety Element).
Subsidence: Ground subsidence occurs where underlying geologic materials (typically loosely consolidated surficial silt,
sand, and gravel) undergo a change from looser to tighter compaction. As a result, the ground surface subsides (lowers).
Where compaction increases (either naturally, or due to human activity), the geologic materials become denser. As a result,
the ground surface overlying the compacting subsurface materials subsides as the underlying geologic materials settle.
Ground subsidence can occur under several different conditions, including:
Ground water withdrawal (water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to
settle)
Tectonic subsidence (ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding);
and
Earthquake induced shaking causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground surface subsidence.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are soils that are generally clayey, swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Wetting can
occur in a number of ways (i.e., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or
sewer lines, etc.). Soil expansion can cause subtle damage that can reduce structural integrity. Portions of the city are known
to exhibit the soil types (refer to General Plan Safety Element) identified as having a moderate to high potential for
expansion.
a, c, d) Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High
Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the
California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for
most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The underlying soil map units include: 160 Los Osos loam, 15 to
30 percent slopes. Soil types with clay composition typically have a low liquefaction risk; and due to the presence of shallow
bedrock, the potential for liquefaction to affect the site is considered negligible. Based on the geotechnical evaluation of the
project site, seismically induced settlement is considered to be very low. Based on the gently to moderately sloping
topography of the project site, and lack of evidence of slope failure or slope breaks within or proximate to the proposed
development area, this risk is not considered significant. Incorporation of required California Building Code, City Codes, and
development in accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less than
significant levels.
b) This is a previously developed infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. The most significant source of potential
erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. The project
applicant has prepared a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., October 12, 2015) and a Conceptual
Landscape Plan. Development in accordance with the Stormwater Control Plan will address stormwater flow across the site,
and landscaping planting will help ensure the natural retention of stormwater and help address potential erosion.
Additionally, the dust reduction measures of Mitigation Measure AQ 3 will also minimize soil erosion. Therefore, erosion
impacts are considered less than significant.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site. No impact.
Conclusion: With proposed development in accordance with applicable CBC and local Building Code requirements, and
implementation of the project Stormwater Control Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan, impacts are considered less than
significant.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,13,
20,21,
31
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1,13,
20,21,
31
X
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, prominent GHG emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are
responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known
as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation,
high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities.
The major sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy
consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community wide activities in
the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative effect of
global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur despite
local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will result in
a number of locally important adverse effects, including sea level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and increased
frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms.
Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), Climate Pollution Reduction Beyond 2020 Healthier
Communities and a Stronger Economy (Senate Bill [SB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of
2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97
with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate
change effects in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Review
Handbook, as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies
within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012a, 2012b). The City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a
GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and includes specific measures and implementing
actions to both reduce community wide GHG emissions and help the city build resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate
change.
a, b) The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment
centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allows for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and
aids Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will
result in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions.
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions. The
remaining project CO2 emissions are primarily from building heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity
generation due to the project’s electrical demands.
Short Term Construction-Related GHG Emissions: Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use
of on and off road construction equipment in new development. Mitigation Measures AQ 3, AQ 4, and AQ 5 address vehicle
and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate to indirect source
emissions, such as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are enforced with new
construction. Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of an apartment
building (low rise) with less than 109 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual
Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant.
Conclusion: With the incorporation of required mitigation measures (see Air Quality impact analysis), Title 24 regulations
and CAP consistency requirements, impacts are considered less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4, 31
X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 4, 31 --X--
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
30, 31
X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1, 4
X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1, 4
X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 17
X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 17,
31 X--
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the analysis of hazards and hazardous material impacts relates to hazards
regarding safety risks posed by airport flight patterns, impeding of adopted emergency response/evacuation plans, and
wildland fires where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas; and hazardous materials or substances regarding routine
transport or disposal of substances, explosion or release of substances, and emissions or handling of substances within one
quarter mile of an existing or planned school. The following is a brief outline of the primary identified hazards:
Fire Hazards: Fires have the potential to cause significant losses to life, property, and the environment. Urban fire hazards
result from the materials that make up the built environment, the size and organization of structures, and spacing of buildings.
Additional factors that can accelerate fire hazards are availability of emergency access, available water volume and pressure
for fire suppression, and response time for fire fighters. Fire hazard severity in rural areas, including areas on the edge
between urban and rural land (commonly called the wildland interface), are highly influenced by the slope of the landscape
and site vegetation and climate. This risk is somewhat amplified by the native, Mediterranean vegetation common to the rural
setting in which the City is located that has evolved to rely on wildfires for its ecological sustainability. Where wildland fires
may be a threat, plant fuels are often managed by replacement planting, grazing, plowing, or mechanical clearing.
Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. This includes, for example,
chemical materials such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated
chemical materials. Additionally, hazards include known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of release
of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk
associated with disturbing the historical release area. The potential for risks associated with hazardous materials are varied
regionally. The primary risk concerns identified by the City, as stipulated in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, include
radiation hazards and the transportation of hazardous materials in and around the city. Most of these incidents are related to
the increasing frequency of transport of chemicals over roadways, railways or through industrial accidents. Highway 101 and
a rail corridor are major transportation corridors through the San Luis Obispo area.
Airport Hazards: The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation service to the area.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
The primary hazard associated with land uses near the airport is the risk of aircraft incidents on approach and take off.
Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the airport and rules of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The County manages activities on the airport property through the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
As the means of fulfilling these basic obligations, the ALUC must prepare and adopt Airport Land Use Plans (ALUPs) for
each airport within their jurisdiction. The policies in the ALUP are intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive
noise and safety hazards while providing for the orderly expansion of airports (Public Utility Code Section 21670(a)(2). The
ALUC has developed an ALUP for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that was first adopted in 1973, was updated
in May 2005 and is currently being updated. The ALUP has identified safety zones with associated land use density and
intensity restrictions. The ALUP defines these as:
Runway Protection Zones – Areas immediately adjacent to the ends of each active runway, within which the level of
aviation safety risk is very high and in which, consequently, structures are prohibited and human activities are
restricted to those which require only very low levels of occupancy.
Safety Areas S 1 a through c – The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of
reduced visibility at altitudes less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
Safety Area S 2 – The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of reduced
visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1000 feet above ground level (AGL). Because aircraft in Area S 2 are at
greater altitude and are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the o verall
level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S 1 or the Runway Protection Zones.
a) The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with
applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction
and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline
and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in
addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so
the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
With respect to operation of the project, apartment buildings do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and
only a minimal amount of routine “household” chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a
significant hazard to the public or to the environment. This impact would be less than significant.
b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or
emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety
Element would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of
the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations
establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where
transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of
regulations.
The project also includes demolition of existing structures on the property including portions of the Historic Sandford House,
which, given the age of the structures, could contain asbestos and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was
used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environment al Protection
Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be
found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed -on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation,
wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non -
friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos -Containing
Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the
primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non -friable asbestos will
release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non -friable. Non-friable asbestos and
encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample
contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead -based paint.
In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per millio n
ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06
percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are
particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and
organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state -certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are
determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project
sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct
the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be
disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk
assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement
have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead -based paint. These include
Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead -based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead -based paint abatement must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with
existing regulations would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant.
c) The proposed project is a multi-family residential apartment development with parking and associated amenities, and is
approximately 1/3 of a mile south of Pacheco Elementary School. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a
multi-family apartment use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any
hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing
school, and this impact would be less than significant.
d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 795 Foothill Boulevard, a leaking underground storage
tank cleanup site at the Unocal Station, approximately ¼ mile from the subject property. That site is listed on the Cortese
State Water Resources Control Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of permitted underground storage tanks.
Construction of the proposed project is not connected to 795 Foothill Boulevard and therefore would not create a significant
hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site.
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip.
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing o r
working in the project area. No impact.
g), h) The project site is an infill site and plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal (December 2015) who determined
that the project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The project would be subject to the
requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts related to impaired
implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan are considered less than
significant. The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The
surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of
people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The site is not
directly adjacent to any wildlands. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
X--
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
5,
15,16,
27, 31 X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
5,
15,16,
27, 31 X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 27,
31 X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
5, 27,
31 X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
4, 5,
27, 31 X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 31 --X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic
Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west of the Coastal
Range. The Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the Monterey County
line and includes numerous individual stream systems. Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed drains approximately 84 square miles.
The City of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis
Obispo Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner Creek,
Prefumo Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also
present flood hazards. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks ar e
relatively small, but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast moving flood events in the city.
According to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB), water quality in the San
Luis Obispo Creek drainage system is generally considered to be good. However, the water quality fluctuates along with
seasonal changes in flow rates. In summer months, when the flows decrease and dilution is reduced, water quality decreases.
According to the RWQCB Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project for San Luis Obispo Creek, the creek has been
reported to exceed nutrient and pathogen levels.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26
Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo Valley Sub basin flows toward the south southwest, following the general gradient
of surface topography. Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for agricultural water supply,
municipal and domestic supply, and industrial use.
In order to evaluate the specific nature of the hydrology and water quality issues for the subject property, the project
proponents have initiated a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., October 12, 2015). The intent of
this report is to address the stormwater requirements set forth by the Central Coast RWQCB’s Post-Construction Stormwater
Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
a, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post
Construction Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, projects where Impervious Area 22,000 SF and
in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and Runoff
Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO City/WWMP drainage
criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that there will
be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property, 2) Use of Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to reduce
pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and
Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010, “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to
implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality
Association.
The proposed project will include the construction of residential units and associated hardscape and landscape. The
performance requirements discussed above will be met by using underground chambers which will retain stormwater and
infiltrate it back into the ground onsite, and as a result contain pollutants onsite as well. These chambers will retain the 95th
percentile storm and allow that volume of water to receive filtration as it percolates back into the ground. Additionally, these
chambers will provide adequate volume of storage to reduce the peak runoff rates to pre development rates. The site will
continue to slope to the North and East where runoff will be discharged offsite and ultimately outlet to Stenner Creek.
Water Quality Analysis
The proposed project would create and replace over 34,000 square feet of impervious area and thus is required to comply
with the Construction Stormwater Management Requirements of the Central Coast RWQCB. The site was analyzed using
HydroCAD and the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method.
Performance Requirement 1-Site Design and Runoff Reduction
This project minimizes the amount of pervious surface to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff will be directed to
underground chambers prior to discharging offsite, which will allow for filtration and percolation.
Performance requirement 2-Water Quality Treatment
Based on the HydroCAD analysis of the Post Construction condition, this site is required to provide treatment for 6,300 cubic
feet of water. This will be accomplished by using underground infiltration chambers. These chambers will contain the 95th
percentile storm and infiltrate it back into the ground. The pollutants within the stormwater will be filtered out of the
stormwater as it percolates into the ground. The outlet for the chambers will be set above the water surface elevation that
holds the 95th percentile storm.
Performance requirement 3-Runoff Retention
Based on the HydroCAD analysis of the Post Construction conditions, this project is required to provide infiltration for 6,300
cubic feet of water. This will be accomplished by using underground infiltration chambers. These chambers will contain the
95th percentile storm and infiltrate it back into native ground.
Performance requirement 4-Peak Management
The underground chambers will be sized so as to detain stormwater from the site and release it at pre development rates for
all design storms. The following table summarizes the pre and post construction runoff rates and shows that the runoff rate
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
has been reduced for all design storms. Full calculations from HydroCAD for the underground system are included with the
project stormwater control plan.
95th 2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr
Pre-Construction (cfs) 0.60 0.60 1.42 2.01 2.32 2.94 3.26
Post Construction (cfs) 0 0 0.44 0.67 0.79 1.09 1.21
Percent Reduction 100 100 69 67 66 63 63
Stormwater Control Plan. Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015)
Site activities and identification of potential sources of pollutants
The proposed project will include the construction of residential units and associated hardscape and landscape. Potential
sources of pollutants include chemicals and fertilizers to maintain the landscaping, fuels, oils and other chemicals from
vehicles, trash, dust and debris from roofs and flatwork. The following table provides the project pollutant and source control
information.
Potential Source of Runoff
Pollutants
Permanent Source Control
BMPs
Operational Source Control
BMPs
Landscape/ Outdoor Pesticide
Use/Building and Grounds
Maintenance
Design Landscaping to minimize irrigation
and runoff, to promote surface infiltration
and to minimize the use of fertilizers and
pesticides that can contribute to stormwater
pollution. Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.
Where landscaped areas are used to retain
or detain stormwater, specify plants that
are tolerant of saturated soil conditions
Maintain landscaping using minimum or
no pesticides.
See applicable operational BMPs in Fact
Sheet CS-41 "Building and Grounds
Maintenance" in the CASQA Stormwater
Quality Handbook
Provide Integrated Pest Management
IPM) information to new owners, lessees
and operators
Plazas, Sidewalks and
Parking Lots
Sweep plazas, sidewalks and parking lots
regularly to prevent accumulation of litter
and debris. Collect debris from pressure
washing to prevent entry into the storm
drain system. Collect washwater
containing any cleaning agent or degreaser
and discharge to the sanitary sewer not to a
storm drain.
Refuse Areas Dumpster will be covered. Sign will be
posted on or near the dumpster with the
words "Do not dump hazardous material
here"
Receptacles will be inspected and repaired
if a leak is observed. Receptacles to be
covered. Inspect and pick up litter daily
and clean up spills immediately. Keep spill
control materials on site.
Catch Basins Remove trash, debris or other materials
that may be covering the grates. Inspect
basin to ensure there is no sediment in the
box or blocking the outlet pipe. Remove
grates and clean out sediment and other
debris as needed.
Stormwater Control Plan. Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015)
Based on the analysis discussed above, and implementation of the BMPs identified in the project Stormwater Control Plan,
water quality impacts will be reduced. With the required incorporation of these measures, and adherence to the stormwater
facilities operations and maintenance recommendations provided in the Stormwater Control Plan (see Mitigation Measure
HWQ-1), impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28
c, d, e) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within
the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment requires
that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-
off. The proposed project creates and replaces over 34,000 square feet of impervious area and thus is required to treat the
95th percentile storm per performance requirement 4 of the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements of the
Central Coast RWQCB. Based on the analysis in the Stormwater Control Plan, and with the required implementation of the
stormwater retention and water quality recommendations (see Mitigation Measure HWQ-1) the proposed project would retain
the amount of stormwater to reduce discharge to pre development rates, and provides treatment and infiltration for the
volume of water required by the Central Coast RWQCB and impacts would be considered reduced to less than significant
levels with mitigation incorporated.
g), h) The proposed project ultimately drains to Stenner Creek, however, the project is not within an identified 100 -year flood
zone and is not subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm event per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project will not impede or re-direct the flow of any flood waters.
i, j) The site is not located in a flood zone nor near any dams or levees. The proposed development is outside the zone of
impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope properties do not generate significant storm water runoff such to
create a potential for inundation by mudflow. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project (Ashley and Vance
Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommended BMPs for
water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via the proposed
underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall become required components of
project development and the project proponent shall be required to implement these design features and recommendation as
set forth.
Conclusion: With the implementation of the project Stormwater Control Plan designs and recommendations, impacts are
considered less than significant.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10,
31 X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
25, 31
X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
5, 12,
31 X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the development anticipated for the project site under the site ’s
General Plan and zoning designation, since the site is designated for High Density Residential land uses and is designed to fit
among existing multi-family and single family residential development surrounding it, and will not physically divide an
established community. Impacts are considered less than significant.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s High Density
Residential General Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, as well as corresponding regulations and development
standards.
c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5, 31
X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5, 31
X--
Evaluation
a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: No impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31 X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3, 9,
10, 31 X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3, 9,
10, 31 X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
3, 9,
10, 31 X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 3,
9, 10,
31 X--
12, 31
X--
Evaluation
As analyzed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise sensitive land uses are present within the City, including
various types of residential, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and transient lodging, and
place of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the City, major sources of noise
include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights.
a) Residences are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of up to
60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and noise levels of up to 45 dB are acceptable for indoor areas. Exterior noise
levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into account. As
discussed above, the project location has not been identified as an area subject to noise sources above the City’s thresholds .
In addition, interior noise levels of less than 45 dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction
techniques. Impacts associated with exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, would be less than significant.
b) Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be from residential uses, which would not
involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases
in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short -term
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30
construction-related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of heavy equipment, such
as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound
levels allowed by City ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code), impacts associated with groundborne vibration and
noise would be less than significant.
c) As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves residential use, which is consistent with existing uses in
the project vicinity. Residential uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Operation of
the project would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial
changes to the existing noise environment. Other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity include other neighboring residential
developments. These uses will be partially shielded from noise generated by residential uses by distance (over 50 feet from
the single family units to the south of the site) and by the structures themselves. The proposed project would therefore have a
less than significant impact related to producing a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.
d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed multi-family residential
project. Noise levels during construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction.
Although there would be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts
would be less than significant because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels
allowed by City ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code).
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private
airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with
aircraft operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 31 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 31 --X--
1, 31 --X--
Evaluation:
a) The proposed project includes construction of a multi -family residential development, which would have the potential to
add to the population of the City. However, it is important to note that Land Use Element policy 1.10.2 (Residential Growth
Rate) indicates that the City shall manage its housing supply so that it does not exceed a growth rate of one percent per year,
on average, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very low or low incomes as defined by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for the City and County of San Luis Obispo and reflected in the City’s
Housing Element. The project site is designated for multi-family residential development under the General Plan, and is
zoned R-4 (high density residential). The proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the
site and in accordance with the housing needs identified for the City under anticipated community development under the
recently updated Land Use Element.
New employment generated by the proposed project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is
currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would
not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. The proposed project would not involve any other
components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan. Impacts are considered less
than significant.
b) The project proposes to demolish the outbuildings and non-historic additions of the historic Sanford House. Removal of
the additions and accessory residential structures would not be considered a substantial loss of housing since new housing is
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
proposed for development. Impacts are considered less than significant.
c) The site contains the Historic Sandford house and associated outbuilding which were converted into living quarters for a
Fraternity. As noted above, the outbuildings and non-historic additions will be replaced by higher density multi-family
residential development. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and this impact is considered less than significant.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1, 4,
9,31
X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
9,31
X--
c) Schools? 1, 4,
9,31
X--
d) Parks? 1, 4,
9,31
X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
9,31 X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
9,31
X--
Evaluation
Fire Protection: The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of San
Luis Obispo. The Fire Department is organized into five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention and Life Safety,
Training and Equipment, Administrative, and Support Services. In addition to providing fire and emergency services to the
city, SLOFD maintains an Emergency Services Contract with Cal Poly. Under the current contract, SLOFD provides fire and
emergency services to the university in return for a set annual fee.
Police Protection: The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection services within the city
limits. SLOPD is responsible for responding to calls for service, investigating crimes and arresting offenders, enforcing
traffic and other laws, and promoting community safety through crime prevention and school safety patrols. The Police
Department consists of two bureaus, Administration and Operations, each of which has four divisions. The Police
Department operates out of one main facility located at 1042 Walnut Street and a small additional office at 1016 Wal nut
Street.
Public Schools: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) serves an area between the coast and the Los
Padres National Forest, and from Morro Bay to the north and Arroyo Grande to the south. In total, the District operates ten
elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation high school, and an adult education facility. In
addition to the K 12 educational program, the SLCUSD offers a variety of additional educational programs, including:
cooperative preschool, preschool early education, and parent participation. Within the San Luis Obispo LUCE Planning
Subarea, the District operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation high school.
a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services
over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already
served by the City for fire protection. Although the project would have the potential to alter the number of housing units and
population in the City, the development of the site is consistent with the anticipated land use for the site and proposed
development would be consistent with the high density residential zoning for the site and consistent with the neighboring
residential uses. As stated in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, adherence to the Safety Element Policy 3.0 (Adequate Fire
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32
Services) will reduce impacts related to increased fire protection needs. This impact is considered less than significant.
b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The subject
property is currently developed with residential uses and redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased
patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. The project site is designated for
multi-family residential development under the General Plan, and is zoned R -4 (high density residential). The proposed
project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the site and in accordance with anticipated community
development in accordance with the recently updated Land Use Element. There would be no physical impacts related to the
construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c) Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be
directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities.
Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the
proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
d) Because the proposed project would result in a minor increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to
the City’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation -oriented
public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. In addition, the project includes outdoor common space for
residents, including the use of the remodeled Sandford House as amenity space for residents. The proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on parks.
e, f) As noted above, because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase
in users relative to the City’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation
infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected . The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and other public facilities.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 10,
31 X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 10,
31 X--
Evaluation:
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, there are 26 parks in the city, consisting of eight community parks, 10
neighborhood parks, and eight mini parks. There are also six joint use facilities, and several recreation centers and special
facilities (e.g., Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the SLO Swim Center). There are currently approximately 151.65 acres of
parkland in the City, of which 33.53 acres are neighborhood parks. In addition to developed parks, the City owns or manages
over 6,970 acres of open space within and adjacent to San Luis Obispo, some of which provide trails that accommodate
hiking and mountain biking.
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, no significant
recreational impacts are expected to occur with redevelopment of the site. Park Land In -Lieu fees will be required to be paid
to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy.
Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreational facilities. Impacts are conside red
less than significant.
b) The project includes outdoor recreational common areas, including the use of the remodeled Sandford House for amenity
space for residents. The environmental impacts of these facilities are included in the analysis of the project’s impacts as a
whole, and have been found to be either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This impact
is considered less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2,12,
21,31
X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2,
4, 31
X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
12, 31
X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
e.g. farm equipment)?
2, 21,
28, 31 X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 31 --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2,31
X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the City is accessed primarily by roadways including US 101, State Route
SR) 1 and SR 227. Routes of regional significance providing access include Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Road, Broad
Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local roadway system is
characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts of the City.
The City’s Circulation Element defines street classifications for all City roadways and establishes maximum ADT and LOS
thresholds. Most of the streets in the immediate project area are identified as Local Residential Streets with the exception of
Ramona which is classified as a Residential Collector Street.
a, b) Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 1, located east of the project site, and Highway 101, located
southeast of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Palomar Avenue. All roadways in the immediate
project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking.
Based on ITE Trip Generation Rates, the project is estimated to generate 220 daily trips and 20 pm peak hour trips. This is
consistent with the City’s General Plan EIR which evaluated traffic conditions assuming this level of development. No
impacts to the immediate area were identified during that evaluation. The LUCE Update EIR evaluated LOS for the
residential and collector streets as shown in Table 1 below. The estimated number of daily trips and peak hours for the project
do not exceed the maximum LOS of the updated Circulation Element and therefore did not trigger a separate traffic study.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34
Table 1. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards (City of San Luis Obispo General Plan)
Descriptions of Street Types Maximum ADT/LOS Desired Maximum Speeds
Local Residential Streets directly serve residential
development that front them and channel traffic to
residential collector streets.
1,500 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets collect traffic from
residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 25 mph
As prescribed by the General Plan and required by zoning regulations the project would complete its Luneta Street frontage
improvements allowing the road to be open to through traffic . The project and its required frontage improvements would
have no significant impacts as defined under the City’s Circulation Element. It is important to note that the project will also
contribute to overall impact mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation
Impact Fee program, further reducing impact levels.
Currently the City is evaluating an amendment to the General Plan eliminating the Luneta Street connection. Therefore, the
required Luneta frontage improvements would be deferred until that amendment comes to resolution.
c) The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. No impact.
d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, with the exception of completing the Luneta Drive
connection per code requirement and as prescribed by the General Plan, and the addition of a landscaped median in the
portion of the Luneta Drive fronting the subject parcel for traffic calming and aesthetic purposes . The project driveways
would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve the project. Because the
project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. No impact.
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal (December 2015) to ensure adequate emergency access has been
provided. As proposed, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or
substantially increase traffic on local streets in a way that would negatively affect emergency access. In fact, the completing
the Luneta Drive connection would increase access to the site and connectivity in the local street system. Therefore, the
proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. No impact.
f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within an urbanized
area, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. Ramona Street is served by SLO Transit, the City bus agency and bus
lines are located within walking distance (Ramona and Broad Streets) that allows public transportation services to the
Downtown and Cal Poly campus. City standards for an R-4 zone require provisions of on-site bicycle storage to be provided
at a rate of 5% of required auto spaces. The proposed project includes 66 long term bicycle parking spaces and 22 short term
bicycle parking spaces, consistent with City policy. No impact.
Conclusion: Transportation/circulation impacts are considered less than significant.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k)?
X--
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
X--
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
35
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Evaluation
On February 22, 2016 local Native American tribal groups that have a cultural and traditional affiliation to the area of the
City of San Luis Obispo were formally noticed that the project application for 71 Palomar was deemed complete and invited
to provide consultation on the proposed project.
a) The project site is identified as a City Master List of Historic Resource and referred to as the historic Sandford House. A
cultural resources evaluation was provided by Applied Earthworks (October 2015) for the site and the impacts of the
proposed project and subsequent mitigation measures are discussed in Section 5 of this document. The Historic Evaluation
included a record search of the site and the surrounding area and found that no significant materials were recorded (Applied
Earthworks, October 2015). No tribal groups requested a consultation on the project, however Applied Earthworks received
comments that locations near downtown can be sensitive and that sensitively training be mandatory for all construction
personal as well as the project provide an onsite archaeological monitor during ground disturbance. Mitigation Measure CR 1
has been included as part of Section 5 above which states that a formal monitoring plan shall be prepared consistent with the
City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines and approved by the City prior to building permit approval.
Therefore, the project will have less then significant impact.
b) Applied Earthworks (October 2015) conducted a records search, archival research, field surveys and outreach to Native
American groups with interest and knowledge about the area. No information was presented or records were found that
identified that the site as a significant resource to a California Native American tribe. No impact.
Conclusion: Tribal Cultural Resource impact are considered to be less then significant.
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
c) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,16,
31
X--
d) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
7,16,
27,
31,
32, 33
X--
e) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
7,16,
27, 31
X--
f) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
7,16,
31
X--
g) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
5,
7,16,
31,
32, 33
X--
h) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
5, 8,
31
X--
i) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
5, 8,
31
X--
Evaluation
Water: As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department provides potable and
recycled water to the community and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City
is the sole water provider within the city limits and most of the City’s water is supplied from multiple surface water sources.
However, the City also uses groundwater to supplement surface water supplies and recycled water is used to supplement
irrigation demand. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater Element in 2016, the City Council reaffirmed the
policy for a multi source water supply. Consistent with the multi source water supply concept, the City obtains water from
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
36
five sources:
Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 6,940 AF/year
Nacimiento Reservoir: 5,482 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit
Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 187 AF/year
Wastewater: The wastewater system for the City includes facilities for wastewater collection and treatment. The City’s
collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to properties
within the city limits, with the exception of a few residential properties located just outside of the city limits, Cal Poly San
Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 14,400 service connections.
The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) processes wastewater in accordance with the standards set by the
State’s RWQCB. The WRRF removes solids, reduces the amount of nutrients, and eliminates bacteria in the treate d
wastewater, which is then discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. The WRRF is designed for an average dry weather flow
capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. In 2015, average flows to
the WRRF were approximately 3.5 MGD.
Solid Waste: The City’s Utilities Department is responsible for administering an exclusive franchise agreement with San
Luis Garbage Company to collect and dispose solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and industrial customers in
San Luis Obispo. This agreement also includes curbside recycling, and green waste service. There are three solid waste
disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County. Most solid waste collected in the city is disposed of at the Cold Canyon
Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2016) permitted to receive up to 1,650 tons of solid waste per day, with an
estimated remaining capacity of 14,500,000 cubic yards (60.1 percent remaining capacity). In 2015, the Cold Canyon
Landfill operator estimated the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2040.
a), b), c) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the projec t
site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities
which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. These impacts would be less than significant.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated under the recent
General Plan Update. As analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s
General Plan. The incremental change created by the proposed project would be less than significant. This project has been
reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
e) The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater
Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016. The WCSIRS identified capacity deficiencies
in the collection system during peak wet weather downstream of the project and have been identified as at risk for potentially
surcharging which could result in sanitary sewer overflows. Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor
condition will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection system and peak flow rates. With the required incorporation of
Mitigation Measure USS-1, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for size and access to
ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The location and
size of trash enclosures proposed for the project have been reviewed by the City and it has been determined that the trash
enclosures are sufficient in size to handle the demands of the proposed project.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of
materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The proposed project is required to reduce the waste stream
generated by development consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste
reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4384 ). A solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
37
materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated
by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. This impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity constrained portion
of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure
Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify,
demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the
City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s
wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by: (A) Sufficient reductions in wastewater flow within sub-basins A1, A2,
A3, A4, B.2 or B.3, commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project, to be achieved by the
verified replacement of compromised private sewer laterals, or public sewer mains, either by the developer, the City, or any
property owner located within the basins; (B) Participation in a sewer lateral replacement program or similar inflow and
infiltration reduction program to be developed by City, which is in place prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or (C)
Any other off-site sewer rehabilitation proposed by the developer approved by the Utilities Director, which will achieve a
reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project. The final
selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the
potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and hydrology and water quality, and
utilities will be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
X--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” The proposed
project is consistent with the existing Land Use Element and Zoning for high density residential development and the
cumulative impacts of developing this site were analyzed as a part of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) EIR. All
environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level
through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures
in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and
soils and hydrology and water quality, and utilities.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures in this Initial Study.
20. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
38
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for review at the City Community
Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following web site:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area
discussion. Where project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not addressed in the LUCE
Update EIR, original analysis has been provided and mitigation has been recommended to reduce impact levels as needed.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. 2013 California Building Code
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
17. Site Visit
18. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
23. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
24. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
25. Ordinance No.1130 (1989 Series)
26. Archeological Resource Inventory, Applied Earthworks, Inc. October 2015
27. Stormwater Control Plan. Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015
28. Project Plans
29. Applicant project statement/description
30. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm
31. San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. June 13, 2014.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
39
32. 2012 Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study
33. 2016 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon
request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
Attachments:
1. Site Vicinity/Project Location Map (Figure 1)
2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay (Figure 2)
3. Project Plans
4. Historic Evaluation Report by Applied Earthworks
5. Arborist Report by A&T Arborists
6. Aesthetic Analysis by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
7. Biological Peer Review by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
8. Arborist Report by Rincon Consultants, Inc.
9. Letter from Applied Earthworks regarding modified project design
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a
geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be
disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found
at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may
include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program
for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones
throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any
grading.
More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall
be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days
of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
40
Monitoring Plan, AQ-2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties
shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25
m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
41
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater
than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork
or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD
permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific
information regarding permitting requirements.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the
following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with
gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any
location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a
sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel
regulation.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
42
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be cut from
the site, but the final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific
standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ-5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor that idling control techniques
are being implemented to reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment during construction. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to
City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting
birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to
September 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds
covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the
disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work
shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The
buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species.
Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities
occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and
equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall
confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the
buffer.
Monitoring Plan, BIO-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of the Migratory bird monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans
shall call out the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project
site. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for
compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
43
and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of
existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be
conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access
to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall
be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.)
If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in
close coordination with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats
to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure. If a bat colony is
excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat as determined by a qualified biologist
shall be installed on the project site or at an approved location offsite. Prior to removal of any trees over
20-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to
determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal
bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW
shall install one-way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost
removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices
properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground,
and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.
Monitoring Plan, BIO-2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of bat monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans shall call out the
name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project site. Grading and
building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for compliance with the
mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors.
City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation
measures.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed
the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as
feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order
of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks,
and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree
Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting
and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist.
Monitoring Plan, BIO-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of the tree replanting and replacement plan per the mitigation measure above. Grading
and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Arborist for compliance with the mitigation measure
to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures.
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
44
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall
be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need to include a
summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring,
description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage
of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be
implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.
Monitoring Plan, CR-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and
requirements of the formal monitoring plan of the rehabilitation of the Historic Sandford House and
the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed
by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure, the City’s Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines, and project conditions to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for
contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance
with the above mitigation measure, including all requirements of the formal monitoring plan.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the
removal of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable
or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall
be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during
demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.
Monitoring Plan, CR 2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the removal
of the non-original additions of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above.
Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation
measure for removals to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City
inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford
House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house.
The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount
of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently
exists shall also be maintained.
Monitoring Plan, CR-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the
relocation of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building
plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to move the house
to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-
floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to
fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
45
located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the
event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Monitoring Plan, CR-4: Building plans shall show and outline all details of replacing the first floor
solarium windows of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Building plans
will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to replace the windows to
ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of
paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High -
pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that
damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.
Monitoring Plan, CR-5: Building plans shall show and outline all details of the method in which the
historic Sandford House will be cleaned and paint removed per the mitigation measure above.
Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to clean
and remove paint to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors.
City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation
measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New
Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction
and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the
Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed
or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Monitoring Plan, CR-6: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all architectural details,
location and massing of the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will
be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure and the approved architectural
plans to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc.
October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommend ed BMPs for
water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via
the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall
become required components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to
implement these design features and recommendation as set forth.
Monitoring Plan, HWQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the Stormwater Control Plan
as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction
ATTACHMENT 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ARCH-2193-2015
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
46
permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site during construction for continued compliance
with the above mitigation measure.
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity
constrained portion of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s
Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer
rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater
collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s
wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by: (A) Sufficient reductions in wastewater flow within
sub-basins A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3, commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed
by the project, to be achieved by the verified replacement of compromised private sewer laterals, or
public sewer mains, either by the developer, the City, or any property owner located within the basins;
B) Participation in a sewer lateral replacement program or similar inflow and infiltration reduction
program to be developed by City, which is in place prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or (C)
Any other off-site sewer rehabilitation proposed by the developer approved by the Utilities Director,
which will achieve a reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the additional wastewater flow
contributed by the project. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be
approved by the Utilities Director.
Monitoring Plan, USS-1: A sewer rehabilitation plan shall be developed in cooperation with Utilities
Staff per the mitigation measure above. The rehabilitation plan shall be shown on the public
improvement plans and reviewed by Utilities staff as part of the Building Permit application package
prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure, including all requirements of the sewer
rehabilitation plan.
ATTACHMENT 7
Site Location
Site Location
1 in = 1,500,000 ft
Figure 1
Site Vicintiy/SiteLocation1in = 8,000 ft
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Multi Family Residential Development
ATTACHMENT1
ATTACHMENT 7
71 Palomar Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development
City of San Luis Obispo
Figure 2
First Floor Site Plan/Aerial Overview
ATTACHMENT 7
W
W
W
W
26
4
4
FF
PO
DIUM
DE
C
K
25
3
0
FF
2ND
LE
V
EL
P
ARK
IN
G
D
ECK
24
4
0
FF
1
ST
LEVE
L
P
ARK
ING
DEC
K
26
4
2
F
S
26
8
5
FF
26
7
3
FG
26
7
8
F
G
26
4
3
F
S
PALOM A R A V E N U E
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
25
8
7
E
G
2
53
0
E
G
244
4
EG
51
9
0
0
S
F
A
R
E
A
EA
R
T
H
W
O
R
K
16
0
0
0
C
Y
C
U
T
50
C
Y
F
IL
L
20
M
A
X
C
U
T
5'
M
A
X
F
IL
L
LI
D
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
RE
Q
U
IR
E
M
E
N
T
S
T
IE
R
2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
U
T
IL
IZ
E
S
x
UN
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
R
E
T
E
N
T
IO
N
x
DI
S
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D
D
O
W
N
S
P
O
U
T
S
x
VE
G
E
T
A
T
E
D
S
W
A
L
E
S
x
OP
E
N
C
E
L
L
B
L
O
C
K
P
A
V
IN
G
27
3
1
TW
FS
26
4
3
T
W
26
4
3
EG
26
4
3
T
W
2
58
6
E
G
26
4
2
T
W
SI
TE
C
O
N
S
TR
U
C
T
IO
N
N
O
TE
S
LIM
ITS
OF
PODIU
M
DECK
PA
RKING
ARE
A
ROO
F
RE
MOVE
EXISTING
RETA
INING
W
ALL
PR
OPOSED
5
MAX
RETAINING
W
ALL
EX
IST
ING
R
ETAINING
W
A
LL
TO
R
EM
A
IN
NO
T
USED
NO
T
US
ED
EX
IST
ING
POW
ER
POLE
TO
RE
M
AIN
EX
IST
ING
AC
P
AVEM
ENT
AND
AC
D
IKE
LA
NDSC
APE
M
EDIA
N
RE
LOCATED
HISTO
RICAL
S
TRUCTUR
E
PR
OPOSED
DRAIN
INLET
SEE
SHEET
C
3
1
FOR
UNDER
GROUND
IM
PR
EX
IST
ING
R
ESIDENTIAL
DRIVEW
AY
PR
OPOSED
PROPE
RTY
LIN
E
BI
O
FILTRAT
ION
R
AIN
G
A
RDEN
SI
DE
W
A
L
K
U
NDE
RDRA
IN
PER
C
ITY
OF
SAN
LU
IS
OBISPO
S
TAND
ARD
3
DR
IV
EW
AY
PER
SAN
LUIS
OBISPO
CITY
STANDAR
D
2110
21
20
AND
21
EX
IST
ING
PARKING
LOT
EX
IST
ING
D
ROP
INLET
TO
REM
AIN
20
W
IDE
DRIVEW
AY
RAMP
PER
SAN
LUIS
OBISPO
CITY
STANDARD
2
1
LIM
ITS
OF
IN
T
ERIOR
PAR
KING
GAR
AGE
RAM
P
EX
IST
ING
TREES
TO
RE
MAIN
TR
ANSF
ORM
ER
PAD
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
9
10
12
12
12
12
12
6'S/
W
12
TR
A
VE
L
LA
N
E
12ME
DIA
N
12
TR
AV
EL
LA
NE
6'EX
IST
S/
W
1
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
R
O
A
D
S
E
C
T
IO
N
SC
ALE
1
4
HO
R
IZO
NTAL
1"
4
V
ERT
ICAL
13
27
2
3
TC
MA
T
C
H
E
XIS
T
2
74
3
TC
27
3
7
T
C
27
1
6
T
C
27
0
5
T
C
2
71
2
T
C
26
7
6
TC
26
8
3
TC
264
9
TC
263
3
T
C
MA
T
CH
EX
IST
25
1
7
BSW
25
0
3
BSW
24
8
5
B
SW
24
7
1
B
SW
24
6
2
F
S
@
D
W
Y
24
6
2
FS
@
DW
Y
25
3
0
FS
@
DW
Y
25
3
0
FS
@
DW
Y
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
6.
0
1
3
8
12
14.
8
19
19
18.00'
24
4
0
FS
@
D
W
Y
24
4
0
F
S
@
D
W
Y
20
53653535
PR
O
PO
S
E
D
4
M
A
X
RE
TA
IN
IN
G
W
AL
L
CU
T
W
A
LL
PR
O
P
O
SE
D
5
M
A
X
RE
TA
IN
IN
G
W
A
LL
F
ILL
W
A
LL
2'
SA
W
C
U
T
VAR
IES
V
AR
IES
VA
R
IE
S
35
21
22
27
0
9
FS
26
8
0
FF
26
8
0
F
F
26
8
5
FF
27
1
0
FF
26
4
8
FG
26
4
3
FG
26
7
8
F
G
26
7
9
FG
11
11
11
1111
1111
11
11
11
11
27
0
9
FS
26
8
4
FS
26
6
9
FG
BU
IL
D
IN
G
C
BU
IL
DIN
G
D
BU
IL
DIN
G
F
BU
IL
D
IN
G
E
BU
IL
D
ING
A
BU
ILDING
B
BU
ILD
IN
G
G
1 ~
26
6
5
FG
26
4
3
F
G
26
4
0
FS
26
5
4
F
G
26
9
5
F
S
26
7
8
FS
26
8
8
FS
26
7
5
F
S
S
S
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDS
PALO M A R A V E N U E
UN
D
ER
G
R
O
U
N
D
RE
TE
N
TIO
N
CH
A
M
B
E
R
S
S
IZE
AN
D
TY
P
E
TB
D
TY
P
TI
E
IN
TO
EX
IS
T
6"
S
EW
E
R
1
N
E
W
2
D
O
M
E
S
TIC
ME
T
E
R
SITE
TO
BE
SU
B
M
E
T
ER
E
D
B
E
Y
O
N
D
TH
IS
P
O
IN
T
TI
E
IN
TO
E
X
IST
10
W
A
TE
R
CL
E
A
N
O
U
T
TY
P
ST
O
R
M
D
R
A
IN
OV
E
R
FLO
W
S
TO
ST
R
EE
T
V
IA
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
UN
D
E
R
D
R
A
IN
4"
F
IR
E
W
A
T
E
R
DD
C
V
A
N
D
F
D
C
AS
S
E
M
B
LY
LA
N
D
S
C
A
PE
SC
R
EE
N
E
D
EX
IS
T
FIR
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
7
5
F
R
O
M
P
L
150
F
R
O
M
P
L
E
XIS
T
F
IR
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
RE
U
SE
1
E
X
IS
T
DO
M
E
S
T
IC
M
E
TE
R
AN
D
1
E
X
IST
IR
R
IG
A
TIO
N
ME
TE
R
NE
W
P
A
D
MO
U
N
TED
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
LU
N
E
T
A
D
R
IV
E
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
IR
R
IG
A
T
IO
N
N
O
TE
S
IN
STA
LL
W
AT
ER
M
ETER
FOR
CITY
REGU
LATED
LAND
SC
IN
STALL
IR
RIGATION
SERVICE
ASSEM
BLY
PER
C
ITY
STAND
IN
STALL
IR
RIGATION
CONTROLLER
PER
C
ITY
STANDAR
D
D
IR
RIGATION
SERVICE
EX
ISTING
PG
E
POW
ER
PO
LE
EX
ISTING
W
ATER
M
AIN
PR
OPO
SED
FIRE
W
AT
E
R
LINE
EX
ISTING
SEW
ER
M
AIN
4"
PV
C
SLEEVE
2
1
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
HD
P
E
S
TO
R
M
D
R
A
IN
SI
ZES
V
A
R
Y
T
Y
P
HD
P
E
S
TO
R
M
D
R
A
IN
SI
Z
E
S
V
A
R
Y
TY
P
SD
R
35
P
VC
SE
W
E
R
SIZE
VA
R
IE
S
TY
P
26
4
4
F
F
PODIUM
DECK
25
3
0
FF
2ND
LE
VE
L
P
ARK
IN
G
D
ECK
24
4
0
F
F
1
ST
L
EVE
L
PA
R
KING
DE
C
K
26
8
5
F
F
26
8
0
FF
26
8
0
FF
26
8
5
FF
27
1
0
F
F
BU
IL
D
IN
G
C
BU
IL
D
ING
D
BU
IL
D
ING
F
BU
IL
D
IN
G
E
BU
ILDING
A
BU
ILDIN
G
B
BU
ILD
IN
G
G
USGS San Luis Obispo 7.5-min. quad
1.7 acres
Keywords: Sandford House
Archaeological Resource Inventory,
Significance Evaluation, and Design Review
71 Palomar Avenue
Assessor’s Parcel No. 052-162-007),
San Luis Obispo, California
James Jenks, Aubrie Morlet, Marc Linder, and Donald Faxon
Prepared By
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Submitted To
LR Development Group
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
October 2015
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue iii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
LR Development Group proposes to relocate and rehabilitate the historic Sandford House and
construct a new 41-unit apartment building complex at 71 Palomar Avenue in San Luis Obispo,
California (Assessor’s Parcel No. 052-162-007). The Sandford House is included on the City of
San Luis Obispo (City) Master List of Historic Resources. According to the City of San Luis
Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01), the Master List
includes only “the most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age,
architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important person or events in
the city’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070.” As a City
Master List property, the building qualifies as a historical resource under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The relocation and rehabilitation of the Sandford House and proposed new construction must
comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and must conform to the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines updated in November 2010. These guidelines state that a
project will not have a significant impact on historical resources if it complies with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The city-wide Historic Resources Survey conducted in 1983 found the Sandford House
significant for its architectural merits and age, placing the property on the City’s Master List.
While a State of California Historic Resources Inventory form was minimally completed during
the 1983 survey, no significance evaluation was performed and no period of significance was
established. The significance and associated period of significance must be defined to identify
the character-defining features of the Sandford House correctly and evaluate the proposed project
for consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines.
This document reports the results of archaeological and architectural surveys of the subject
property, evaluates the historical significance of the subject property, and provides a design
review of the proposed rehabilitation of the Sandford House and new construction.
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
iv Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue v
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................4
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................4
CULTURAL CONTEXT ..................................................................................................5
2.1 PREHISTORY .........................................................................................................5
2.2 ETHNOGRAPHY....................................................................................................8
2.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...........................................................................................8
STUDY METHODS.........................................................................................................13
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................13
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .....................................................................................13
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................14
3.4 FIELD SURVEY METHODS ...............................................................................14
RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY ..........................15
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ..........................................................................15
4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH....................................................................15
4.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................15
4.4 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................16
DESCRIPTION OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES ..................................17
5.1 HISTORICAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY ...........................................17
5.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS ...................................................................................21
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................28
6.1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE ........................................................................................................28
6.2 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION .........................................................................30
6.2.1 Period of Significance ................................................................................30
6.2.2 Architectural Criteria .................................................................................31
6.2.3 Historic Criteria .........................................................................................32
6.2.4 Integrity ......................................................................................................33
DESIGN REVIEW...........................................................................................................35
7.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE......................................................35
7.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES .....................................................36
7.3 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS .........................................36
7.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................37
7.4.1 Relocation and Reuse of the Sandford House (Main Residence) ..............37
7.4.2 Demolition of Two Accessory Buildings and Carport ..............................38
7.4.3 Construction of New Apartment Building . Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.5 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY RELOCATION CRITERIA ................................39
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
vi Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue
7.6 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PROGRAM GUIDELINES ...................................................................................40
7.6.1 Percent of Historic Resource to Be Preserved ...........................................40
7.6.2 Retention of Character-Defining Features .................................................40
7.6.3 Exterior Building Changes .........................................................................41
7.6.4 Interior Building Changes ..........................................................................41
7.6.5 Acquired Historic Appearance ...................................................................41
7.7 CONSISTENCY WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ..........41
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................47
8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................47
8.2 REMOVAL OF NONORIGINAL ADDITIONS ..................................................47
8.3 SANDFORD HOUSE WINDOW REPLACEMENT ...........................................48
8.4 MASSING, LOCATION, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF
THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ........................................................48
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................49
APPENDICES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Native American Outreach
D Cultural Resource Record Forms
E Design Plans
FIGURES
1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California ..................................................................2
1-2 Aerial overview of subject property and surrounding neighborhood ..................................3
5-1 A 1907 image, looking northwest from Terrace Hill, illustrates the early
character of the subject property landscape .................................................................19
5-2 Aerial image of the subject property in 1937 showing the unaltered
landscape in the immediate area around the 15.8-acre parcel .....................................19
5-3 Aerial image of the subject property in 1969 at the time of purchase by
Delta Tau ......................................................................................................................20
5-4 Rough 1976 aerial image of the subject property showing the multifamily
residential complexes to the west and north as well as Palomar Avenue
and Luneta Drive..........................................................................................................21
5-5 The Sandford House street-facing east façade ...................................................................22
5-6 Two-story solarium on the south (side) façade of the Sandford House .............................23
5-7 West (rear) façade of the Sandford House with a single-story addition on
the northwest corner of the building ............................................................................23
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue vii
FIGURES (continued)
5-8 North (side) façade of the Sandford House with wood deck and view of
the two-story addition ..................................................................................................24
5-9 North façade of two-story addition to the Sandford House; the single-story
addition is attached to the south ...................................................................................25
5-10 Enclosed garage with attached carport on the north façade ...............................................25
5-11 Secondary residential building southwest of the Sandford House .....................................26
7-1 Two nonoriginal additions to the rear of the Sandford House, looking
west. The proposed project will demolish both additions............................................38
7-2 View to the east demonstrating the north lawn where the east-west wing of
the apartment building is proposed for construction....................................................39
TABLES
4-1 Native Americans Contacted for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project ....................................16
5-1 Property Owners of 71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo ..............................................17
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
viii Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
INTRODUCTION
LR Development Group proposes to relocate and rehabilitate the historic Sandford House and
construct a new 41 unit apartment building at 71 Palomar Avenue in San Luis Obispo, California
Assessor’s Parcel No. [APN] 052-162-007). At the request of Mr. Loren Riehl of LR
Development Group, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resources study of the
proposed development between April and October, 2015.
The study area is located in Township 30 South, Range 12 East, in the northwest quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 27, within the municipal boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo
City) as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey San Luis Obispo 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure
1-1). The 1.17-acre project area is at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Avenue
and Luneta Drive (Figure 1-2). The subject property includes the circa 1895 Colonial Revival–
style Sandford House and two small accessory buildings that date to the mid twentieth century.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will require discretionary permits from the City and therefore must comply with the
City Historic Preservation Ordinance (City Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) and
conform to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (City Guidelines; 2010). An important
step in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and standards is the identification of
cultural resources within the project area. To this end, LRD Development retained Æ to perform
a Phase 1 archaeological study and a significance evaluation of the existing historical buildings
at 71 Palomar Avenue. As part of the archaeological study, Æ completed a records search at the
Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), conducted a Phase 1 surface inspection, and initiated
outreach to the local Native American community through contact with the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local groups and tribes. For the built environment, Æ
completed archival research; performed a field survey of the property; developed a property-
specific historic context; and evaluated the historical significance of the buildings on the
property. As the property contains a building included in the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources, the proposed project design is evaluated for consistency with the City Ordinance and
Guidelines.
The proposed project will relocate the existing residence to a lower position southeast of its
current location (Appendix E). The repositioning of the historic residence will, as proposed,
allow construction of a new 41-unit apartment building on the west and north portions of the
parcel. The new buildings will be both two and three stories, will consist of a mix of six studio,
one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom apartments. Parking will be entirely tucked-under the
north side of the complex. Non-original rear additions to the Sandford House will be removed,
and the residence, which currently serves as multifamily student housing, become amenity space
leasing, study hall, fitness room, etc.)for residents and management.
1
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California.
2
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 1-2 Aerial overview of subject property and surrounding neighborhood.
3
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Æ’s cultural resource study was performed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2, CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5, and PRC Section 5024.1, which establishes the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR). These statutes and guidelines require local agencies to take into account the
effects of projects on historical resources, including archaeological sites. Under the CEQA,
historical resources are defined as properties that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in
any local register and/or the CRHR.
1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
All Æ staff members who participated in this investigation meet the Secretary of Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for their respective roles. Barry A. Price (M.A.), a
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), served as principal investigator for the study. Æ
Senior Archaeologist Erin Enright (M.A., RPA) served as project archaeologist. She oversaw
archaeological fieldwork and reviewed this report. Marc Linder performed background research,
conducted tribal outreach, and prepared the field inventory and archaeological report sections. Æ
Architectural Historian James Jenks (M.A.) completed archival research and evaluated the
significance of the subject property, while Architectural Historian and Historic Preservation
Specialist Donald Faxon (M.A.) performed the design review for consistency with the Secretary
of Interior’s Standards. Æ Architectural Historian Aubrie Morlet (M.A.) provided peer review of
the report. Résumés for these key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report documenting the results of Æ’s study of 71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo, was
prepared in accordance with Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended
Contents and Format prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1990).
The document consists of nine chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes the
prehistoric and ethnographic cultural setting of the study area and provides the historic context.
Æ’s study methods, including background research, field investigations, and resource
documentation are described in Chapter 3. The findings of the cultural study are presented in
Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 presents the history and description of the built environment. The
significance of the built environment resources is evaluated in Chapter 6. The detailed design
review to assess the consistency of the proposed project with the City Ordinance and Guidelines
in provided in Chapter 7, and Chapter 8 contains recommendations for further project design
consistency. A complete listing of references cited is provided in Chapter 9. Qualifications of Æ
staff are presented in Appendix A. The results of the archaeological records search are included
as Appendix B. Native American communication is documented in Appendix C. The completed
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms for the cultural resources
recorded during this investigation are in Appendix D. Conceptual design drawings are provided
in Appendix E.
4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
CULTURAL CONTEXT
2.1 PREHISTORY
Most of the research into the prehistory of the Central Coast has concentrated on the Santa
Barbara Channel region, where the Barbareño Chumash developed a highly complex social
system during late prehistory. However recent studies regarding the prehistory and archaeology
of San Luis Obispo County have been conducted by Bertrando and Levulett (2004), Farquhar et
al. (2011), Fitzgerald (2000), Jones et al. (1994), Jones and Waugh (1995), and Mikkelsen et al.
2000). While it is clear that there are many differences between the Chumash groups living
north and south of Point Conception, there are some broad patterns of cultural change applicable
to both regions.
Regional chronology has been a source of debate among scholars, and San Luis Obispo County
still lacks a well-dated sequence. Early attempts at regional cultural chronology by Rogers
1929) and Olson (1930) divided prehistory into three periods. However, extensive
archaeological studies since then and development of more precise dating methods have allowed
many refinements to the regional chronology. Currently, the most common chronological
sequence—based on work by Erlandson and Colten (1991), Jones and Ferneau (2002), Jones et
al. (2007), and King (1990)—divides Central Coast prehistory into six periods:
Paleo-Indian (pre-8000 B.C. [11,000–8500 B.P.])
Early Holocene (8000–3500 B.C. [8500–5500 B.P.])
Early (3500–600 B.C. [5500–3000 B.P.])
Middle (600 B.C.–A.D. 1000 [3000–1000 B.P.])
Middle/Late Transition (A.D. 1000–1250 [1000–700 B.P.])
Late (A.D. 1250–1769 [700 B.P.–Historic])
The Paleo-Indian Period represents the earliest human occupations in the region, which began
prior to 10,000 years ago. Paleo-Indian sites throughout North America are known by the
representative fluted projectile points, crescents, large bifaces used as tools as well as flake
cores, and a distinctive assemblage of small flake tools. In the project area, however, this
representative Paleo-Indian assemblage has not been discovered; only three fluted points have
been reported from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, and all are isolated occurrences
unassociated with larger assemblages of tools or debris (Erlandson et al. 1987; Gibson 1996;
Mills et al. 2005). Sites on San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands have yielded numerous
radiocarbon dates of Paleo-Indian age but did not produce fluted points or other notable artifacts
Agenbroad et al. 2005; Erlandson et al. 1996). Nonetheless, these offshore sites provide clear
evidence of watercraft use by California’s earliest colonizers, and also offer tantalizing evidence
of pre-Clovis occupations.
5
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Another likely late Paleo-Indian site with a more robust artifact assemblage is CA-SBA-1547 on
Vandenberg Air Force Base (Lebow et al. 2014). Overall, inhabitants of the Central Coast during
the Paleo-Indian Period are thought to have lived in small groups with a relatively egalitarian
social organization and a forager-type land-use strategy (Erlandson 1994; Glassow 1996;
Greenwood 1972; Moratto 1984). In general, these early sites are characterized by a strong
maritime orientation and an apparent reliance on shellfish. There is a noted lack of ground stone
during this period, suggesting dependence on faunal over floral resources.
More conclusive evidence of human occupation has been found at sites dating to the early
Holocene, between 8000 and 5000 B.C. A growing number of early Holocene components have
been identified, most located in coastal or pericoastal settings. Two such components, at
CA-SLO-2 (Diablo Canyon) and CA-SLO-1797 (the Cross Creek Site), are radiocarbon dated
between 8300 and 6500 B.C., providing the earliest evidence for the widespread California
Milling Stone adaptive pattern (Greenwood 1972; Jones et al. 2009). The most common artifacts
in these assemblages are the eponymous milling slabs and handstones used to grind hard seeds
and process other foodstuffs. Choppers, core tools, and large bifaces also are common, while
side-notched dart points, pitted stones, simple bone awls, bipointed bone gorges, and possible
eccentric crescents occur in lesser frequencies. Population density likely remained low, although
settlements may have been semipermanent. Subsistence activities appeared to be aimed broadly
at a diverse spectrum of terrestrial and marine resources.
During this time, people appear to have subsisted largely on plants, shellfish, and some
vertebrate species using a seemingly simple and limited tool technology. Sites of this age are
notable for the prevalence of handstones and milling slabs and less abundant flaked tools and
projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:135). Archaeological components from central California
show substantial regional variability. Differences in site location, artifact assemblages, and
faunal remains suggest that populations were beginning to establish settlements tethered to the
unique characteristics of the local environment and adopt subsistence practices responsive to
local conditions. Obsidian from several of these components originated on the east side of the
Sierra Nevada, suggesting that long-distance trade networks were also established during this
era. Glassow (1990, 1996) infers that occupants of Vandenberg AFB sites during this time were
sedentary and had begun using a collector-type (i.e., logistically mobile) land-use strategy.
However, others have argued for a broader and less permanent subsistence base as
overexploitation of coastal resources pushed human residents toward the interior (Jones and
Richman 1995).
An important adaptive transition occurred along the Central Coast around 3500 B.C. (Jones et al.
2007; Price et al. 2012). Technological changes marking the transition into the Early Period
3500–600 B.C.) include an abundance of contracting-stemmed, Rossi square-stemmed, large
side-notched, and other large projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:138). Mortars and pestles were
introduced and gradually replaced manos and millingslabs as the primary plant processing tools,
indicating expansion of the subsistence base to include acorns (Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988).
Shell beads and obsidian materials indicate that trade between regions expanded (Jones et al.
1994). Site occupants appear more settled with more limited mobility, and they increasingly used
sites for resource procurement activities such as hunting, fishing, and plant material processing
Jones et al. 1994:62; Jones and Waugh 1995:132). Farquhar et al. (2011:14) argue that cultural
changes during this period are the result of population circumscription and economic
6
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
intensification. Echoing Rogers (1929), Price et al. (2012:36–37) suggest such constraints might
have been prompted by the arrival of new ancestral populations or adoption of new social norms
in the region.
The Middle Period (600 B.C.–A.D. 1000) is defined by the continued specialization in resource
exploitation and increased technological complexity. Contracting-stemmed points still existed,
while square-stemmed and large side-notched variants disappeared (Rogers 1929). The use of
mortars and pestles also increased. Additionally, expansion of trade is evident in the increased
quantity of obsidian, beads, and sea otter bones (Farquhar et al. 2011:15). Circular shell
fishhooks, which facilitated an increase in exploitation of fishes, appeared for the first time
Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988). The appearance of small leaf-shaped projectile points toward the
end of the period is evidence for the arrival of bow-and-arrow technology (Jones et al.
2007:139).
The Middle-Late Transitional Period (A.D. 1000–1250) represents a rapid change in artifact
assemblage as well as social and settlement organization (Arnold 1992). Large numbers of arrow
points appeared and most stemmed points disappeared (Jones et al. 2007:139). Hopper mortars
also made their first entry in the archaeological record (Farquhar et al. 2011:16).
At the same time, some evidence points to population decline and interregional trade collapse.
Obsidian is not found in sites dating to this period (Jones et al. 1994). Settlement shifted away
from the coast and people relocated to more interior settings (Jones 1995:215). Marine resources
appear to have been largely dropped from the diet and instead people relied more on terrestrial
resources such as small mammals and acorns (Farquhar et al. 2011:16). These changes may have
been caused by an environmental shift that increased sea and air temperatures, resulting in
decreased precipitation and overexploitation of resources (Arnold 1992; Graumlich 1993;
Kennett et al. 1997; Pisias 1978; Stine 1990).
However, social complexity became more noticeable during the Middle to Late Period transition,
when most archaeologists believe craft specialization and social ranking developed (Arnold
1992). The tomol (plank canoe), which was utilized by the Chumash south of Point Conception
where ocean conditions were more favorable, allowed for a greater reliance on marine resources,
particularly fish, for food. However, these changes are again more noticeable south of Point
Conception and may have been due, in part, to environmental changes occurring at that time.
Populations on the Central Coast expanded in the Late Period (A.D. 1250–1769) (Farquhar et al.
2011:17). More sites were occupied during this period than ever before (Jones et al. 2007:143). It
appears that the inhabitants of the Central Coast did not increase maritime subsistence activities
but instead continued to demonstrate a terrestrial focus, although residents of the interior still
made temporary forays to the coastal zone to procure marine products (Farquhar et al. 2011:17;
Jones et al. 2007:140; Price 2005; Price et al. 1997:4.13–4.14).
Artifact assemblages from the Late Period within San Luis Obispo County contain an abundance
of arrow points, small bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, and a variety of bead types
Price 2005). More shell and stone beads appeared in the Late Period, and they became a more
standardized and common form of exchange (Jones et al. 2007:140, 145). The use of handstones
and milling slabs continued during this period, but pestles and mortars occurred in greater
proportions (Jones and Waugh 1995:121). There are few records of Spanish encounters with the
7
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Chumash north of Point Conception (Glassow 1990). However, in San Luis Obispo County it
appears that the absence of the tomol and a lower population density contributed to a different
social and political organization than their neighbors to the south. Moreover, the absence of
imported obsidian after A.D. 1000 suggests a change in trade relationships that is likely
associated with the shift in settlement patterns (Jones et al. 1994).
Changes during the period are attributed to a number of factors, including demographics,
increased use of the bow and arrow, European diseases, severe droughts, and/or the emergence
of powerful leaders (Graumlich 1993; Jones et al. 1999; Jones and Ferneau 2002; Jones and
Kennett 1999; Jones et al. 2007:144; Stine 1994).
2.2 ETHNOGRAPHY
San Luis Obispo is within the area historically occupied by the Northern (Obispeño) Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumash people of California (Gibson 1991; Greenwood 1978; Kroeber
1976). The Northern Chumash occupied land from the Pacific coast east to the Coast Ranges and
from the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. Chumash material culture,
social organization, traditions and rituals, and cosmology have been described by many scholars
including Blackburn (1975), Grant (1993), Greenwood (1978), Hudson and Blackburn (1982–
1987), Hudson and Underhay (1978), Hudson et al. (1977), Johnson (1988), King (1990),
Woodman et al. (1991).
Various lines of historical and archaeological evidence indicate that the general population
density in the northern Chumash region was far less at the time of contact than in earlier
prehistoric times, and the Chumash population at Mission San Luis Obispo was never as high as
at the more southerly missions at Santa Barbara, Lompoc, and Santa Ynez (Greenwood 1978).
The Indian population at Mission San Luis Obispo reached its peak of 919 in 1803, as most of
the Northern Chumash left their native villages and moved into the mission or its outposts. By
the time of secularization in 1834, missionization, disease, and destruction of the native
subsistence base had forced the Chumash to give up most of their traditional lifeways. Only 170
Chumash remained at the mission in 1838.
2.3 HISTORIC CONTEXT
Euro-American settlement in the area began with the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo
de Tolosa in 1772. This site was selected for its level lands and “two little arroyos which
contained water with sufficient lands that with little trouble . . .could be irrigated from them”
Palóu 1926). Father Joseph Caveller quickly constructed a small wooden chapel that also served
as a shelter. In 1774, a more permanent church with adobe foundations and a superstructure of
shaved limbs and tules was erected. In 1776, a fire destroyed most of this structure as well as
many supplies. Two more fires in 1776 and 1781 caused similar destruction. Despite these
setbacks, the mission had recorded 877 baptisms and had regular surpluses of crops and livestock
by 1788 when construction of the current mission began. The friars tended a vineyard and
orchard, located southeast and northwest of mission, respectively. In the 1790s, an auxiliary
rancho with more than 17,000 acres of prime farm land was established at Santa Margarita
Krieger 1988).
8
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
California became a Mexican territory in 1822. Unlike their Spanish predecessors, the Mexican
authorities opened California’s door to foreign trade and immigration. The beneficiaries of this
policy were predominantly the missions, which could legally expanded their hide and tallow
trade to foreign merchants (Hackel 1998). The Colonization Act of 1824 and the Supplemental
Regulations of 1828 afforded private individuals—both Mexican nationals and immigrants—the
right to obtain title to land, although for the time being, mission lands were still not available.
Such immigrant-friendly laws directly contributed to the migration and eventual permanent
presence of Anglo-Americans in California. The Secularization Act of 1833 officially ended the
church’s monopoly of prime California lands and redistributed the mission estates to private
individuals in the form of land grants. During the early and mid-1840s, the former mission lands
of the county were carved up into large ranchos, each totaling several thousand acres (Krieger
1988:41–43). Some of the recipients of these Mexican land grants were Yankee sea captains, like
William Dana and John Wilson, who had established themselves in the San Luis Obispo area in
the previous decades.
San Luis Obispo County was officially established at the time of California statehood in 1850.
That same year, William R. Hutton was authorized by the Court of Sessions to survey and lay
out the town of San Luis Obispo. The main street, Monterey Street, was to be 20 yards wide and
all other streets were to be 15 yards wide. This grid was laid out without respect to most standing
buildings and structures, many of which were adobe residences or decaying mission
outbuildings. The new street grid often left these older buildings at odd angles to the grid, or
worse, in the right-of-way of the surveyed streets. However, a large number of these streets were
not opened until decades after the initial survey, so many of the mission and Mexican period
buildings remained until the 1870s. Many settlers in the town boundaries had occupied or owned
their lands since before the founding of the county, but there was no legal documentation of title.
In March of 1868, an act to settle the title of lands in San Luis Obispo was passed by the
California Legislature, and residents began submitting lot petitions. In 1876, the city was
incorporated.
As with any region, commercial and urban growth in San Luis Obispo County was intimately
intertwined with the development of its transportation network. In 1870 the first county road
connected San Luis Obispo and San Simeon, and a road over Cuesta Pass was constructed by
1877 (Krieger 1988:75–76). In terms of shipping, however, the most important node in county
was Port Harford (later called Port San Luis), and for many years the large-scale import and
export of goods was handled through San Luis Obispo Bay. The bay offered a deep harbor,
where large steamers could unload passengers and freight, and the high promontory of Point San
Luis shielded the port from storms, particularly in the cove just northwest of the point where
John Harford built his 540-foot pier in 1873 (Best 1992:11–13). In 1875–1876, a group of San
Francisco investors, later organized as the Pacific Coast Steamship Company, purchased
Harford’s Wharf and constructed a short railroad line beginning at San Luis Obispo Bay and
terminating in the southwest part of town (Krieger 1988:57). Shortly afterward, a train terminal
was built at the southeast corner of Higuera and South streets.
In 1881 the Pacific Coast Steamship Company set out to extend the railroad southward from San
Luis Obispo into Santa Barbara County (Best 1992:24–41). One year later, the steamship
company was purchased by the Oregon Improvement Company, a Seattle-based lumber and coal
concern that reorganized its newly acquired rail assets into the Pacific Coast Railway Company.
9
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Work continued on the narrow-gauge railway, and by 1883 the track was completed connecting
Port Harford to San Luis Obispo and then to Los Alamos, thus providing a reliable shipping link
to farmers and dairymen along the way. In 1887, the line reached Los Olivos and the fertile
Santa Ynez Valley.
The Oregon Improvement Company’s rail/steamer system facilitated an interregional trade
network that had considerable effect on the county’s economy. Along with incoming coal and
manufactured goods, timber from the northwest arrived in San Luis Obispo, where it was
processed by the lumber mills and stored at the yard near the Pacific Coast Railway station or
distributed to other towns serviced by the railroad. Outgoing grain and dairy products shipped
from points along the Pacific Coast line to San Luis Obispo Bay were loaded on steamers bound
for San Francisco. An entry in the 1889 Tribune (Tognazzini 1989) gives some indication of the
volume and diversity of goods passing through Port Harford in 1888, which included exported
grain, beans, dairy products, livestock, hides, pelts, and wool as well as imported lumber, coal,
general merchandise, and agricultural implements. The article adds that the demand for
bituminous ore, used in the construction of roads, was increasing rapidly and that 57,175
passengers were carried by the Pacific Coast Railway during that year alone.
Despite the brisk pace of business, a large part of the Central Coast was still relatively isolated
from the rest of the state in the early 1890s. Travel between San Luis Obispo and Los Olivos was
made easy and affordable by the Pacific Coast Railway Company; but before 1894, reaching
destinations outside the region meant riding the stagecoach to Templeton or Santa Barbara to
catch the Southern Pacific Railroad or, alternatively, taking a steamer out of Port Harford bound
for San Francisco or one of the other ports of call along the California coast (Best 1992:42;
Tognazzini 1991).
Much of that changed when the Southern Pacific Railroad rolled into San Luis Obispo in 1894.
The Oregon Improvement Company, which was reorganized as the Pacific Coast Company in
1897, now faced competition from the unquestioned leader of the rail industry. By 1901—when
the Southern Pacific reached Santa Barbara, thereby establishing a continuous line between San
Francisco and Los Angeles—passenger traffic out of Port Harford had all but evaporated (Best
1992:51). In terms of freight business and intraregional passenger travel, however, the Southern
Pacific and the Pacific Coast Railway not only coexisted for many years but formed an amicable
relationship. The two railroads coordinated their time tables to facilitate interrail transfers, and a
spur line was built along South Street between the Pacific Coast depot and the Southern Pacific
or Ramona) depot between Marsh and Higuera on Johnson. The Pacific Coast Railway
Company enjoyed some of its best freight years during the latter part of the 1890s (Tognazzini
1996, 1999).
With the advent of the automobile age and the construction of U.S. Highway 101 through town,
San Luis Obispo became a favorite overnight stop for motorists traveling between the San
Francisco Bay area and southern California. Motels and car-related businesses (e.g., gas stations,
repair shops) sprang up at the southwest and northeast ends of the town. California Polytechnic
State University was established in 1903 also was a great draw for the city. The vocational
school was established on 281 acres approximately 1 mile northeast of the project area. By 1903
the population of San Luis Obispo had grown to 4,500.
10
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
The city’s population swelled to 8,500 by 1926, and in the following year the National Guard
founded Camp Merriam on 2,000 acres. This became a U.S. Army infantry and artillery training
camp known as Camp San Luis between 1940 and 1941. Perhaps the most visible growth
occurred toward the end of World War II, when military installations established in response to
the war artificially inflated the local economy. By 1944 the population had reached 16,000
people. Many of those soldiers returned permanently to San Luis Obispo after the war (Krieger
1988:102–104), and the city’s growing population pushed out beyond the borders of town.
11
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
12
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
STUDY METHODS
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
On April 7, 2015, Æ obtained a records search from the Central Coast Information Center
CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System housed at the University of
California, Santa Barbara (Appendix B). Information Center staff examined site record files,
location maps, and other materials to identify previously recorded resources within 0.25 mile of
the project area. Previous surveys within the project area were also examined. Data sources also
included the Historic Property Data File, the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historical Resources, the listing of California Historical Landmarks, the California
Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historical Interest.
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Æ Architectural Historian James Jenks conducted archival research in several City repositories.
Research focused on historical maps, historical photographs, written histories, previous cultural
resource surveys, and official built environment records of San Luis Obispo County and the City.
The following repositories were consulted for historical data regarding the subject parcel:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor;
San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building;
San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder, San Luis Obispo;
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department;
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department;
San Luis Obispo Public Library, Local History Room;
Special Collections & Archives and the GIS-Data Studio, Kennedy Library,
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (CalPoly);
Earth Sciences and Map Library, University of California, Berkeley; and
History Center of San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo.
Aerial images and historical maps were essential to identifying the growth and development of
the property and surrounding landscape. The libraries at CalPoly and University of California,
Berkeley provided aerial photographs of the study vicinity. The USGS website provided
historical maps dating from 1897 to 1965. Jenks also reviewed online records maintained by the
Bureau of Land Management for General Land Office (GLO) patent and survey map data for the
subject parcel. He also examined county plat maps prepared in 1874 and 1913 that were
available at the San Luis Obispo County Library Local History Room. Additionally, Jenks
13
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
consulted online historical land and tax information maintained by the San Luis Obispo County
Genealogical Society.
Research at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s office provided building records, sketch
maps, and a partial list of subject property ownership. The County Assessor’s office also
provided city maps which illustrated changes in the size of the parcel and development of
adjacent roads and subdivisions. Records from the City Community Development Department
provided permit history for alterations dating back to the early 1950s, when city boundaries
expanded to include the subject property. The Community Development Department also
provided the file associated with the property’s listing on the City’s Master List. The file
included handwritten notes regarding the chain of ownership and a brief architectural description
of the residence on a State of California Historic Resources Inventory form. City and county
directories on file at the San Luis Obispo County Library and History Center of San Luis Obispo
County provided names and background information for some of the individuals known to reside
at the subject property. U.S. Census records and voter registration books, accessed through
online subscription services, provided additional biographical information on past owners.
3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On May 18, 2015, Æ contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
to determine if any sites recorded in the agency’s Sacred Lands File occur in or near the project
area. On June 22, 2015, the NAHC supplied a list of local Native American individuals and/or
groups with interests and knowledge about the area (Appendix C). Æ contacted those included
on the list by letter and telephone to request comments or information about the study area (see
Section 4.2).
3.4 FIELD SURVEY METHODS
On May 28, 2015, Æ Staff Archaeologist Marc Linder conducted an intensive pedestrian survey
of the subject parcel to identify any archaeological or historical resources that may be impacted
by future development. The survey was performed by walking parallel transects spaced 5 meters
apart, paying extra attention to exposed ground not obscured by structures, landscaping, and
other vegetation. Rodent burrows and mechanical cuts were also examined carefully for
archaeological remains.
On May 28, 2015, Æ Architectural Historian James Jenks conducted an architectural field survey
of the subject property. Using a digital camera, Jenks photographed the surrounding
neighborhood, property landscape, main residence and two ancillary buildings. The subject
buildings are recorded on a California DPR Primary Record (523A) and Building, Structure, and
Object Record (523B). The completed forms describe the buildings’ attributes, features, and
condition, and summarize Æ’s evaluation of significance for built environment resources
Appendix D). Results of both field survey and archival research were used to interpret the
historic context and determine the original physical characteristics of the existing buildings.
14
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The CCIC records search revealed that no prior cultural resources investigations have been
conducted within the current project area; however, seven previous investigations were
conducted within 0.25 mile (Appendix B). The search also revealed that no archaeological sites
have been documented within 0.25 mile of the project area.
Two previous cultural resources investigations of note were conducted in proximity to the
project area. In 1997, Thor Conway conducted an archaeological survey followed by Phase 2
testing at 61 Broad Street, just one city block east of the current project area. His study
concluded that the parcel contains no surface or subsurface archaeological materials. Ethan
Bertrando conducted an additional study in 1997 on a parcel of land one city block north of the
current project area. This study included a records search and surface survey. Historic artifacts
were noted; however, no significant cultural materials were recorded.
4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
On June 22, 2015, the NAHC responded to Æ’s information request and indicated that a search
of their Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources
in the immediate project area. The lack of information in the NAHC files does not indicate
conclusively that tribal resources are not present, and they recommended contacting local groups
or individuals who might have additional information on the study area (Appendix C).
On June 23, 2015, Æ archaeologist Simone M. Schinsing sent notification letters to each of the
individuals on the NAHC list requesting their comments and providing contact information to
direct any concerns or comments they may have (see Appendix C). Æ received three responses
from local tribal representatives (Table 4-1). Lei Lynn Odom stressed how locations near
downtown can be sensitive. Chairman Mona Olivas Tucker of theyak tityu tityu Northern
Chumash Tribe suggested that sensitivity training be mandatory for all construction personnel as
well as an onsite archaeological monitor during ground disturbance.
4.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Approximately 50 percent of the project area was accessible or not otherwise obscured by
structures or pavement during Æ’s pedestrian survey of 71 Palomar Avenue on May 28, 2015.
The exposed ground surface afforded approximately 50 percent visibility, limited by grass and
other landscaping. No prehistoric or historical deposits were noted in this investigation; however,
a rectangular concrete foundation was observed along the property’s southern edge. This
foundation likely belonged to a water tank or cistern used by past residents. The property
owner’s representative stated that the tank had burned down sometime in the 1970s (Victor
Johnson, personal communication 2015). This foundation, likely dating to construction of the
original residence circa 1895, constitutes a historical feature and required further documentation.
15
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Table 4-1
Native Americans Contacted for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project
Contact Affiliation
Letter
Sent
Phone
Call Results
Mona Olivas Tucker,
yak tityu tityu—Northern
Chumash Tribe
Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Suggested sensitivity training for all construction
personnel, and recommends an archaeological
monitor onsite during ground disturbance.
Matthew Darian Goldman Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 No message machine.
Fred Collins, Northern
Chumash Tribal Council
Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Left a message; no response to date.
Lei Lynn Odom Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Odom stated that anything near downtown San Luis
Obispo can be sensitive.
Peggy Odom Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Lei Lynn spoke for Peggy.
Chief Mark Steven Vigil
San Luis Obispo County
Chumash Council
Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Left a message; no response to date.
PeuYoKo Perez Chumash 6/23/15 7/8/15 Left a message; no response to date.
Fred Segobia Chumash/
Salinan
6/23/15 7/8/15 Segobia requested that John Birch be called for
information relevant to the area. Birch knows of no
archaeological resources within the project area.
The only other anthropogenic materials observed were sparse modern glass, plastic, plaster, and
other scant structural debris; none of this material qualifies as a cultural resource. Features
observed during Æ’s survey of the built environment are described in Chapter 5.
Æ’s archaeologist returned to the property to document the foundation. The feature was mapped
with a handheld Trimble Geo XT Global Positioning System receiver with submeter accuracy
and documented on a DPR Archaeological Site Record form (Appendix D). The feature is near
the southwest corner of the property. The foundation is 16.5 feet long, 6.0 feet wide, and 2.0 feet
high. It is constructed of coarse (up to 5 inch) aggregate concrete. The feature includes a partial
8.5 inch thick) stem wall with a 32-inch-wide slab on the east side. The southern portion of this
foundation has been removed, presumably after that portion of the property was sold or possibly
during construction of Luneta Drive. Anecdotal evidence indicates the original wooden upper
structure burned down in the 1970s.
4.4 SUMMARY
This study found no evidence of prehistoric cultural deposits within the project area. Due to the
project’s proximity to a creek, there is a slightly elevated sensitivity for buried prehistoric
cultural resources. Additionally, historic-period use of the property increases the potential to
encounter buried historic deposits such as privies, sheet midden, or structural remains. No
additional archaeological testing is needed at this time; however, it is recommended that
construction monitoring occur during initial ground disturbance.
16
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
DESCRIPTION OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES
The City’s Master List of Historical Resources identifies the subject property at 71 Palomar
Avenue as the Sandford House. According to the property file located at the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development Department, the Sandford name was applied from an
unidentified historical source, but no additional information was provided. To verify the property
name and identify historical property owners, First American Title performed a title search using
data from the San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Based on GLO records,
recorded deeds, and assessor’s data, there have been 13 owners of the property (Table 5-1).
Ownership history and improvements to the subject property are further described below.
Table 5-1
Property Owners of 71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo
Date Owner Reference Source
1870 Encarnacion Bareras GLO patent data
July 1887 William M. Hersman County Clerk-Recorder deed data
September 1892 Reginald W. Sandford County Clerk-Recorder deed data
March 1899 Lottie J. Stewart County Clerk-Recorder deed data
September 1900 Ellen L. Spangenberg County Clerk-Recorder deed data
1903 William H. Schulze County Clerk-Recorder deed data
March 1909 Henry Baehr County Clerk-Recorder deed data
December 1919 Edward L. Elberg County Clerk-Recorder deed data
March 1928 Alexander and Agnes Taylor County Assessor data; County Clerk-Recorder
deed data
June 1951 Christina M. Jacobson County Assessor data; County Clerk-Recorder
deed data
December 1965 Leslie H. Hacker County Assessor data
February 1966 Alexander P. and Carolyn J. Quaglino County Assessor data
April 1969 Delta Chi (Tau) House Corp.County Assessor data
5.1 HISTORICAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
Historical research identified 13 owners of the subject property, although it does not appear that
the first three owners made any improvements to the property. GLO data demonstrates that the
subject property was originally patented in 1870 as part of an 80-acre acquisition by Encarnacion
Bareras (Bureau of Land Management 2015). Background research identified an Encarnacion
Bareras born in Mexico in 1811 who is listed in 1867 voter registration data as a ranchero
residing in San Luis Obispo (Great Register 1872). GLO surveys were undertaken of the subject
property and surrounding township, range, and section in 1867, 1877, 1889, and 1890. No
buildings are illustrated in Section 27 on any of the four survey maps (Bureau of Land
Management 2015). However, the 1897 USGS 15-minute topographical map of the area
illustrates a single building in close proximity to the subject property. The 1942 USGS map
17
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
appears to portray the same building, although it is unknown if these maps portray the subject
property.
Early ownership of the subject property is traced to William M. Hersman, a minister. In 1892,
Hersman sold the then 15.8-acre property to Reginald Wills-Sandford. Historical references to
Wills-Sandford indicate his position as a second lieutenant with the 4th Battalion, Gloucester
Regiment, a militia unit of the British Army. He resigned his commission in 1882 and, according
to 1930 U.S. Census data, immigrated to the United States the following year.
In March 1892, Wills-Sandford, then a resident of Arroyo Grande, wed Mary Woods Sperry at
St. Stephens Episcopal Church in San Luis Obispo. Sperry was the widow of Henry A. Sperry, a
prominent local rancher. Mary grew up in San Luis Obispo, the oldest child of the highly
successful Chauncey H. Phillips, one of the principal businessmen of late nineteenth century San
Luis Obispo (Angel 1883). Reginald and Mary resided in San Luis Obispo County until 1899;
the 1900 U.S. Census indicates the family had relocated to Santa Clara, California, where Wills-
Sandford was employed as an orchardist. While no specific information was located confirming
Wills-Sandford as the builder of the residence, the timeframe of Wills-Sandford’s ownership as
well as his affluence make it likely that the residence was constructed circa 1895 during his era
of ownership.
In 1899, Wills-Sandford sold the subject property to Lottie Stewart. No biographical information
was located regarding Stewart. Following her brief period of ownership, the subject property
passed to Ellen Spangenberg. She was the spouse of Ernest A. Spangenberg, originally from
Missouri. As an early businessman in San Luis Obispo, Spangenberg wasengaged in the “book
and drugs” trade, and from 1894 to 1906 he served as a court auditor for San Luis Obispo
County (Morrison and Haydon 1917). Spangenberg owned the property for just 3 years, selling
to W. H. Schulze in 1903.
German immigrant William Schulze came to the United States in 1866 (U.S. Census 1900) and
was working as a clothing merchant. Schultze andhis large family lived at the subject property
until 1909 (Figure 5-1), when it was sold to Henry Baehr. Baehr was a German immigrant and
bank bookkeeper (U.S. Census 1910) who owned the property for 10 years, the longest tenure of
any titleholder to that point. By the end of World War I, deed records indicate that the property
was owned by Edward Elberg, proprietor of a local hardware store.
In 1928, Alexander Taylor and his sister Agnes began residence on the subject property, which
remained 15.8 acres at the time of purchase. Born in 1881, Taylor was a farmer and dairyman.
He and Agnes were the children of dairy rancher Peter Taylor, described as “one of the most
highly respected citizens of San Luis Obispo County” (Morrison 1917).A Scottish immigrant,
Peter came to the United States in 1851, settling in New York. He arrived in San Luis Obispo
County in 1869 and established a dairy farm near Cambria. After he died, Alexander took over
management of the family ranch. Census data places Alexander in San Simeon, engaged in dairy
ranching (U.S. Census 1920), but by 1928 the Taylor siblings had purchased and were residing at
the subject property (Figure 5-2).
18
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 5-1 A 1907 image, looking northwest from Terrace Hill, illustrates the early character of
the subject property landscape. Although similar in location and appearance, the
prominent residence does not appear to be the Sandford House (courtesy, Special
Collections, Kennedy Library, CalPoly).
Figure 5-2 Aerial image of the subject property in 1937 showing the unaltered
landscape in the immediate area around the 15.8-acre parcel.
19
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
In 1951, County Assessor data documents sale of the property to Christina Jacobson. Born in
Colorado in 1904, she resided with her husband in San Luis Obispo where she was employed as
a bookkeeper at Valley Electric Company, a local radio and appliance dealer (U.S. Census 1930).
By 1940, Jacobson was manager of the company, which by that time was also serving as a radio
broadcast facility (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015). Historical references note
Jacobson’s pioneering role in bringing locally produced radio to the Central Coast. In May 1937,
Jacobson secured the first local Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license to begin
broadcasting KVEC-AM, the first local radio station on the Central Coast and the oldest
remaining radio station in San Luis Obispo County. The station’s call letters reflect its
beginnings as part of the Valley Electric Company. Jacobson was also a central figure in
bringing the first television station to the region, founding KVEC-TV in 1953. She sold both the
radio and television operations in 1956. Jacobson died in 1964, while still in residence at the
subject property (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015).
Leslie Hacker, KVEC station manager under Jacobson and later a partner in the enterprise (San
Luis Obispo County History Center 2015), appears to have briefly assumed sole ownership after
Jacobson’s death. Hacker appears to have served as the executor of Jacobson’s estate and may
have resided at the subject property with Jacobson. By 1966, the property was owned by
Alexander P. and Carolyn J. Quaglino. The Quaglino family resided at the property for just3
years until the Delta Tau House Corporation took ownership in 1969. Fraternity members, who
worked for Alex Quaglino at the time, took out a $5,000 loan to purchase the 1.17-acre property.
Delta Tau has retained the property for 46 years, the longest continuous ownership of the historic
residence (Figures 5-3 and 5-4).
Figure 5-3 Aerial image of the subject property in 1969 at the time of purchase by
Delta Tau. The property retained relative isolation as surrounding
urban density slowly increased. Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive
were not yet constructed.
20
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 5-4 Rough 1976 aerial image of the subject property showing the
multifamily residential complexes to the west and north as well as
Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive.
5.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
Æ Architectural Historian Jim Jenks documented the current state of the built environment
resources on the 1.1-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue on May 28, 2015. The Sandford House is
currently prominently situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Avenue and
Luneta Drive. Pedestrian access to the front yard is available from Palomar Avenue by a wood
rail staircase leading to a brick path and the front portico. A retaining wall is adjacent to the
Palomar Avenue sidewalk, and there is a decorative rock wall along the edge of the front lawn.
Secondary brick paths meander through the northeast portion of the property leading to the deck
on the north elevation. Mature trees are present throughout the lot, with a cluster of large
eucalyptus trees at the rear of the residence. Expansive lawns are located in the north and west
portions of the property. Vehicle access to the property is via a gated single-lane driveway
accessed from Luneta Drive, with a secondary vehicle entrance at the southwest corner. The
subject property consists of three buildings: a main residence, a secondary residential building,
and a remodeled garage with adjacent carport.
The two-story stucco-clad main residence rests on a concrete foundation with a rectangular
footprint. The pedimented side-gable roof is covered with composition shingles and the wide
eaves are boxed (Figure 5-5). Half-round wood vents are set into each peak. The street-facing
east façade features symmetrically balanced windows and centered 6-panel wood door flanked
by 8-light sidelights and an 8-light overhead fanlight. The main entryway is accessed from the
prominent flat-roof portico, which features two wood Tuscan columns and entablature. A dentil
course is present along the soffit, and pilasters flank the door. Five concrete steps provide access
to the portico and a concrete walkway wraps around the façade. Modern fixed windows flank
21
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
each side of the portico and each is crowned with a half-round molding. The second floor
features two 8/8-light double-hung wood-sash windows. The center window is a fixed-pane
modern replacement of the adjacent original windows.
Figure 5-5 The Sandford House street-facing east façade.
The side (south) elevation features a gabled solarium addition, inset to the principle gable
Figure 5-6). Evenly spaced pilasters along solarium elevations create bays. Side-by-side
windows are evenly spaced along the first floor of each bay, and a door opening is centrally set
into the middle bay on the south elevation. Wood-frame ribbon windows are present on the
second-floor bays. Recessed horizontal panels are located below the second-story windows, one
per bay. Multiple recessed vertical panels are located above the first-story window, three per bay
on the south façade and four per bay on the east and west façades.
The rear (west) elevation features two exterior stucco-clad chimneys that pierce the west side
roof slope (Figure 5-7). Wood single-pane hopper windows flank each side of the south chimney
on the ground floor, while 8/8-light double-hung wood-sash windows flank each side of the
chimney on the second floor. A hipped roof two-story projection extends from the elevation,
which has a 6-light wood door flanked by a single-pane sidelight on each side is on the ground
floor. A 4/4-light metal sash window is centrally set into the second floor of the projection.
The side (north) elevation features an elevated wood frame deck supported by four utility-style
poles (Figure 5-8). The deck is accessed by a concrete staircase on the east. The deck is adjacent
to a flat roof projection on the first floor, with fenestration that includes grouped multilight wood
casement windows and a 10-light wood door. A 1/2-light window crowned by a half-round
22
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 5-6 Two-story solarium on the south (side) façade of the Sandford House.
Figure 5-7 West (rear) façade of the Sandford House with a single-story addition on the northwest
corner of the building.
23
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 5-8 North (side) façade of the Sandford House with wood deck and view of the two-story
addition.
molding is north of the projection. Second-floor fenestration includes two evenly spaced
8/8-light double-hung wood-sash windows. A smaller 4/4-light double-hung wood-sash window
is present between the two larger windows.
Two single-story sequential additions extend from the north end of the rear (west) elevation. The
first stucco-clad addition is gabled and constructed on a concrete pad (Figure 5-7). The
single-story addition includes modern slider windows on the rear (west) and side (south)
elevations. The second addition is attached to the first addition’s northwest corner. The two-story
stucco-clad addition has a hipped roof and is constructed on a concrete pad (Figure 5-9). A
ground floor door on the rear (west) elevation provides access to the daylight basement. This
elevation also features a centrally set wood 4-light window on the second floor. An entryway to
the residence is located on the side (south) elevation of the addition, accessed by a wood
staircase that extends from grade.
Two accessory buildings, a remodeled garage with an adjacent carport and a secondary
residential building, are present on the subject property. The garage is located south of the main
residence close to Luneta Drive (Figure 5-10). The stucco-clad side-gabled building is roofed
with composition shingles and constructed on a concrete pad. The original garage door opening
on the front (east) elevation has been enclosed and now displays three nonmatching pilasters
evenly spaced across the façade, a metal sliding window, and a flat wood door. The south (side)
elevation features three window openings with one set into the peak. Two openings are boarded
over, while a third opening is covered with transparent plastic. The side (north) elevation
includes two evenly spaced 4/4-light wood casement windows. Two additional aluminum sliding
24
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 5-9 North façade of two-story addition to the Sandford House; the single-story addition is
attached to the south.
Figure 5-10 Enclosed garage with attached carport on the north façade.
25
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
windows are set into the gable end, and a covered vent opening is set into the peak. The rear
west) elevation features a stucco-clad, shed roof addition. The addition’s side (south) and rear
elevations each include a single offset aluminum slider. The side (north) elevation displays a
pedestrian door and single window opening. A covered carport is attached to the north side of the
addition. The flat-roofed building is topped with corrugated plastic panels and sits on a raised
concrete foundation. The carport is open along its east elevation, although a brick patio and low
brick wall is present along a portion of the elevation. Three 4 by 4 foot wood posts, which
support the building’s roof frame, are imbedded in the brick wall. The rear (west) and side
north) elevations are clad with a mix of corrugated metal panels and wood boards. A flat roof
shed is attached to the rear of the carport. It is clad with corrugated metal panels and constructed
on a concrete foundation. The shed entryway is located on its north elevation.
A second accessory building stands southwest of the main residence. The gable-front stucco-clad
secondary residential building is covered with composition shingles and rests on a concrete slab
Figure 5-11). Fenestration includes a wood-panel entrance door on the front (east) façade, a
single metal slider window on the side (north) elevation, and two metal sash windows on the side
south) elevation. A shed roof addition is attached to the rear (west) elevation. The addition is
constructed on a partially raised concrete foundation and is clad/roofed with corrugated metal
panels. Large wood sliding doors occupy the entire south elevation. A wood frame patio and
brick and wood deck are on the north side of the second accessory building. A wood shed roof
shelters a portion of the patio while wood rails surround most of the deck.
Figure 5-11 Secondary residential building southwest of the Sandford House.
The San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office records the estimated date of construction of the
residence as circa 1900. The 1983 Historic Resources Inventory form completed by City of San
26
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Luis Obispo Historic Resource Survey staff estimated the main residence’s construction date as
circa 1890. Assessor’s records estimate the date of construction for the first accessory building
likely the garage) as circa 1950; the adjacent carport and second accessory building were
constructed circa 1955. Building permit data from the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department notes construction of an “addition and alteration” in 1951, possibly
one of the rear additions to the main residence, and construction of the garage in 1953. The
solarium addition appears to be the earliest addition to the residence, likely constructed before
1940. The modern stucco siding is not original,and it is not known when that modification was
made.
The garage was converted to sleeping quarters circa 1970. The metal-clad rear addition to the
secondary residential building and adjacent rear deck and covered patio were also constructed
circa 1970, as was the wood deck along the residence’s side (north) elevation. The brick patio
area north of the garage was in place prior to the Delta Tau era, indicating that the carport may
have actually served as a covered recreational area. The remains of a water tower foundation are
located south of the garage.
Additionally, visual inspection of the main residence identified a number of alterations. A metal-
railed balcony was once located on top of the portico; balcony rails have been removed and the
original wood-frame, double-hung window located adjacent to the second-floor balcony was
removed and replaced with a modern fixed-pane window, which replicated the original window,
to restrict access to the balcony. This alteration was made by Delta Tau Fraternity. While many
of the main residence’s windows appear original, the east façade first floor windows which flank
the portico are non-original. The original windows were likely wood multilight double-hung
windows or wood French doors, which are both features of the Colonial Revival style. All
fenestration along the first floor of the solarium has been removed and boarded closed. The
interior floor has been removed and the room has been sealed off to everyday access.
27
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
This section presents the regulatory framework and Æ’s significance evaluation of 71 Palomar
Avenue under the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance.
6.1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
On December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No.
1557 (2010 Series) to incorporate the Historic Preservation Ordinance provisions into the
municipal code. The classifications for resources and criteria for evaluating the significance of
properties located in the City of San Luis Obispo are provided in the City Ordinance, and are
excerpted directly below:
Historic Resource Designation (14.01.050)
The following classifications shall be used to designate historic resources and properties.
The primary categories of historic significance are “Master List” and “Contributing”
properties. Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age,
design and appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the
neighborhood or historic district in which they are located.
A. Master List Resources. The most unique and important resources and properties in
terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with
important persons or events in the City’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria
outlined in Section 14.01.070.
B. Contributing List Resources or Properties.Buildings or other resources at least 50
years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character,
and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the
unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole.
They need not be located in a historic district. In some cases, buildings or other
resources that are less than 50 years old, but are nonetheless significant based on
architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described in Section 14.01.070 may be
designated as a Contributing Resource.
C. Non-Contributing.Buildings, properties and other features in historic districts
which are less than 50 years old, have not retained their original architectural
character, or which do not support the prevailing historic character of the district.
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (14.01.070)
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural
Resource, the CHC [Cultural Heritage Committee] and City Council shall consider this
ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be
eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at
least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has
passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following
criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria:Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values.
28
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.).
Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although
the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular
social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid
styles and how these styles are put together.
2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of
artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a
particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and
detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g.,
carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building
design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit,
details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-
builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible
for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated
as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work
influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions
to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources,
designed the house at 810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built
between 1927–30).
B. Historic Criteria
1) History—Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local,
California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of
the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress
member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally,
regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early,
unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local
affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical
professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
2) History—Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
29
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city—regardless of
whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g.,
the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities
in early San Luis Obispo history).
3) History—Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational,
governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be
evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the
historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with
the building (e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building
e.g., Park Hotel).
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the
reason(s) for its significance.
City Guidelines additionally define integrity as “the ability of a property, structure, site, building,
improvement or natural feature to convey its identity and authenticity, including but not limited
to its original location, period(s) of construction, setting, scale, design, materials, detailing,
workmanship, human values, uses and association” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:74).
6.2 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
In 1983, the city-wide Historic Resources Survey identified the Sandford House as important for
its age and architecture, and the property was placed on the City’s Master List, with a National
Register rating indicating that the property is “not eligible for the National Register but locally
significant.”While a Historic Resources Inventory form was prepared for the Master List
designation, no period of significance was established at that time and no significance evaluation
was completed.
6.2.1 Period of Significance
The period of significance refers to an identified period of time during which significant events
and activities associated with a historic property occurred. For properties that are architecturally
significant, the period of significance is the date of construction and/or the dates of any
significant alterations and additions. To be considered significant, alterations and/or additions
must convey the significance of the architectural style. The character-defining features of the
building are identified as features from the period of significance that retain integrity and allow
the building to convey its significance.
30
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
The period of significance for the Sandford House is recommended as circa 1895–1930. While
documentation of the specific date of construction was never located, research indicates that
circa 1895 appears to be the approximate date of construction. This date is consistent with the
general time period associated with the Colonial Revival style and is associated with the
ownership of Reginald Wills-Sandford, likely the first occupant of the residence, and for whom
the building is named. The period of significance ends in 1930 to include the addition of the
solarium that significantly contributes to the architectural style of the property. The period of
significance excludes the two additions to the main building and the garage and secondary
residence located on the parcel. These buildings and additions do not convey the significance of
the property.
6.2.2 Architectural Criteria
For a property to be eligible under the Architectural Criteria of the City Ordinance, the resource
must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
The Sandford House is an example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture.
According to the City Guidelines:
The Colonial Revival style refers to a revival style popular in the early twentieth century
that was inspired by the early houses of the Atlantic seaboard. Compared to the highly
detailed ornamental elements and asymmetry that defined the Victorian styles, Colonial
Revival buildings are symmetrical and relatively austere. Colonial Revival buildings are
based on Georgian, Federal, and Dutch Colonial Styles and are often fused with
Neoclassical decorative elements such as classical porch columns [City of San Luis
Obispo 2010:23].
The City Guidelines briefly list characteristics of the style, which include:
A hipped or gambrel roof;
Symmetrical or balanced massing to the street form;
Raised wood porch with free-standing columns, classical entry surrounds;
Dormer windows;
Shuttered double-hung windows; and
Horizontal painted wood siding or stucco finish.
A well-known and often cited source,A Field Guide to American Houses (McAlester and
McAlester 1992), includes a discussion of the history of the Colonial Revival style and its
identifying features; this supplements the City Guidelines overview.
The Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect the Colonial
Revival style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway
and neoclassical portico. However, the building lacks other signature elements of the style, such
31
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
as symmetrically arranged dormers across the front roof slope and wood shutters. Further, the
front façade window openings do not appear to have originally adhered to the style, typified by
double-hung windows that appeared in adjacent pairs. While not a highly stylistic example of the
Colonial Revival style, the Sandford House possesses many of the architectural characteristics
associated with the style described in both the City Guidelines and by McAlester and McAlester
1992). These characteristics allow the resource to meet City of San Luis Obispo Master List
criteria. Accordingly, the property expresses its historical significance under the City’s
Architectural Criteria, as a local residential example of the style.
6.2.3 Historic Criteria
For a property to be eligible under the Historic Criteria of the City Ordinance, the resource must
be: (1) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
2) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local
or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or (3) associated
with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural,
medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history.
The subject property does not appear significant for any association with the lives of persons
important to local, California, or national history. Ownership of the subject property changed
frequently until the late 1920s, when length of ownership of the Sandford House stabilized.
While Peter Taylor is noted in a one county historical narrative as a potentially significant
individual (Morrison 1917), his children, who owned and resided at the subject property for
approximately 20 years, do not appear to have achieved a similar level of historical significance
within the community. However, Christina Jacobson does appear to have reached a level of local
historical significance as the first individual to introduce locally produced and broadcast radio
and television. While this is an important contribution to the community and Jacobson owned
and resided at the subject property from 1951 until her death in 1964, properties eligible under
this criteria are generally associated with the productive life of the significant individual.
Jacobson did not acquire the subject property until 14 years after founding KVEC-AM in 1937.
While Jacobson began the KVEC television station in 1953, during her era of residence at the
Sandford House, she also divested her interest in all local media holdings just 3 years later. A
more appropriate physical representation of Christina Jacobson’s productive professional
accomplishments and historical contributions to local history would appear to be the KVEC
radio and television studios, constructed during Jacobson’s tenure and located at 467 Hill Street.
Based on this analysis, the Sandford House does not appear to be historically significant under
this component of the Historic Criteria.
The subject property does not appear significant for any association with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage
of California or the United States. Research into the subject property within the context of local,
state or national history did not locate patterns of historical significance. Periods of historic-era
development outside the municipal boundaries of San Luis Obispo were generally associated
with agricultural history. Such development would have occurred on large parcels of land, with
demonstrable impacts to economic expansion or social history. The original 15.8-acre parcel
does not appear to have been a major economic producer in the area and research did not locate
evidence of significant events occurring on the property such as agricultural research,
32
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
technological advancements, or experimental plantings. Evidence indicates use of the subject
property as a private residence not associated with specific activities, organizations, or functions
important to the broader community. Further, the subject property does not appear to be
associated with a specific event important in the history of the community or California.
Accordingly, the Sandford House does not appear to be historically significant under this
component of the Historic Criteria.
Research into patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational,
governmental, military, industrial or religious history potentially associated with the subject
property did not yield connections with any of the listed historic themes. As such, Sandford
House does not appear to be historically significant under this component of the Historic
Criteria.
6.2.4 Integrity
To be considered eligible for listing, a historic property must retain integrity in order to convey
its historical significance. Further, a propertythat is important architecturally must retain the
physical features that defines its particular style, particularly in terms of massing, fenestration
patterns, retention of materials, and ornamentation. The majority of the building’s structural
system and its materials should date from the period of significance and its key character-
defining features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details, such as
dormers and porches, ornamental features, fenestration, and materials as well as the overall mass
and form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building to be recognized as a product
of its time.
The Sandford House period of significance is identified as circa 1895–1930. An assessment of
each aspect of integrity for the Sandford House is provided below.
Location:The Sandford House is located where it was historically established,
outside the boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo until incorporation into city
limits in the 1950s. The property retains integrity of location.
Design:The Sandford House generally retains its original form, floor plan, and
structural system. The solarium was constructed within the period of significance.
The residence retains integrity of fenestration patterns, mass, and ornamental
detailing. Original side-gabled roof orientation is also intact. The large majority of
window and door types and accompanying spatial organization remain intact as does
the prominent portico, an important neoclassical characteristic of the style. Taken
together, design elements reflect the Colonial Revival style, which remain clearly
recognizable. The property retains integrity of design.
Setting:The setting for the Sandford House retains some but not all of its original
integrity. The immediate area around the residence remains open space, providing a
semblance of the historic setting associated with the property. The building maintains
its historic orientation atop a small slope facing east over the town of San Luis
Obispo. While there is no known formal garden or landscaping plan associated with
the property, expansive lawns remain around the residence to the east, west, and
south. More broadly, the setting has experience significant urbanization. Since the
33
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
1960s, urbanization has slowly enclosed the property with 1970s-era apartment
buildings to the north and west and modern single-family residences to the east and
south. The size of the property itself has also been altered from 15.80 acres to today’s
1.17 acres. The integrity of setting is significantly diminished.
Materials:The Sandford House retains much of its historic materials. The foundation
remains intact as do many of the original multilight wood frame sash windows and
prominent wood front door and surrounding wood portico. While the building
currently features stucco siding, a departure from original wood siding, this alteration
may have occurred within the period of significance. The floor plan has experienced
some modification since the period of significance, with alterations to a portion of the
first floor, but generally remains recognizable. The property retains integrity of
materials.
Workmanship:The building’s structural system remains unaltered and fenestration
patterns remain unaltered. The property retains integrity of workmanship.
Feeling:This is an intangible quality, which depends to some extent on integrity of
design, setting, and materials that express architectural significance. The Sandford
House continues to evoke a historic sense of the property’s use. The building’s
prominence within its modern neighborhood remains distinct and a durable reminder
of its rural past. The open space around the residence is unique and conveys a sense
of the property’s significance and historic residential use. The property retains
integrity of feeling.
Association: Integrity of association refers to the degree to which a property has a
direct link to an event, person, or development for which the property is significant.
The subject property remains in its original location and retains its Colonial Revival
style. The property retains integrity of association.
The Sandford House appears to retain good integrity of location, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Although integrity of setting has been significantly
diminished, the overall integrity of the property is sufficient to convey the significance of the
property. As such, the Sandford House appears to be eligible and appropriately listed on the City
Master List of Historic Resources.
34
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
DESIGN REVIEW
The City of San Luis Obispo (2010:1 3) Historic Preservation Program Guidelines state:
Alterations to listed historic resources shall be approved only upon finding that the
proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, any required historic preservation report, General Plan
policies, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and these Guidelines.”
7.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
As the proposed project will relocate the Sandford House within the same parcel, the project
must meet the criteria for relocation identified in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Relocation of Historic Resources (14.01.110)
Relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource and
is discouraged. Relocation applications shall be evaluated as follows:
A. Review. The CHC and ARCH [Architectural Review Commission] shall review
applications to relocate structures listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources.
B. Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of
Historic Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the [Community
Development] Director to be potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation
method and shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with goals and
policies of the General Plan, and applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, and:
1) The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and
2) Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the
historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource is
located or at its proposed location, and
3) The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through
ownership, long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing
relocation, to the Director’s approval, and
4) The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource’s historic significance;
and; OR
5) The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the
site and no other measure for correcting the condition are feasible, OR
6) The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section 14.01.100(J)
for the demolition of a historic resources [Economic Hardship provision].
35
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
The ordinance further describes relocation timing, historical and architectural documentation,
and relocation plans and procedures not addressed within this study as they involve decisions
made by the Cultural Heritage Committee and City Community Development Department.
7.2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
According to the City Guidelines, proposed projects must meet the following conditions to alter
a listed historic resource:
Percent of historic resource to be preserved.Alterations of historically listed buildings
shall retain at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior
bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible. Proposed
alterations of greater than 25 percent of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior walls will be subject to the review process for demolitions. Alterations do not
include ordinary repair or maintenance that is exempt from a building permit or is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Resources.
Retention of character-defining features.Alterations of historically listed buildings
shall retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary building
facades, or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that
preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building.
Exterior building changes.Exterior changes to historically listed buildings or resources
should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of
the building, its setting and architectural context. Additions to historic buildings shall
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent
with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to replicate character-
defining features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of size, shape,
quality and appearance. However, original materials are not required.
Interior building changes.Interior changes to publicly accessible listed historic
buildings whose architectural or historic significance is wholly or partially based on
interior architectural characters or features shall preserve and restore significant interior
architectural features.
Acquired historic significance. Changes to listed historic resources that the Director or
the CHC determines to have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be
retained and preserved [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:13–14].
7.3 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
The City Guidelines further stipulate that proposed projects that will alter any listed historical
resources must adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (Secretary’s Standards). To effectively evaluate consistency of the proposed project
with the Secretary’s Standards, it is important to appropriately define the specific category of
treatment that is being proposed. The following definitions are cited from “Introduction to
Standards and Guidelines” provided by the National Park Service (2015a):
36
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
The four treatment approaches are preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction, outlined below in hierarchical order and explained:
The first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic
fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum
over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that
are made.
Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic
materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property
is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus
attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial
relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.)
Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most
significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from
other periods.
Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-
surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials.
The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House, retain and repair as much as possible of the
historic character-defining features of the building, and remove two non-historic additions.
Following the relocation of the Sandford House towards the south end of the site, the project will
construct multiple new apartment buildings on the parcel. As such, the proposed work does not
appear to be consistent with a preservation or restoration treatment as defined under theSecretary’s
Standards. The proposed treatment of the subject property is, therefore, best characterized as
rehabilitation under theSecretary’s Standards as it proposes continuation of a compatible use for
the property and proposes retention and repair of key elements of the building’s historic exterior.
7.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Arris Studio Architects in San Luis Obispo prepared the conceptual design plans that illustrate
the proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the Sandford House and construction of new
multiple-family residential buildings (see Appendix E). The following summary of planned
modifications is derived from the conceptual design plans and meetings with the project
development team.
7.4.1 Relocation and Reuse of the Sandford House (Main Residence)
The proposed project calls for the relocation of the Sandford House to a re-graded and slightly
lower point on site approximately 40 feet southeast of its historic location. The historic
orientation will remain intact, facing Palomar Avenue from the crest of a small slope, but the
overall property height will be lowered slightly across the slope. The two-story residence will be
rehabilitated, including a new foundation, exterior paint, and roofing materials. The four-
bedroom residence will be converted into common spaces for residents. Two small sequential
additions to the rear of the residence will be demolished (Figure 7-1). The solarium addition will
remain and will be rehabilitated.
37
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 7-1 Two non-original additions to the rear of the Sandford House, looking west. The
proposed project will demolish both additions.
7.4.2 Demolition of Two Accessory Buildings and Carport
Two small accessory buildings, a garage with attached carport and a secondary residential unit
with attached storage, will be demolished to allow construction of new apartment buildings. A
projecting porch element on the north side to which one addition was attached will remain and be
preserved.
7.4.3 Construction of New Apartment Complex
A new 41 unit apartment complex will be constructed on the subject property. The multiple
buildings will occupy currently open space on the west and north areas of the parcel (Figure 7-2).
As previously noted, two existing accessory buildings (a garage and secondary residential unit)
will be demolished to allow construction of the new buildings.
The apartment buildings will consist of six studio, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom units.
Conceptual drawings illustrate multiple buildings will contain the apartments to the north and
west sides of the Sandford House. The west complex will be a full two stories, while the natural
slope along the far north side of the property will allow for construction of a two story complex.
A proposed sub-basement level at the northern end ofthe site will contain all 75 parking spaces.
38
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 7-2 View to the east demonstrating the north lawn where the east-west wing of the
apartment building is proposed for construction.
Existing vehicle circulation routes will be revised. Two new driveways and garage openings will
allow access to the new apartment building’s north wing parking areas from Palomar Avenue.
7.5 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY RELOCATION CRITERIA
The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House within the subject parcel to make space
for new construction. The following section evaluates the proposed project for consistency with
the City Ordinance relocation criteria.
1. The proposed relocation does not appear to “significantly change, destroy, or
adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource.”The
Sandford House will remain within its historically associated property. Importantly,
the historic orientation of the building will remain intact, on a slight rise facing west
toward Palomar Avenue. Accordingly, the relocation will not adversely impact the
historic character of the residence or its ability to convey its significance.
2. The proposed relocation does not appear to “have a significant adverse effect on the
character of the historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the
resource is located or at its proposed location.”The Sandford House is not located in
a historic district, and the minor relocation of the building will not adversely affect
nearby properties.
39
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
3. The original site and the proposed receiving site are the same site, providing stable
control of ownership.
4. As the building will not leave its historically associated parcel, the proposed receiving
site is relevant to the historic significant of the resource. The physical relocation of
the building is approximately 40 feet southeast of its historic location.
Criteria 5 and 6 address issues that should be determined by the City Community Development
Department. Based on this review of the first four criteria, the proposed relocation of the
Sandford House appears to meet the required criteria to appropriately relocate a historic resource.
7.6 CONSISTENCY WITH CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
As the proposed project will alter the Sandford House, the following section evaluates the
proposed project for consistency with the City Guidelines for alterations to a historic resource
located outside of a historic district.
7.6.1 Percent of Historic Resource to Be Preserved
The City Guidelines require that alterations to historically listed building must ensure retention
of at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and
cladding. The proposed project includes the demolition of two non-original additions that were
constructed after the period of significance. However, the proposed project would retain,
rehabilitate, and reuse the main historic residence that will include more than 75 percent of the
original framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding. As such, the proposed project
appears to be consistent with this criterion.
7.6.2 Retention of Character-Defining Features
Primary character-defining features include:
Two-story massing with a rectangular footprint;
Pediment side-gable roof;
Wide boxed eaves and wide cornice;
Smooth stucco cladding;
Symmetrically arranged fenestration on the street-facing east façade, including the
wood-framed multi-light sash windows on the second floor;
Distinctive front portico with Tuscan columns and dentils;
Centered wood-paneled front door with surrounding fanlight, sidelights, and pilasters;
Two-story solarium with pediment end, pilasters, recessed panels between first and
second stories, and three-bay arrangement;
40
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Projecting flat-roofed north side entrance with grouped multi-light wood casement
windows, a centered 10-light wood door, and 10-light French doors on its east side.
The proposed project will retain and repair character-defining features associated with the
architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the Sandford House. The proposed project
appears to be consistent with this criterion.
7.6.3 Exterior Building Changes
The proposed project will not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements to the exterior
of the Sandford House. The project proposes to rehabilitate the historical building following the
Secretary’s Standards. As such, all character-defining features of the building will be repaired or
replaced with materials similar in size, shape, quality, and appearance (in kind) on the exterior.
The only change to the house will be the elimination of the twin chimneys at the rear (west)
elevation, which are already largely invisible from the street. A compatible patio off of the north
elevation will be placed on grade and screened on the east Palomar Street elevation by a row of
hedges. New construction will occur on the parcel that will change the contextual setting of the
parcel itself, although the majority of the surrounding neighborhood is already infilled with
multiple-family residential buildings. The proposed repair of the Sandford House appears to be
consistent with this criterion.
7.6.4 Interior Building Changes
As the Sandford House is and will remain privately owned property, this criterion does not
apply.
7.6.5 Acquired Historic Appearance
Based on the historical research presented in the significance evaluation, the Sandford House
does not possess any changes to the building that have acquired historic significance in their own
right. The proposed project appears to be consistent with this criterion.
7.7 CONSISTENCY WITH SECRETARY OFINTERIOR’S STANDARDS
The proposed alterations to the Sandford House as communicated in the conceptual drawings by
Arris Studio Architects are generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 68.3), although recommendations
are included regarding additional architectural elements that could enhance the compatibility of the
proposed new apartment building. Discussion of each of the standards and assessment of the
proposed alterations for consistency is presented in this section.
1. A property will be used as it was historicallyor be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
The circa 1895 Sandford House was a single-family residence until conversion to multifamily
housing following its 1969 purchase by the Delta Tau House Corporation and subsequent use as
a fraternity house. The proposed project will rehabilitate the residence into residential amenity
spaces, such as conference rooms and a gymnasium, and incorporate a leasing office. The
41
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
continued use of the historic Sandford House as public space could eventually require additional
alterations to interior spaces, but those spaces have already experienced alteration during the Delta
Tau era of ownership. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with Standard 1.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
The setting of the subject property has experienced significant change since construction of the
residence in circa 1895. Originally located outside the city boundaries of San Luis Obispo in a
pastoral landscape, the property’s setting has been increasingly urbanized since annexation by
the City in the early 1950s. Alteration of the landscape continued into the 1970s with the
construction of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive and the construction of adjacent homes and
apartments that ended the property’s relative isolation.Given the broad change in its
environment and context, historic character of the subject property is expressed today in the
prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. While the proposed project calls for the
relocation and slight reduction in elevation of the residence, it will remain on site and in a
prominent location on the parcel, serving as the architectural anchor of the site. Its historic
orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of San Luis Obispo will be minimally
modified by the proposed project. The client has been advised to maintain the elevation of the
Sandford House as closely as possible to the historic siting of that building. The reconstructed
foundation and platform porch of the Sandford House will retain a similar exposure and profile
to the original, which serves as the pedestal for the building. The height of the portico and its
stairway also contribute to its monumentality and will be maintained as closely as the flattened
site will allow.
New construction will be subordinate to the historic residence, located to the rear and north side
of the historic residence. While spatial relationships will be altered, the distinctiveness of the
Sandford House will remain intact.
The overall visual character of the residence, which includes building shape, the principal and
secondary entries to the building, roof and related features, prominent portico projection,
two-story solarium, and historic-age materials such as stucco cladding will remain intact. Only
the elimination of the twin chimneys at the rear (west) elevation will occur, but they are largely
invisible from the street. Accordingly, the proposed project complies with Standard 2.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken..
There are no proposed changes to the Sandford House that would create a false sense of
historical development. Proposed alterations, which will rehabilitate the historic residence, do
not include changes to the building which alter its architectural style and create an unauthentic
sense of historical development. Further, new construction is sufficiently modern and
differentiated from the historic building to allow clear distinction between the historic and
modern built environment. As such, the proposed project complies with Standard 3.
42
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
The period of significance for the Sandford House is circa 1895–1930. Added prior to 1930, the
solarium addition to the side (north) elevation of the subject property will be rehabilitated and
integrated into the Sandford House’s proposed new use for residents. The two accessory
buildings, a secondary residential building and garage with attached carport, were constructed
after the period of significance, as were the two additions constructed to the rear of the Sandford
House Based on historical research, the accessory buildings and additions do not appear to have
acquired historical significance in their own right and will be removed as part of the proposed
project. The proposed project complies with Standard 4.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
The proposed project will rehabilitate and reuse the subject property’s historic building, the
Sandford House. However, care must be taken to preserve original materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques while removing the additions to the main residence. The two rear
additions must be removed with the minimum amount of impact to original construction and it is
unknown if removal of the first addition will reveal a stucco or wood-clad exterior wall. General
recommendations are provided in the next section regarding how best to address this concern;
adherence to the recommendations will result in compliance with Standard 5.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old
in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will
be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
The stucco cladding of the Sandford House will be repaired and painted in an appropriate color.
The Sandford House will be reroofed with suitable composition shingle material. Prominent
architectural elements, such as the distinctive portico with its Tuscan columns, entablature,
original multi-light wood-framed sash windows, and wood paneled front door with fanlights and
sidelights will be maintained. The deteriorated two-story solarium addition will be repaired and
its windows replaced with appropriate historic type.
Windows and a door located on the first floor of the solarium are covered over and the original
materials are unknown. Modern replacements for first-floor solarium windows should consist of
replacements of the same scale as the originals that fit the existing openings.. Adherence to the
recommendations will result in compliance with Standard 6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
The conceptual plans do not indicate any planned chemical or physical treatments. As long as
none will be undertaken that could cause damage to historic materials, the proposed project
complies with Standard 7.
43
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
As part of the permitting process, Æ conducted an Archaeological Resource Inventory [ARI] that
located the foundation of a historic-age water tank. The City Archaeological Resource
Preservation Program Guidelines note that:
Construction monitoring may still be required by the Director, if, after completion of an
ARI, SARE [Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation] or ADRE [Archaeological
Data Recovery Excavation], the Director determines there is still a possibility that
significant or potentially significant archaeological resources are present in the impact
zone and that it is not reasonable to conduct additional physical investigations prior to
construction [City of San Luis Obispo 2009:18].
Historic-period use of the property increases the potential to encounter buried historic deposits.
Due to the necessity for trenching for the new foundations for the Sandford House and
excavation for the new apartment building and associated utility infrastructure, Æ recommends
construction monitoring as a means of complying with Standard 8 (see Section 8.1).
9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and
its environment.
The goals of Standard 9 are compatible with objectives included in the City Guidelines that state
listed Historic Resources located outside of historic districts shall be subject to the same
protection and regulations applicable to historic resources within historic districts”(City of San
Luis Obispo 2010:12). While the Sandford House is not located within an identified historic
district, it is a Master List historic resource and associated new construction must follow
guidelines that direct general architectural compatibility of new construction to historic
resources. The City Guidelines state:
New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with
the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale,
massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting, and street
yard setbacks of the district’s historic structures. . . . New structures are not required to
copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is
historic [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:7].
Regarding architectural compatibility, the City Guidelines state:
New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public view of, or
visually detract from, the history architectural character of historically designated
structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing
historic architectural character of the historic district” [City of San Luis Obispo 2010:8].
As noted, the subject property is not located within a historic neighborhood. The subject property
itself forms a transitional space in the neighborhood, serving as an informal margin between
44
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
large, high-density 1970s–1980s era apartment buildings to the north and west, and single-family
residences to the south that are not of historic age. Within the transitional space, the Sandford
House is unique, surrounded by open space on a parcel that is over an acre in size.
The proposed construction of the apartment building will alter the spatial relationships and
building locations historically present at the subject property. However, the relocation of the
Sandford House will allow the historic residence to maintain a prominent position on the parcel.
To enhance the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence,
the architects have proposed multiple new apartment buildings that have been placed to maintain
reasonable dominance of the Sandford House on the property despite a slightly reduced grade
height. Proposed new construction elements at the71 Palomar apartment complex will assume a
secondary position, and their siting somewhat suggests that they are on their own parcels,
especially to the north side of the historic residence. A transitional hierarchy that the architects
have sought to create can be viewed in the Palomar Street site elevation, moving from the long
block of lower apartments to the north towards the Sandford House and residential single-family
homes to the south, as demonstrated in the plans (Appendix E). Other new apartment buildings
behind (to the west) of the Sandford House will be approximately the same height as the lowered
historic building, but less obvious from Palomar Street due to the elevated nature of the site.
Additionally, they will be screened by trees and the Sandford House itself.
While Standard 9 states that new construction should be clearly differentiated from the historic,
National Park Service recommendations for new construction within the boundaries of historic
properties also note that: “As with new additions, the massing, size, scale and architectural
features of new construction on the site of an historic building must be compatible with those of
the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new
construction must be subordinate to these buildings” (National Park Service 2015b).
The new apartment building immediately adjacent to the Sandford House, and the two buildings
on the south along Luneta Drive, are subordinated through their low-profile hipped roofs;
subdued neutral colors, and lower heights, yet they also relate to the historic building in the
rhythm of their facades and use of stucco finishes and multi-light windows. The proposed
hipped-roof design of the new construction differs from the Sandford House’s Colonial Revival
style side-gabled roof and from surrounding apartment buildings and single-family residences,
most of which feature gabled roofs. The Secretary’s Standards note that new construction should
be differentiated from the existing historic built environment. Use of a hipped-roof for the new
construction does not appear to weaken or diminish the historic character of the Sandford House,
which will retain its primary role as the architectural anchor of the property.
A patio area is proposed for thenorth side of the Sandford House to help create a sense of place
in that area. It is designed to sit on grade and will be screened by a hedge on the prominent east,
Palomar Street, side.
To enhance the relationship between the historic residence and the new construction, we
recommended that porticos be added to the front façades (those facing the Sandford House) of
the proposed apartment building. The neoclassical portico is a primary component of the historic
residence, and while the portico’s associated with the new construction should not mirror the
historic feature, an appropriate rendition of the portico on the new construction could serve to
45
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
unite the proposed new apartment building with the historic residence. Similarly, we recommend
that new windows intended for the apartment building should feature mult-ilight fixed or sash
combinations that reflect the multi-light windows extant on the Sandford House.
Adoption of the recommendations, with added guidance from the CHC, will allow compliance
with Standard 9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment would be unimpaired.
The proposed project will reposition the Sandford House in an area adjacent to its current
historic location and the historic orientation of the building will be retained, although the grade
will be lowered slightly. New construction is proposed in areas of the parcel where there is
generally open space. If in the future the new apartment buildings are removed, the essential
form and integrity of the Sandford House would be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with Standard 10.
46
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on historical research, the Sandford House at 71 Palomar Avenue is significant as a good
example of the Colonial Revival architectural style and is appropriately listed on the City Master
List of Historic Resources. The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House within the
parcel and will construct a new multiple-story apartment building on the parcel. The proposed
project appears to be consistent with the City Ordinance relocation criteria, City Guidelines, and
the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The following recommendations are designed to
guide the rehabilitation and reuse of the Sandford House and construction of the new multifamily
residential building.
8.1 PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
While the current study found no evidence of archaeological materials on the surface, the project
area has a heightened sensitivity for buried prehistoric and historic period materials. New
building construction at the subject property may impact potentially significant archaeological
resources. Therefore, a monitoring program should be developed for this project. A formal
monitoring plan should be prepared and approved by the City prior to construction. This plan
will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and
approach to monitoring, description of expected materials (both prehistoric and historical),
description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of
human remains, staff requirements, and a basic data recovery plan to be implemented in case
significant deposits are exposed during construction.
8.2 REMOVAL OF NONORIGINAL ADDITIONS
Extreme care should be taken during the removal of the nonoriginal additions to avoid damaging
the original building walls. Any nonrepairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the
addition directly attached to the Sandford House should be replaced in-kind to match existing
stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during demolition should be preserved for
reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.
8.3 RELOCATION OF THE SANDFORD HOUSE
In addition to its general location on the site, it is important that the elevation of the Sandford
House be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of that building. Since the site
will be cut and flattened slightly in the area of relocation, reducing the elevation of the Sandford
house slightly, it is especially important that the reconstructed foundation and platform porch
retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing foundation does, since it serves in
effect as a pedestal for the architecture on display above. The height of the portico contributes to
this monumentality; therefore, a stair height similar to that which currently exists also should be
maintained.
47
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
8.4 SANDFORD HOUSE WINDOW REPLACEMENT
Fenestration located on the first floor of the solarium is covered over and the original materials
are currently unknown. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows should
minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original
openings; multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located
throughout other areas of the residence could be employed, however no evidence has been found
thus far that documents the original window design for the solarium.
8.5 LOW IMPACT CLEANING AND PAINT REMOVAL
Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or
around the Sandford House itself. High-pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material
blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals should be avoided
unless specifically approved by the City.
8.6 MASSING, LOCATION, AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
To enhance the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence,
the architects have designed will new apartment buildings that have been placed so as to respect
the dominance of the Sandford House on the property. Their scale and massing contributes
toward that goal, and they have not been over-detailed or designed to draw attention from the
Sandford House. Efforts to maintain this compatibility will make this a successful project.
48
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
REFERENCES
Agenbroad, Larry D., John R. Johnson, Don Morris, and Thomas W. Stafford Jr.
2005 Mammoths and Humans as Late Pleistocene Contemporaries on Santa Rosa Island. In
Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium, pp. 3–7. Institute for Wildlife
Studies, Arcata, California.
Angel, Myron
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland,
California.
Arnold, Jeanne
1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and
Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57:60–84.
Bertrando, Ethan B., and Valerie A. Levulett (editors)
2004 Evidence and Models for Late Pleistocene Chronology and Settlement along
California’s Central Coast. In Emerging from the Ice Age: Early Holocene
Occupations on the California Central Coast,edited by Ethan Bertrando and Valerie
A. Levulett, pp. 93–105. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional
Papers No. 17.
Best, Gerald
1992 The Pacific Coast Company. Signature Press, Wilton, California.
Blackburn, Thomas C.
1975 December’s Child: A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Bureau of Land Management
2015 Land Survey Map Search, 1867, 1877, 1889, 1890. General Land Office records,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx, accessed June 2015.
City of San Luis Obispo
2009 Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.Community
Development Department. City of San Luis Obispo, California.
2010 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Community Development Department.
City of San Luis Obispo, California.
Colonies and India, The
1892 Society News. 12 March:22. London, United Kingdom. Newspapers.com, accessed
by subscription June 2015.
Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum, New York.
49
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten
1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore G. Cooley, and Richard Carrico
1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology
and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
9:120–128.
Erlandson, Jon M., Douglas J. Kennett, B. Lynn Ingram, Daniel A. Guthrie, Don P. Morris, Mark
A. Tveskov, G. James West, and Phillip L. Walker
1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261),
San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38(2):355–373.
Farquhar, Jennifer, Ryan Brady, Tom Garlinghouse, and John Ellison
2011 Archaeological Investigations for the Nacimiento Water Project, San Luis Obispo
County, California, Albion Environmental Inc., Santa Cruz, California. Prepared for
County of San Luis Obispo.
Fitzgerald, Richard T.
2000 Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project,
Coast Branch Series Paper No. 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society,
San Luis Obispo, California.
Gibson, Robert O.
1991 The Chumash. Indians of North America, Frank W. Porter III, general editor. Chelsea
House, New York.
1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring for Unocal Soil Testing Program along
Pipelines near Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo County, California.Gibson’s
Archaeological Consulting, Paso Robles, California. Submitted to UNOCAL CERT,
San Luis Obispo, California.
Glassow, Michael A.
1990 Archaeological Investigations on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Connection with the
Development of Space Transportation System Facilities,with contributions by Jeanne
E. Arnold, G. A. Batchelder, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Brian K. Glenn, D. A. Guthrie,
Donald L. Johnson, and Phillip L. Walker. Department of Anthropology, University
of California, Santa Barbara. Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Western Region Interagency Archeological Services Branch, San
Francisco, Contract No. CX-8099-2-0004.
1996 Purisimeño Chumash Prehistory: Maritime Adaptations along the Southern
California Coast. Case Studies in Archaeology. Jeffrey Quilter, series editor. Harcourt
Brace College Publishers, San Diego.
50
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Glassow, Michael A., and Larry R. Wilcoxon
1988 Coastal Adaptations near Point Conception, California, with Particular Regard to
Shellfish Exploitation. American Antiquity 53:36–51.
Graumlich, Lisa J.
1993 A 1000-year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada.
Quaternary Research 39:249–255.
Great Register
1872 Great Register of San Luis Obispo County. On file, History Center of San Luis
Obispo County, San Luis Obispo.
Greenwood, Roberta S.
1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San
Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 7.
1978 Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer,
pp. 520–523. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Hackel, Steven W.
1998 Land, Labor and Production. In Contested Eden: California before the Gold Rush,
edited by Ramon A. Gutierrez and Richard J. Orsi, pp. 111–146. University of
California Press, in association with the California Historical Society, Sacramento.
Hudson, Travis, and Thomas C. Blackburn
1982–1987 The Material Culture of the Chumash Interaction Sphere. 5 vols. Ballena Press,
Los Altos/Menlo Park, California, and Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, California.
Hudson, Travis, Thomas C. Blackburn, Rosario Curletti, and Janice Timbrook (editors)
1977 The Eye of the Flute: Chumash Traditional History and Ritual, as told by Fernando
Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara, California.
Hudson, Travis, and Ernest Underhay
1978 Crystals in the Sky: An Intellectual Odyssey Involving Chumash Astronomy,
Cosmology, and Rock Art. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 10. Socorro, New
Mexico.
Johnson, John R.
1988 Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Jones, Terry L.
1995 Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization along
California’s Big Sur Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Davis. UMI Publication No. AAT 9543922.
51
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding,
Douglas J. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker
1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North
America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137–170.
Jones, Terry L., Kathleen Davis, Glenn Farris, Steven D. Grantham, Teresa W. Fung, and Betty
Rivers
1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the
Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to
California Department of Transportation, Environmental Branch, San Luis Obispo.
Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau
2002 Deintensification along the Central Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene
Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones,
pp. 205–232. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jones, Terry L., Sebastian C. Garza, Judith Porcasi, and Jereme W. Gaeta
2009 Another Trans-Holocene Sequence from Diablo Canyon: New Faunal and
Radiocarbon Findings from CA-SLO-585, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 29(1):19–31.
Jones, Terry L., and Douglas J. Kennett
1999 Late Holocene Sea Temperatures along the Central California Coast. Quaternary
Research 51:74–82.
Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer R. Richman
1995 On Mussels: Mytilus californianus as a Prehistoric Resource. North American
Archaeologist 16:33–58.
Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G.
Hylkema
2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture, and Complexity,edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 125–146.
AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Jones, Terry L., and Georgie Waugh
1995 Central California Coastal Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in
California Archaeology, Vol. 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Kennett, Douglas J., B. Lynn Ingram, Jon M. Erlandson, and Phillip Walker
1997 Evidence for Temporal Fluctuations in Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Ages in the
Santa Barbara Channel, Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science
24:1051–1059.
52
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
King, Chester D.
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social
System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. The
Evolution of North American Indians, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Garland, New
York.
Krieger, Daniel E.
1988 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom: San Luis Obispo County. Windsor
Publications, Northridge, California.
Lebow, Clayton G., Douglas R. Harro, Rebecca L. McKim, Charles M. Hodges, Ann M. Munns,
Erin A. Enright, and Leeann G. Haslouer
2014 The Sudden Flats Site: A 10,910–10,600-Year-Old Coastal Shell Midden on
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California.Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Submitted to 30th Civil Engineer Squadron,
Installation Management Flight, Environmental Section, Environmental Assets
30 CES/CEIEA), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester
1984 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Mikkelsen Patricia, William Hildebrandt, and Deborah Jones
2000 Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: Excavations at Site
CA-SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological
Society Occasional Paper No. 14.
Mills, Wayne W., Michael F. Rondeau, and Terry L. Jones
2005 A Fluted Projectile Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal
of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25(2):68–74. Electronic document,
http://cla.calpoly.edu/~tljones/jcgba_mills.pdf, accessed 23 October 2012.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando and London.
Morrison, Annie L., and John H. Haydon
1917 A History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, with Biographical Sketches of the
Leading Men and Women of the County and Environs Who Have Been Identified with
the Growth and Development of the Section from the Early Days to the Present.
Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.
National Park Service
2015a Introduction to Standards and Guidelines: Choosing an Appropriate Treatment for the
Historic Building, http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/standguide/
overview/choose_treat.htm. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Technical Preservation Services, accessed June 2015.
2015b New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties, http://www.nps.gov/
tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-construction.htm. U.S.
53
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services,
accessed June 2015.
Office of Historic Preservation
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and
Format. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
Olson, Ronald L.
1930 Chumash Prehistory. University of California Publications in American Archaeology
and Ethnology 28(1):1–22.
Palóu, Francisco
1926 Historical Memoirs of New California, by Fray Francisco Palou, O.F.M. 4 vols.
Translated into English from the Archives of Mexico, edited by Herbert E. Bolton.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Pisias, Nicklas G.
1978 Paleoceanography of the Santa Barbara Basin during the Last 8000 Years. Quaternary
Research 10:366–384.
Price, Barry A.
2005 Fashionably Late: Chronological and Cultural Definitions of the Late Period on the
Central California Coast. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society
for California Archaeology, Sacramento.
Price, Barry A., Sandra S. Flint, and Kham N. Slater
1997 Cultural Resource Monitoring and Emergency Archaeological Excavations for
Segment 2 of the Chorro Valley Water Transmission Pipeline Project. Applied
EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles.
Price, Barry A., Ann M. Munns, Georgeanna Hawley, Terry L. Joslin, Douglas R. Harro, and
Rebecca L. McKim
2012 A Slice of Time at Diablo Canyon: Archaeological Sampling at CA-SLO-61, San Luis
Obispo County, California.Applied EarthWorks, Inc., San Luis Obispo, California.
Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sacramento, California.
Rogers, David Banks
1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast, California. Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History Special Publications No. 1. Santa Barbara, California.
San Luis Obispo County History Center
2015 KVEC Collection. Various documents donated by Dave Congalton on file, reviewed
June 2015.
Stine, Scott
1990 Late Holocene Fluctuations of Mono Lake, Eastern California. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 78:333–381.
54
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time.
Nature 369:546–549.
Thompson and West
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California, with Illustrations and Biographical
Sketches of its Prominent Men and Pioneers.Oakland, California. Electronic
document, https://archive.org/stream/historyofsanluis00ange#page/n5/mode/2up,
accessed June 2014.
Tognazzini, Wilmar N. (compiler)
1989 Statistics of the Port. January 15 through January 21. In 100 Years Ago, 1889:
Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune and the Daily Republic, p. 8.
W. N. Tognazzini, San Luis Obispo, California.
1991 February 11 through February 18. In 100 Years Ago, 1891: Excerpts from the San
Luis Obispo Morning Tribune., p. 17. W. N. Tognazzini. San Luis Obispo, California.
1996 Grain Shipping. An Average Here of a Thousand Sacks since July First. July 26
through August 1. In 100 Years Ago, 1896: Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo
Morning Tribune and Breeze, pp 72–73. W. N. Tognazzini. San Luis Obispo,
California.
1999 Pacific Coast Railway Notes. August 13 through August 19. 100 Years Ago, 1899.
On-line edition, http://wntog.tripod.com/99.html, accessed October 2006.
Wilmar N. Tognazzini, Morro Bay, California.
U.S. Census
1900 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
1910 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
1920 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
1930 Census records. Ancestry.com, accessed by subscription June 2015.
Woodman, Craig F., James L. Rudolph, and Teresa P. Rudolph (editors)
1991 Western Chumash Prehistory: Resource Use and Settlement in the Santa Ynez River
Valley . Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California.
Prepared for Unocal Corporation. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los
Angeles District.
55
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
56
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
57
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
58
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
59
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
60
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
61
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
62
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
63
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
64
APPENDIX C
Native American Outreach
65
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
66
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
67
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
68
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
69
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
APPENDIX D
Cultural Resource Record Forms
70
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
71
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
72
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
73
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
74
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
75
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
76
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
77
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
78
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
79
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
80
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 7
6-8-16
Loren Riehl
Re: 71 Palomar Tree Survey
We visited the site to verify the current tree inventory at 71 Palomar in San Luis
Obispo. Included in this report is a spreadsheet that includes:
Tree numbers that corresponds to the map.
Tree common name
Tree diameter
Tree condition rated from a 0 (dead) to 10 (arboricultural
specimen)
Removal status
Individual tree notes as needed
Tree #1 is a large Canary Island palm tree that will be preserved. In addition, one
Mexican fan palm (#7) located at the corner of the property will also be saved. The
healthier of the two Norfolk Island pines (#4) will be saved. Tree #2 (NI Pine) located
next to the CI palm is very suppressed on one side and has the most significant dieback
so it will be removed. All the eucalyptus are planned for removal. These trees have all
been topped in the last 20 years and have now re-grown suckers that are a significant
hazard. Indiscriminate topping is not a proper arboricultural pruning action as the sucker
growth is not properly attached to the trunk. Over time, they will split off. All of the
eucalyptus trees (mainly the large blue gums) are infested with eucalyptus tortoise beetles
Trachymela sloanei). While these beetles don’t necessarily kill the trees, they eat the
leaves making the trees a bit unsightly close up. There is no viable control. Several atlas
cedars, one gray pine, one stone pine, one Monterey pine along with several ash trees will
be removed. None of these trees would qualify as a “specimen tree” so replacement is a
viable option. A couple of the olive trees are of decent quality, however, they are all fruit
producers. Many HOAs and parks are removing them due to the fruit load. People track
ATTACHMENT 7
the olives onto carpets which caused permanent stains and also people slip and fall on
sidewalks from the fruit. Replanting with fruitless varieties is highly recommended.
There are a few ash trees located between Valencia Apts and this property. Those trees
would quickly outgrow their space. They are close enough to the Valencia Apts.
retaining wall that they could easily begin to crack the wall and cause significant damage.
We also inventoried the trees in the berm along Lunetta. There are no quality
trees in this area. The eucalyptus tree has been topped several times by PG & E. The
acacia is very invasive and has sprouted up in other areas. The Monterey pine is already
rubbing on the power pole. PG & E won’t let this tree exist in its right of way for long.
The two myoporums are basically garbage trees at this point. A bug called a thrip
Klambothrips myopori ) has invaded these trees all along the Central Coast. They are
next to impossible to control. There is one small, multiple trunk coast live oak along the
berm. The top has been broken out of this tree by a passing vehicle most likely. This
tree will never amount to a quality tree due to the severe damage.
Please feel free to contact us if there are any questions.
Chip Tamagni
Certified Arborist #WE 6436-A
California State Pest Control Advisor #75850
Certified Hazard Risk Assessor #1209
Cal Poly B.S. Forestry and Natural Resources Management
ATTACHMENT 7
Property Address:71 Palomar Avenue
Tree Common Condition Remove Tree
Number Name DBH 1--10 Y/N Notes
1 Palm 48 6 n Healthy Tree
2 NI Pine 36 3 Y Supressed and tip dieback
3 Pitt.2x16 4 y
3A Pitt.9 4 y
4 NI Pine 26 4 n tip dieback
5 willow 6x15 3 y
6 Pitt.5x30 3 y
7 Palm 18 3 n At corner of property
8 Eng.Walnut 4x16 2 y Not a graftedtree
9 BG Euc.51 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
10 BG Euc.48 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
11 BG Euc.18 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
12 BG Euc.2x30 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
13 BG Euc.22 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
14 CI Pine 12 4 y
15 CI Pine 12 4 y
16 Atlas Cedar 9 4 y
17 Gray Pine 10 3 y
18 Atlas Cedar 10 4 y
19 Atlas Cedar 9 4 y
20 BG Euc.48 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
21 BG Euc.36 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
22 BG Euc.54 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
23 BG Euc.30 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
24 BG Euc.58 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
25 BG Euc.48 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
26 BG Euc.42 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
27 BG Euc.48 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
28 Privet 4x20 3 y
29 Privet 3x16 3 y
30 Ash 29 5 y
31 Ash 24 5 y
ATTACHMENT 7
Property Address:71 Palomar Avenue
Tree Common Remove Tree
Number Name DBH Condition Y/N Notes
32 Ash 18 5 y
33 Painted Euc 24 3 y prev.topped
34 BG Euc.40 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
35 BG Euc.53 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
36 BG Euc.44 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
37 BG Euc.46 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
38 BG Euc.72 2 y prev.topped,tortoise beetleinfested
39 Olive 18 4 y
40 Myoporum 6x13 1 y Tree will die fromthrips
41 Myoporum 5x15 1 y Tree will die fromthrips
42 Olive 2x18 4 y
43 Stone Pine 29 2 y Severely stressed
44 Olive 2x15 4 y
45 Olive 3x16 4 y
46 Iron Euc.10 2 y Topped for line clearance
47 Acacia 10 3 y Invasive species and sprouting inotherareas
48 MO Pine 8 2 y Against power pole,PGE will probablyremove
49 Live Oak 2x7 1 y broken top from Luneta traffic/truck
ATTACHMENT 7
ATTACHMENT7
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
October 21, 2016
Rincon Project No: 16-03127
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3218
Attn: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Subject: Aesthetics Evaluation for the 71 Palomar Project
71 Palomar Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California 93405
Project Background
The City of San Luis Obispo originally began work on processing a use permit application for the
development of a 41-unit multi-family residential project at 71 Palomar Avenue in the City of San Luis
Obispo, based in part on the publication of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for
the originally proposed project. Subsequently, the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the
proposed project and analysis of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The CHC continued the project to a future date and directed the project applicant to revise the project to
reduce the extent to which the historic Sandford House is repositioned on the lot, to provide greater
spacing between the historic house and proposed new construction, to reduce the scale and massing of
the new construction, and to give greater consideration to the way in which the new construction
highlights the historic elements of the subject property. An Addendum to the original IS/MND has since
been prepared to evaluate whether the additional new information and clarifications resulting from the
proposed project design revisions (described in the Project Description section below) would result in any
new or substantially greater significant environmental effects or require any new mitigation measures not
identified in the original IS/MND. This aesthetics evaluation serves to supplement the analysis of potential
aesthetic impacts of the revised project in the Addendum. The Addendum, together with the original
IS/MND, will be used by the City when considering approval of the proposed project.
Project Location
The project site is located at 71 Palomar Avenue, on the west side of Palomar Avenue between Ramona
Drive and Luneta Drive, south of Foothill Boulevard, in the northwest portion of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California. The site consists of a single 1.32-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 052-162-
007) and is zoned High Density Residential (R-4).
Project Description
The proposed project involves the relocation of the 34-foot-tall Sandford House to the southeast corner
of the property. The historic Sandford House would be repositioned approximately 33 feet east of and 16
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
2
feet south of its current location and would be surrounded by open space measuring 49 feet from Luneta
Drive, 46 feet from the neighboring structures to the west, and 52 feet from the neighboring structures
to the north. The original historic orientation would remain the same with the house facing Palomar
Avenue from the crest of the small slope on the project site. The house would also be rehabilitated
following the City Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. Existing
non-historic rear additions to the Sandford House would be removed and the residence, currently serving
as student housing, would become amenity space (e.g. leasing, computer and conference rooms, fitness
room) for residents and management of the proposed new apartment development.
The proposed project also involves the development of 33 apartment units in six buildings (Buildings A
through F) on the areas of the project site north and west of the proposed location of the Sandford
House. Buildings A through F would include two-story residential (B and R-2) uses with a maximum height
of 35 feet. Buildings A and B proposed for the northern portion of the project site would also include
open parking garage (S-2) uses to accommodate the 63 semi-subterranean parking spaces proposed for
the project. Pursuant to California Building Code (CBC) Section 510.4, where a one story above grade ‘S-2’
parking garage is provided under a building of group ‘R’, the number of stories shall be measured from
the floor above such a parking area. In addition, according to CBC Section 202 the lowest parking garage
is considered a basement and the upper parking garage is considered a story above grade plane.
Accordingly, Buildings A and B would technically only be considered two stories in height for purposes of
satisfying the R-4 zoning requirements, but nevertheless would have a total of four stories. Due to the
lower elevation of the northern portion of the site and design of the proposed buildings, the rooftops of
Buildings A and B would appear level with the rooftops of the buildings (C through F) proposed for the
southern portion of the site.
The project would require removal of most of the 55 existing trees onsite (Refer to Figure 1 of the
Arborist Report prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in October 2016) to be replaced with over 30 new
trees and additional landscaping.
Setting
Regulatory Setting
State
State Streets and Highways Code, Section 260, et. seq. A California highway may be designated as scenic
depending on how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the
landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. When
a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define
the scenic corridor of the highway, defined by the motorist’s line of vision (a reasonable boundary is
selected when the view extends to a distant horizon). A city or county must also adopt ordinances to
preserve the scenic quality of the corridor, including: 1) regulation of land use and density of
development; 2) detailed land and site planning; 3) control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on
billboards); 4) careful attention to and control of earthmoving and landscaping; and 5) careful attention
to design and appearance of structures and equipment.
Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. The City of San Luis Obispo regulates aesthetics of buildings and
public spaces through implementation of adopted policies and programs. The Land Use Element (LUE),
Circulation Element (CE), Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE), and the implementing statutes
of the Municipal Code, Community Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Guidelines are the core of
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
3
this mechanism. The General Plan LUE and CE provide policies and programs for maintenance of public
views during urbanization along viewing corridors and scenic roadways throughout the City. The following
LUE policies define the local regulatory setting related to the protection of visual resources in the City:
Policy 2.2.10. Site Constraints. Residential developments will respect site constraints
including property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats,
wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and significant trees.
Policy 2.3.5. Neighborhood Pattern. The City shall require that all new residential
development be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this
impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods.
Policy 2.3.7. Natural Features. The City shall require residential developments to preserve
and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands,
wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
Policy 2.3.9. Compatible Development. The City shall require that new housing built within
an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood.
Policy 2.3.11. Residential Project Objectives. Residential projects should provide:
A Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and
oriented to receive light and sunshine;
C Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces
comfortable with minimum mechanical support;
D Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E Security and safety;
F Bicycle facilities consistent with the City’s Bicycle Plan;
G Adequate parking and storage space;
H Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses (Barrier walls,
isolating a project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when
there is no practicable alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an
attractive pedestrian, residential setting through features such as setbacks, changes
in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through them at regular
intervals, and planting.)
I Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front
yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways;
J Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire
Department.
In addition, the following Circulation Element policies define the local regulatory setting related to the
protection of visual resources:
Policy 15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes. The City will preserve and improve views
of important scenic resources from streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should
not block views or detract from the quality of views.
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
4
A Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway will be considered
sensitive” and require architectural review.
B Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
C As part of the city’s environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic
roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact.
D Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views.
E Street lights should be low scale and focus light at the intersections where it is most
needed. Tall light standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated
with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed. However,
safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns.
F Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment
and night sky per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. (City of San Luis Obispo,
2014a).
The COSE also lists policies and programs that protect public viewsheds. The following COSE policies
influence the local visual resources regulatory setting:
Policy 9.1.2. Urban Development. Urban development should reflect its architectural
context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices
that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and
that are compatible with historical and architectural resources. Plans for sub-areas of the City may
require certain architectural styles.
Policy 9.1.3. Utilities and Signs. Features that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or obstruct
views should be avoided. Necessary equipment including utility, communication, and traffic
equipment should be designed and placed as to not impinge upon or degrade scenic view of the
Morros or surrounding hillsides and farmland.
Policy 9.1.4. Streetscapes and Major Roadways. In the acquisition, design, construction, or
significant modification of major roadways the city promotes the creation of “streetscapes” and
linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the City’s visual quality and character, enhances
adjacent uses, and integrates the roadway with surrounding districts.
Policy 9.1.5. View Protection in New Development. The City will include in all environmental
review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets, and road construction on views
and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside
standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, and the California Environmental Quality
Act and Guidelines.
Policy 9.2.1. Views To and From Public Places, Including Scenic Roadways. The City will
preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places and encourage other
agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic
buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space.
1. Development projects shall not wall-off scenic roadways and block views.
2. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or
clutter views, consistent with safety needs.
3. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees
shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features.
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
5
4. Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be
considered “sensitive” and require architectural review.
Policy 9.2.2. Views To and From Private Development. Projects should incorporate as
amenities views from and within private development sites. Private development designs should
cause the least view blockage for neighboring property that allows project objectives to be met.
Policy 9.2.3. Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall avoid: operating at unnecessary
locations, levels, and times; spillage to areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare (intense
line-of-site contrast); and frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code was
developed in conformance with the General Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2015a). Zoning is intended to
promote and enforce broad General Plan policies related to land use, physical development, and
construction. The following ordinance concerns the visual impact of lighting.
17.18.030. Illumination. No lighting or illuminated device shall be operated so as to create
glare which creates a hazard or nuisance on other property. (Ord. 941 – 1[part], 1982: prior code -
9202.6[C]).
17.23. Night Sky Preservation. Establishes lighting regulations that encourage lighting
practices and systems that will:
a. Permit reasonable uses of outdoor lighting for nighttime safety, utility, security, and
enjoyment while preserving the ambience of night;
b. Curtail and reverse any degradation of the nighttime visual environment and the night
sky;
c. Minimize glare and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected,
excessive, or unnecessary;
d. Help protect the natural environment from the damaging effects of night lighting; and
e. Meet the minimum requirements of the California Code of Regulations for Outdoor
Lighting and Signs (Title 24, Chapter 6).
Architectural Review Commission. The City’s Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviews and
approves the design for proposed buildings within the City. Architectural review is a process whereby the
City’s ARC examines a proposed project’s layout, building design, its relationship to the neighborhood in
which it would be located, landscaping, parking, signage, lighting, and other features affecting the
project’s appearance. This process will be applied to proposed development within the project area, and
may result in conditions or design modifications that expand on mitigation measures that may be
included in the IS-MND Addendum. The ARC is charged with administering architectural review in a way
that creates a pleasant environment, maintains property values, preserves the City’s natural beauty and
visual character, and ensures orderly and harmonious development. The ARC uses the City’s Community
Design Guidelines as a basis for evaluating the suitability and appropriateness of individual project design
to help achieve attractive and environmentally sensitive development.
City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. San Luis Obispo’s Community Design Guidelines
were developed to communicate the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and
building design. Many of the guidelines specifically target the reduction of visual impacts and the
promotion of visual harmony with surrounding context (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). The following
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
6
chapters and sections from the Community Design Guidelines are applicable to the analysis in this
section:
Chapter 2 – General Design Principles: This chapter includes general principles that should
be considered in design of all development. Certain guidelines within this chapter apply only to
certain types of projects (e.g., residential or non-residential). Site design considerations include
designing each project with careful consideration of site character and constraints, designing
projects to fit with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of
the site, keeping building elements in proportion, and selecting exterior treatments carefully.
Chapter 5 – Residential Project Design: This chapter includes guidelines relating to the
goals for residential project design, subdivision design and general residential project principles,
infill development, multi-family and clustered housing design, and single-family housing design.
Qualities examined include protection of scenic roadways; visually-pleasing parking design and
location; consideration of neighboring development; quality landscaping and lighting; and site-
specific building design.
Chapter 6 – Site Planning and Other Design Details: This chapter provides guidelines for
specific details of site and building design that apply to all development requiring architectural
review including details relative to energy and resource conservation, lighting, storage,
trash/recycling enclosures, landscaping, parking, and public art, among other items.
Environmental Setting
Regional
The City of San Luis Obispo is located approximately eight miles from the Pacific Ocean, midway between
San Francisco and Los Angeles at the junction of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) and State Route 1. The
topography of the City and its surroundings is generally defined by several low hills and ridges formed by
Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also known as Morros and provide scenic focal points in
the City while the Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits of the area and the scenic
backdrop for much of the city. The surrounding hills have created a hard urban edge for the city where
development has remained in the lower elevations.
Project Site and Vicinity
The residential neighborhoods south of Foothill Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site exhibit a more
suburban character than those in the downtown core of the City. The street pattern in this area forms a
rectilinear grid, providing a degree of formality and long visual sightlines along some streets. The
neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project site are characterized by residential and commercial
development surrounded by mature street trees and the unique visual backdrop provided by Cerro San
Luis Obispo and Bishop Peak. The topography of the project site generally slopes down to the northeast.
Several mature trees of varying species are located throughout the site, with a total of 59 trees on the
site (Refer to Figure 1 of the Arborist Report prepared by Rincon in October 2016). The central and
southwestern portions of the project site are currently developed with the historic Sandford House and
accessory structures. Despite existing development on the project site, the site possesses a natural
character due to the large size and abundance of mature trees on and surrounding the site. Refer to
Figure 1 for the location of key viewpoints for the project. Refer to Figures 2a through 2c for
photographic documentation of views of the project site from the key viewpoints.
ATTACHMENT 7
Key Viewpoint No. 1
Key Viewpoint No. 2
Key Viewpoint No. 3KeyViewpointNo. 4
Key Viewpoint No. 5
Key Viewpoint No. 6
Project Site Location
Camera Key Viewpoint
Cerro San Luis
State
R
oute
1
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
Location of Key Viewpoints Figure 1
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
Views of Project Site from Key Viewpoints Figure 2a
Key Viewpoint 1 : South-facing view of project area from Highland Drive at Ferrini Road, approximately 100 feet west of State
Route 1.
Key Viewpoint 2: East-facing view of project site and adjacent apartments from Luneta Drive at Verde Drive.
SiteLocationSiteLocation
Approximate SiteLocationApproximateSiteLocation
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
Views of Project Site from Key Viewpoints Figure 2b
Key Viewpoint 3: Southwest-facing view of project site and surroundings from the north side of Ramona Drive, approximately
130 feet east of Palomar Avenue.
Key Viewpoint 4: Southwest-facing view of project site and surroundings from the north side of Ramona Drive, approximately
130 feet east of Palomar Avenue.
SiteLocationSiteLocation
SiteLocationSiteLocation
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
Views of Project Site from Key Viewpoints Figure 2c
Key Viewpoint 5: Northwest-facing close-up view of project site from east side of Palomar Avenue at Luneta Drive.
Key Viewpoint 6: Northeast-facing view of project area from Cerro San Luis public hiking/bicycle trail.
SiteLocationSiteLocation
Approximate SiteLocationApproximateSiteLocation
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
11
Methodology and Impact Analysis
Methodology and Significance Thresholds
The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature.
Different viewers react to viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. This discussion evaluates the
existing visual environment against the anticipated level of development with implementation of the
proposed 71 Palomar project. CEQA distinguishes between public and private views, and focuses on
whether a project would affect the public environment rather than of the environment of particular
individuals. Private views, such as those from backyards, front yards, interior living spaces, and private
roadways, generally are not analyzed under CEQA and potential impacts to private views would not be
environmentally significant.
The project site was observed and photographically documented in its surrounding context from various
public viewpoints in the area, as shown on Figures 1 and 2a through 2c. It should be noted that views of
the project site and general project area other than those shown on the Figures 2a through 2c were
explored, including views from public viewpoints (roadway right-of-way) along Serrano Heights Drive.
However, views from other areas did not provide any visibility of the project site or general project area.
As such, photographs from those areas were not informative to the analysis and are not included herein.
Pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, potentially significant aesthetic impacts would
occur if development of the project site would:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway;
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
and/or
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
In this analysis, only public views were evaluated against the above criteria and views from private
residences are not discussed herein.
Impact Analysis
a. The project site is in a suburban area of the City characterized by residential and commercial
development amongst natural features such as mature trees, and Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak. The
project site is visually dominated by the 34-foot-tall historic Sandford House and associated outbuildings,
and an abundance of mature trees. The site retains a semi-natural character due to this abundance of
mature trees and vegetation. The project site is aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to
the existing historic structure and trees onsite. However, according to Figure 3 of the General Plan
Circulation Element and Figure 11 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element the site is
not within a City designated scenic vista and, therefore, is not visually prominent from these areas. When
viewed from various other public viewpoints in the vicinity of the site, including public trails on Cerro San
Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and
does not stand out as visually prominent or unique (Refer to Figures 2a through 2c). The project would
involve the removal of trees and structures, as well as development of multi-family residential buildings,
and relocation of the Sandford House on the project site. From the public trails on Cerro San Luis and
roadways south of the site, northward views of the site with development of the project, which would
include views of the rooftops of the proposed apartment buildings, would conform to views of the
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
12
surrounding suburban area. From these area, the two-story apartment buildings with two stories of
subterranean parking (Buildings A and B) proposed for the northern portion of the site would appear
relatively level with Buildings C through F proposed for southern and western portions of the site, the
relocated Sandford House, and western adjacent off-site two-story apartments. From roadways to the
north, southward public views of the site with development of the project would remain mostly
obstructed by existing surrounding development and vegetation, and similar to views of the surrounding
developed area. As such, the project would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista and
this potential impact would be less than significant.
b. The project is not located along any State designated scenic routes. According to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System (2011), the closest
officially designated State scenic highway to the project site is State Route 1. The project site is located
approximately 0.4 mile west of State Route 1 and is not visible from the highway (Refer to Figure 2a). As
such, the project would not damage any scenic resources within a scenic highway and there would be no
impact.
c. The project site is currently developed with the historic Sandford House and associated outbuildings,
and contains 55 mature trees. These mature trees are not recently planted or recently germinated from
seed, within the last 15 years, and make up the majority of trees present and the vast majority of canopy
on site. From the adjacent roadways and viewpoints, the abundance of trees gives the site a somewhat
natural appearance amongst single- and multi-family residential development surrounding the site (Refer
to Key Viewpoints 2, 4, and 5 on Figures 2a through 2c). The project would include development of multi-
story apartments with a maximum height of 35 feet, with associated landscaping and parking on the
project site. The proposed development would involve more intense structural development on the site
than existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most of the existing mature trees from the site.
According to the landscape plan, the project would involve planting of over 30 new landscape trees
throughout the proposed apartment development and the retention of two existing trees near the
southeast corner of the site along Palomar Drive, one tree in the northeast corner of the site and one
existing tree in the southwest corner of the site. Despite retaining some of the existing mature trees on
the site, the proposed development and overall amount of trees removed would result in a less natural
appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped trees would be
scattered throughout and would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development
unlike the existing trees which are large, dense, and block existing structures from view. The project, as
proposed, would also involve moving the historic Sandford House, which possesses high aesthetic quality,
from the central area to the southeast portion of the site. This would result in the Sandford House being
closer to the adjacent roadways, less obstructed by trees, and, thus, more visually prominent in the
neighborhood. Although the project would change the aesthetic character of the site, it would not
significantly degrade the character as it would include high-density residential development with a
maximum height of 35 feet consistent with adjacent high-density development to the east, north, and
west of the site would retain the visually prominent Sandford House. Additionally, the project includes
design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the massing of the proposed
multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped trees, four existing trees, and other
landscape features, and agrarian style architecture to complement the Sandford House. With these
design and landscape features, the project would comply with City General Plan policies aimed at
preserving scenic views and the character of prominent visual features within the City, as well as the
City’s Community Design Guidelines which are intended to ensure that future development is consistent
with the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to
protect scenic resources and views, from public rights-of-way. However, the project would require a final
determination of project consistency with the Community Design Guidelines by the ARC. As such, the
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
13
project would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings,
and this impact would be less than significant impact.
d. The project would result in development of a site that contains minimal existing sources of artificial
light and where existing lights are shielded by vegetation on and around the site. Existing sources of
nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the site include streetlights along Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive,
spillover lighting from surrounding single- and multi-family residential development, and light from the
headlights of vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadways. Development of the project site would
result in an increase in ambient nighttime lighting through the increased residential development and
associated exterior lighting and interior lighting spillover. This would include parking garage and
security/safety lighting, and fixtures associated with the proposed structural development. In addition,
windows, exterior building materials, and surface paving materials used for the proposed development
may generate glare that could affect surrounding residential uses.
The project would be required to conform to the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations
Chapter 17.23, discussed under Regulatory Setting), which sets operation standards and requirements for
lighting installations. The project would also be required to comply with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines as well as City General Plan Policies 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 which include provisions for preventing
light intrusion to preserve safety, and outdoor lighting stipulations to avoid light and glare impacts. The
project applicant would also be required to provide an overall lighting plan that demonstrates that the
project complies with the requirements of City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance No. 17.18.030, which
prohibits lighting or illuminated devices that would create glare which results in a hazard or nuisance on
other properties (City of San Luis Obispo, Zoning Regulations). This plan would be reviewed by the ARC
prior to issuance of building permits. Adhering to these existing regulations and ordinances, as well as the
City’s Community Design Guidelines, would ensure that exterior lighting and finish is designed to
minimize impacts on neighboring properties and other light and glare sensitive uses. As such, impacts
associated with the creation of new sources of light and glare would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The project, in combination with approved, pending, and proposed development in San Luis Obispo,
would contribute to increasing urbanization of the northern portion of the City. Consistent with long-term
buildout under the General Plan, the project would be required to adhere to the design standards of the
City General Plan and City Building Standards and would be subject to discretionary review by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council, as well as final design review by the ARC. As determined in the
Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update Environmental Impact Report (2014), all development
consistent with current land use designations and that adheres to the LUCE Update policies would result
in less than significant aesthetic impacts. Therefore, although the visual character of the City could
incrementally change as development intensity increases within areas already designated for such
development, this change is consistent with the General Plan vision for the urban environment and
impacts to visual quality would not be cumulatively considerable. The overall aesthetic impact of
cumulative development in the project vicinity would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 7
City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Project
14
References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2010. Community Design Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2014. Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Environmental Impact Report.
Available at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/general-plan
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2014. Land Use Element. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6635
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2014. Circulation Element. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6637
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2014. Conservation and Open Space Element. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651
San Luis Obispo, City of. 2015. Zoning Regulations. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861
ATTACHMENT 7
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
October 21, 2016
Rincon Project No. 16-03127
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
Attention: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Subject: Peer Review of the Biological Resources Analysis of the IS-MND and IS-
MND Addendum for the Proposed 71 Palomar Project in San Luis Obispo
County, California
Dear Ms. Cohen:
This letter provides a peer view of the Initial Study (IS) (ARCH-2193-2015) and Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) Addendum for the Proposed 71 Palomar Avenue
Multi-Family Residential Project in the City of San Luis Obispo (City), San Luis Obispo
County, California. The purpose of this peer review is to provide an evaluation and
recommendations to ensure the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documentation is appropriate and compliant with CEQA, with respect to biological
resources issues, and to provide an independent biological evaluation of the proposed
project.
Rincon Consultants reviewed the IS and IS-MND Addendum. Both documents were
prepared by Oliveira Environmental Consulting, LLC dated March 18, 2016 and June 2016,
respectively. We also reviewed relevant databases including the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2016); the online
Inventory of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants of California (California Native Plant
Society, 2016); and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Portal (2016a)
and Information, Planning, and Conservation System (2016b). In addition, a Rincon
biologist conducted a site visit on the subject property on September 20, 2016. The database
search and site visit results were compared to the information provided in the CEQA
documents.
Summary of CEQA Documents
The original project analyzed in the IS involved construction of a 41-unit multi-family
residential project on a property located on a 1.32-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue. The
property currently contains the Master List Historic Sandford House, a secondary
residential building, a remodeled garage with adjacent carport, expansive lawns, and
several mature trees.
ATTACHMENT 7
Ms. Rachel Cohen
Biological Peer Review of the IS and IS-MND Addendum
71 Palomar Project
Page 2 of 4
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
The original project proposed to rehabilitate, relocate, and reuse the historic Sandford
House, remove non-historic structural elements, remove almost all the trees on the site, and
replant 21 trees. The project was then revised to change the positioning of the relocated
historic house, reduce the proposed number of multi-family units to 33, reduce the amount
of proposed parking spaces, configure proposed units in six buildings instead of four and
provide additional replacement trees (over 30, as compared to the previously proposed 21
replacement trees). An IS-MND Addendum was prepared to evaluate the proposed changes
to the project, and concluded that no additional environmental impacts would result. The
IS-MND Addendum incorporated an Arborist Report that was prepared for the site by A&T
Arborists.
Evaluation of CEQA Documents With Respect to Biological Resources
The IS-MND and associated Addendum correctly identifies the habitat type at the project
site, notes the lack of potentially jurisdictional waters, and that species listed as threatened,
endangered, or rare are not known to be present at the site. The environmental document
identifies a single potentially significant impact with respect to nesting bird habitat, and
recommends avoidance during the nesting season to avoid conflict with California Fish and
Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Subsequently, the environmental document
concludes that with incorporation of that measure, the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on biological resources.
Formal raptor surveys were not conducted, however raptors and/or their nests were not
observed during the site visit. The site contains several large trees that are suitable habitat
for various raptor species even in an urban setting such as the site. The Biological Resource
section lacks sufficient discussion of raptors including sensitive species such as the Cooper’s
hawk (Accipiter cooperii), which is included on the Federal Watch List. Cooper’s hawk are
adaptable to urban conditions where they feed on American robin (Turdus migratorius),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock pigeon (Columba livia; common feral pigeon,
formerly also called rock dove), and various sparrows (Peeters and Peeters, 2005, Raptors of
California), and this species could nest in the foliage of the eucalyptus trees and other trees at
the site. The State Fully Protected white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the
site while foraging in the open grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White-
tailed kite has been documented by the CNDDB within 3.5 miles of the proposed project
site. Furthermore, all nesting raptor species, including the common red-tailed hawk and
barn owl, are specifically protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5.
Destruction of raptor nests would constitute a significant impact, and the IS-MND should be
updated to address the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project and provide
effective avoidance and minimization measures.
Formal bat surveys were not conducted, however bats were not observed during the site
visit. The site contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), which is a
State Species of Special Concern commonly found in association with human development.
Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB approximately one mile south of the project
site and this species may utilize the structures on the project site as roosting areas.
ATTACHMENT 7
Ms. Rachel Cohen
Biological Peer Review of the IS and IS-MND Addendum
71 Palomar Project
Page 3 of 4
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Structures that occur within the project site that can be utilized by special status bats include
the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas.
During the field visit, Rincon observed small openings and cracks into the attic of the
Stanford house as well as other structures on the proposed project site. These areas are
considered access points to potentially suitable roosting habitat inside the structures.
The environmental document states that no heritage trees are located on the proposed
project site and that the project will have a less than significant impact relating to
conflictions with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance. To be compliant with the City’s tree ordinance, all tree
removals will be required to be reviewed by the City Arborist. The City Arborist will then
facilitate the approval process.
Recommendations
The Biological Resource Section of the IS and IS-MND Addendum should be supported
with additional information to remedy the issues identified above. We recommend that the
IS and IS-MND Addendum include:
Raptors and nesting birds
1. Add discussion of potential direct and indirect effects to nesting birds.
2. Add the following mitigation measures to address potential direct and indirect effects
to common and sensitive species covered by the California Fish and Game Code and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act:
For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), surveys for nesting birds covered by the California
Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to vegetation removal activities.
A qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for raptors. The
survey area for all other nesting bird and raptor species shall include the
disturbance footprint plus a 300-foot buffer.
If active nests (nests with eggs or chicks) are located, the qualified biologist shall
establish an appropriate avoidance buffer ranging from 50 to 300 feet based on
the species biology and the current and anticipated disturbance levels occurring
in vicinity of the nest. The objective of the buffer shall be to reduce disturbance of
nesting birds. All buffers shall be marked using high-visibility flagging or
fencing, and, unless approved by the qualified biologist, no construction
activities shall be allowed within the buffers until the young have fledged from
the nest or the nest fails.
Bat species
1. Add discussion of potential direct and indirect effects to roosting bats.
2. Add the following effective mitigation measures to address potential direct and
direct effects to common and sensitive roosting bats within the project site.
Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing
structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The
ATTACHMENT 7
Ms. Rachel Cohen
Biological Peer Review of the IS and IS-MND Addendum
71 Palomar Project
Page 4 of 4
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through
March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony
of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted
sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night,
maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive
exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW.
These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to exit
the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure.
If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat
as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at
an approved location offsite.
Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees
proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat
colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in close
coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or other appropriate
passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall
be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices
properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions,
height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be
disturbed.
Trees
1. Include discussion pertaining to the City’s tree ordinance requirements. All tree
removals will be required to be reviewed by the City Arborist
We believe inclusion of the above recommended information will improve the clarity and
completeness of the IS and IS-MND Addendum for the purposes of complying with CEQA.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance with this important project. Please
don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns about this peer review.
Sincerely,
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Jamie Deutsch, CISEC/QSP Richard Daulton, MURP
Associate Biologist Principal/Vice President
ATTACHMENT 7
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
October 21, 2016
Rincon Project Number: 16-03127
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
Attention: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Subject: Arborist Report for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project for the City of San
Luis Obispo
Dear Ms. Cohen:
This Arborist Report was prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo’s 71 Palomar Avenue
Project. It was prepared to meet the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance for tree
removals, per Section 12.24.090 E - Tree Removal with a Development Permit.
The proposed project involves implementation of a 33-unit multi-family residential project on
a property located on a 1.32-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue. The property currently
contains the Master List Historic Sandford House, a secondary residential building, a
remodeled garage with adjacent carport, expansive lawns, and many mature trees. The
project would rehabilitate, relocate, and reuse the historic Sandford House, remove non-
historic structural elements, remove almost all of the trees on the site, and replant trees.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the trees and location of the project components.
A separate arborist report was prepared by A&T Arborists (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71
Palomar Avenue Project. This report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is a
separate report providing analysis based on data collected by Rincon Consultants. Tree
numbers from the A&T report are generally consistent with the numbers in this report.
City of San Luis Obispo’s Tree Ordinance
Per Section 12.24.090 E of the City’s Municipal Ordinance, removal of trees for projects with
a development permit is allowed assuming the following documentation is provided:
a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal,
b. All information to support the reason for removal,
c. Any other pertinent information
Heritage Trees
Per Section 12.24.160 Heritage Trees, any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed
as a heritage tree. Also per the ordinance, heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic
interest or trees of an unusual species or size. Heritage trees are protected and maintained by
the city. The City’s Heritage Tree Page
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 2 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917d
a8bbc7) maps trees that have been proposed and designated as heritage trees by the City. No
tree located on the project site has been designated by the City as a heritage tree. It should be
noted that this is a voluntary program.
Methodology
Rincon’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, Stephanie Lopez,
was on site September 15, 2016 to collect data for the trees at the 71 Palomar site. All trees
located within the study area were mapped and visually evaluated for health based on the
criteria in Table 1. The evaluation was conducted for the above ground portion of the trees
only.
Table 1: Overall Condition Rating Criteria
Rating Structure
Excellent
In addition to attributes of a ‘good’ rating, the tree exhibits a well-developed root flare
and a balanced canopy. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and is aesthetically
pleasing.
Good
Trunk is well developed with well attached limbs and branches; some flaws exist but are
hardly visible. Good foliage cover and density, annual shoot growth above average.
Provides shading or wildlife habitat and has minor aesthetic flaws.
Fair
Flaw in trunk, limb and branch development are minimal and are typical of this species
and geographic region. Minimal visual damage from existing insect or disease, average
foliage cover and annual growth.
Poor
Limbs or branches are poorly attached or developed. Canopy is not symmetrical.
Trunk has lean. Branches or trunk have physical contact with the ground. May exhibit
fire damage, responses to external encroachment/obstructions or existing
insect/disease damage.
Dead
Trunk, limbs or branches have extensive visible decay or are broken. Canopy leaves
are non-seasonally absent or uniformly brown throughout, with no evidence of new
growth.
In addition, the following information was gathered:
Scientific and common name,
Geographic location of each tree using a Trimble® Geo 7x handheld GPS with
integrated rangefinder.
Diameter of all trees at 54 inches above natural grade (i.e., Diameter at Breast Height
DBH])) using an English unit diameter tape or caliper. Trees were considered
multiple trunks if a split occurred at or below DBH. Where deformity occurs at DBH,
measurement was taken immediately below or above deformity, as close to 54 inches
above natural grade as possible.
Visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread; and
General health observations.
Tree numbers correspond directly to those in the A&T Arborists report for trees #1-49. Data
was collected for 59 trees. This number of trees varies from the A&T Arborists report
because data was collected for recently planted trees and oak tree saplings/volunteers. Table
2, below, provides a summary of the data collected for all 59 trees.
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 3 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
l
t
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
1 Canary
Island Palm
Phoenix
canariensis
50 25 1 38 Good N Ivy at base of trunk, but healthy
2 Norfolk
Island Pine
Araucaria
heterophylla
65 40 1 30 Fair Y Canopy in competition with other
canopies
3 Pittosporum Pittosporum
sp
25 20 2 9 10.5 Good Y
3A Pittosporum Pittosporum
sp
20 10 1 11 Good Y
4 Norfolk
Island Pine
Araucaria
heterophylla
60 35 1 29 Good N Some tip die back on branches
5 Willow Salix sp 15 15 3 4 2 3 Fair Y Sparse canopy
6 Pittosporum Pittosporum
sp
25 30 4 7 8 7 7 Good Y
7 Mexican
Fan Palm
Washingtonia
robusta
50 15 1 19 Good N
8 Avocado Persea
americana
10 10 2 4 9 Poor Y
9 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 30 1 49 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
10 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 30 1 45 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
11 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 25 1 20 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
12 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 30 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
13 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 35 1 26 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 4 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
l
t
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
14 Canary
Island Palm
Phoenix
canariensis
55 15 1 18 Fair Y Dead branches in canopy, canopy in
competition with other canopies
15 Canary
Island Palm
Phoenix
canariensis
45 20 1 17 Good Y
16 Atlas Cedar Cedrus
atlantica
35 25 1 16 Good Y
17 Gray Pine Pinus
sabineana
35 25 1 12.5 Good Y Suppressed
18 Atlas Cedar Cedrus
atlantica
35 20 1 13.5 Good Y
19 Atlas Cedar Cedrus
atlantica
40 35 1 15 Fair Y
20 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 20 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
21 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 25 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
22 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
60 25 1 51 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
23 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
40 20 1 23 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
24 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
60 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
25 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 20 1 30 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
26 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 25 1 36 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
27 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 5 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
l
t
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
28 Privet Ligustrum
lucidum
20 20 1 11 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on trunk
29 Privet Ligustrum
lucidum
25 30 4 5 6 8 5 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on trunk
30 Shamel Ash Fraxinus
udhei
45 35 1 26 Good Y
31 Ash Fraxinus
udhei
50 25 1 19.5 Fair Y Sparse canopy
32 Ash Fraxinus
udhei
50 45 1 16.5 Good Y
33 Painted
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
deglupta
55 40 1 18 Fair N Previously topped
34 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
60 40 1 38 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
35 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
80 35 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
36 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
75 45 1 44 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
38 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
80 35 1 46 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
38 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
75 55 1 72 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new
growth, unsightly
39 Olive Olea
europaea
35 35 1 19 Fair Y Major branch removed previously
40 Myoporum Myoporum sp 15 10 2 3 3 Dead Y Standing dead
42 Myoporum Myoporum sp 20 20 2 4 3 Poor Y Splitting bark on trunk
42 Olive Olea
europaea
35 35 2 18 15 Good Y
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 6 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
l
t
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
43 Stone Pine Pinus pinea 35 40 1 27 Poor Y Stressed
44 Olive Olea
europaea
30 40 1 16 9 Fair Y
45 Olive Y Removed, not present
46 Ironbark Eucalyptus
cerba
25 25 1 17 Fair Y
47 Acacia Acacia sp 30 35 1 11 Fair Y
48 Monterey
Pine
Pinus radiata 35 25 1 13 Good Y
49 Coast Live
Oak
Quercus
agrifolia
15 20 1 6 Poor Y Broken stem, trunk splitting
50 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3.5 Good Y Recently planted
51 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted
52 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
53 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
54 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
55 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
56 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
57 Coast
Redwood
Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 7 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
l
t
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
58 Coast Live
Oak
Quercus
agrifolia
5 5 1 3 Fair Y Sapling, under privet canopy
59 Coast Live
Oak
Quercus
agrifolia
10 10 1 4 Good Y Sapling
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 8 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Observations
The tree survey was conducted in September of 2016 when flowers and fruit of trees were not
evident. Species of trees were determined based on the plant material that was present at the
time of the survey..
Trees #50-59 were recently planted or are saplings/volunteers and data had not been collected
on them previously. Tree #45, an olive tree, was not observed and was assumed removed.
The majority of the trees are in fair to poor condition. Some of them are stressed due to lack
of water, competition with neighboring trees, pests, or have been topped and now have limbs
with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are noted in Table 2.
Tree Removals and Plantings
The removal or retention of trees noted in Table 2 is based on the current design plans
prepared by Summers/Murphy and Partners dated June 16, 2016. Based on that plan, four (4)
trees will be retained onsite and 55 (12 of which are small, 6 inches or less DBH), will be
removed. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows that over 30 trees will be planted on the
property as part of the proposed project.
Conclusion
The proposed project would remove 55 trees and replant over 30 trees. To be compliant with
the City’s tree ordinance the removals will be reviewed by the City Arborist. The City’s tree
ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, nor does it
recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings.
The City’s Heritage Tree Program is voluntary, and none of the trees at the site are currently
so designated. The City’s Heritage Tree webpage provides information about the currently
designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available information from that page, the
heritage trees are associated with historic buildings/events/properties, have unusual character,
or are of an unusual size. While several tall healthy trees are present, none of the trees have
unusual character nor are they of unusual size for their species. The Norfolk Island pines are
approximately 70 feet in height but can reach as high as 160 feet. The healthy Canary Island
palm is approximately 50 feet in height but can reach as high as 75 feet.
Furthermore, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource Inventory,
Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 2016) prepared for this project, “the
original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by prior development…
As a result, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting have been substantially
diminished by prior development.” The City Cultural Heritage Committee during their
review of the project did not find that the landscaping elements present contributed to the
historic nature of the property. Based on these assessments, the trees at the site do not meet
the historical context criteria to be classified as heritage trees.
It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance.
Tree Protection Recommendations
Standard practices for protecting trees during construction are recommended for those trees
that will be retained on site. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) should be protected during
ATTACHMENT 7
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 9 of 9
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
construction to ensure that the construction activities will not negatively impact the trees. The
Critical Root Zone is the extent of the dripline of the tree’s canopy and 5-foot buffer.
Fencing should be established at the perimeter of the CRZ for the duration of the
project. The fencing should be temporary, a minimum of 4-feet high, and constructed
of durable material with stationary posts set at no greater than 10-foot intervals. The
fencing should effectively: 1) keep the foliage, crown, branch structure and trunk
clear from direct contact and damage by equipment, materials or disturbances; 2)
preserve roots and soil in an intact and non-compacted state; and 3) easily identify
the CRZ.
If work needs to occur within the CRZ, a certified arborist should be on site to
monitor the activities and advise about impacts to the CRZ in order to avoid negative
effects to the trees’ health and stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to work on this important project. If you have questions please
contact us at 805-547-0900.
Sincerely,
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Stephanie Lopez
Certified Arborist #WE-10-442A, TRAQ
ATTACHMENT 7
811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
O: (805) 594-1590 | F: (805) 594-1577
ARCHAEOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com
2 May 2016
LR Development Group, LLC
Attn: Mr. Loren Riehl
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
El Segundo, California 90245
RE: 71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052-162-007)
Update to Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review
Dear Mr. Riehl:
LR Development Group (LRD) has proposed to build a multifamily residential project at 71 Palomar Avenue
in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project includes rehabilitating the historic Sandford House, a property
included on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, repositioning the building on the existing lot, and
adaptive reuse of the building. In October 2015, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) prepared an Archaeological
Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review for the proposed development (Jenks et al.
2015). We found that the proposed treatment of the historic building is consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) and therefore complies with the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (the Ordinance) and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Based on these findings, the City Community Development Department prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact (MND) for the project. Subsequently, on March 28, 2016, the City’s
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project and MND. The CHC continued the
project to a future date, and directed LRD to reduce the extent to which the Sandford House is repositioned
on the lot, provide greater spacing between the historic home and proposed new construction, reduce the
scale and massing of the new construction, and give greater consideration to the way in which the new
construction highlights the historic elements of the subject property (Cohen 2016). As a result, LRD has
redesigned the project with these goals in mind.
At your request, Æ has evaluated the revised design for redevelopment of the subject property. This letter
describes the proposed project changes and evaluates them for consistency with the SOI Standards and the
City Ordinance and Guidelines. The letter supplements our original evaluation report (Jenks et al. 2015) and
does not repeat portions of that report which remain applicable, such as the archaeological findings, historic
context statement, significance evaluation, and summary of applicable requirements. Unless specifically
mentioned herein, all other unchanged portions of that report are hereby reaffirmed.
Description of Revised Project
To reduce the massing and scale of the project, the revised proposal reduces the number of apartment units
from 41 to 33 units. The newly constructed apartment buildings would each be two stories, and will include
16 two bedroom, 12 three bedroom, and five studio units. All 63 proposed parking spaces will be entirely
tucked-under the north side of the complex. The new building to the west of the Sandford House has been
reduced from three stories to two stories and smaller structures have been substituted for the larger structures
proposed originally.
2
The historic Sandford House would be repositioned approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its
current location, a substantially reduced distance in response to CHC direction. The open space around the
building has been increased so it is now 49 feet from Luneta Drive, 46 feet from the structures to the west,
and 52 feet from the structures to the north. The historic orientation will remain intact, facing Palomar
Avenue from the crest of a small slope, though the overall property height will be lowered slightly across the
slope. As previously described (Jenks et al. 2015), the two-story residence will be rehabilitated following the
City Guidelines and SOI Standards. As with the original proposal, non-historic rear additions to the Sandford
House will be removed and the residence, which currently serves as multifamily student housing, will
become amenity space (leasing, computer/conference rooms, fitness room, etc.) for residents and
management.
We note that our original report refers to the relocation of the Sandford House; however, this should more
accurately be considered a repositioning or resiting of the building on the property, since Section 14.01.020
of the Ordinance defines relocation as the “removal of a resource from its original site and its
reestablishment in essentially the same form, appearance and architectural detailing at another location.”
This is further understood to mean removal of a building or structure from the property where it was
originally built and placement on another property elsewhere in the City or outside the City (the “receiver
site”). Since the current project does not propose to remove the Sandford House from the site, it should be
understood as a change in siting on the original property rather than a relocation. Thus, Section 14.01.110 of
the Ordinance does not apply.
Consistency of the Revised Project with City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary
of Interior’s Standards
As described in our original report (Jenks et al. 2015), the project proposes to rehabilitate the Sandford
House in a manner consistent with the City Guidelines and the SOI Standards. The proposed project
includes demolition of two non-original additions that were installed after the period of significance;
however, the project would retain, rehabilitate, and reuse more than 75 percent of the original framework,
roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding of the building.
The project will retain and repair the architectural features that define the character, form, scale, and
appearance of the Sandford House, as described in our original report. Any necessary repairs or replacements
will use materials similar in size, shape, quality, and appearance; the project will not introduce new or
conflicting architectural elements to the building exterior. The only change to the house will be the
elimination of the twin chimneys at the rear (west) elevation, which are already largely invisible from the
street. A compatible patio off of the north elevation will be placed on grade and screened on the east Palomar
Avenue elevation by a row of hedges.
New construction will occur on the parcel that will change the context and setting of the parcel itself. In this
case, however, the original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by prior
development of the surrounding area, including subdivision of the original 15 acre parcel and construction of
new roads, infrastructure, and surrounding residential neighborhoods that ended the property’s relative
isolation. As a result, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting have been substantially diminished
by prior development. Given the broad change in its environment and context, the historic character of the
subject property is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. While the
proposed project calls for the repositioning and slight reduction in elevation of the residence, it will remain
on site and in a prominent position on the parcel, serving as the architectural anchor of the site.
3
In response to CHC direction, the architectural design of the new structures has been completely revised to
reduce its massing and scale and avoid detracting from the Sandford House while drawing from architectural
elements that would have been present during its period of significance. The proposed new construction will
highlight but not mimic the historic elements of the Sandford House; nonetheless, the new construction will
remain sufficiently modern and differentiated from the historic building to allow clear distinction between
the historic and modern built environment. Subdued neutral colors and lower heights will minimize contrast,
while the rhythm of the facades and multi-light windows will still highlight the historic elements of the
house.
The proposed repositioning of the Sandford House will allow the historic residence to maintain a prominent
position on the parcel. Responding to CHC direction, the distance between the new construction and historic
residence has been increased and the proposed new construction will assume a secondary position; siting of
the new buildings somewhat suggests that they are on their own parcels on all sides of the historic building.
A transitional hierarchy that the architects have sought to create can be viewed in the Palomar Avenue site
elevation, moving from the long block of lower apartments to the north towards the Sandford House and
residential single-family homes to the south, as demonstrated in the plans enclosed herewith. Other new
apartment buildings behind (to the west of) the Sandford House will be only two stories and significantly
shorter than the Sandford House itself. The elevated nature of the site and screening by trees and the
Sandford House itself will further reduce visual intrusions.
Conclusions and Recommendation
Based on historical research, the Sandford House at 71 Palomar Avenue is significant as a good example of
the Colonial Revival architectural style and is appropriately listed on the City Master List of Historic
Resources. The proposed project will reposition the Sandford House within the parcel and will construct a
new multiple-story apartment building on the site. Æ’s analysis finds that the proposed project is consistent
with the City Ordinance, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation. In our original report (Jenks et al. 2015) we offered six specific recommendations to guide
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Master List building as well as the construction of the new residential
units. Those six recommendations remain unchanged and are incorporated here by reference.
Thank you for the opportunity to work on this interesting and challenging project. Please contact us if you
have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Barry Price, M.A., R.P.A.
Managing Principal
Applied EarthWorks, Inc.
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
COMMENTS and RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION
Public review of the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) and
supporting Aesthetics Evaluation and Arborist Report for the Multi-Family Residential
Development at 71 Palomar Avenue Project (71 Palomar Project) began on November 15, 2016
and ended on December 19, 2016. The City of San Luis Obispo received 13 comment letters on the
Draft IS-MND. Letters submitted to the City’s Tree Committee and comments received during
the Tree Committee meeting of December 12, 2016 that pertain to project environmental issues
are included as comments on the Draft IS-MND (see “comment letter” 14). The comment letters,
December 12, 2016 Tree Committee meeting minutes, and City’s responses to each comment
received on the Draft IS-MND follow. Each comment letter, and the meeting minutes, have been
numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has
been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the
comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (1.2, for example, indicates that the
response is for the second issue raised in comment letter number one).
Comment letters were received from the following entities:
1. Matt Ritter, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Biology Department, California Polytechnic State
University
2. Loren A. Riehl, LR Development Group, LLC
3. Allan Cooper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
4. Jackie Loper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
5. Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo
6. Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo
7. Richard Schmidt, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
8. Richard Schmidt, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
9. Jody Vollmer, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
10. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
11. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
12. James Lopes, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
13. Lydia Mourenza, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 1: Matt Ritter, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Biology Department, California Polytechnic
State University, December 13, 2016
Response 1.1
The commenter states that the height of the Norfolk Island pine (Araucaria heterophylla) is incorrect,
as well as several other trees in Table 2 of the Rincon Arborist Report. The commenter states that
there are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo, and that the individual
at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis Obispo. Page 2 of the Arborist Report indicates that the
information gathered in the report includes a “visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread.”
As described, the heights included in the report are not intended to be exact measurements, but
instead, visual estimates. However, to ensure that the tree heights listed in the report accurately
reflect the on-site conditions, Rincon verified the tree heights using a Trimble device with a
Rangefinder on January 6, 2017. The Norfolk Island pine was measured at 90 feet. This has been
corrected in the Arborist Report. All other tree heights were found to be within 5 feet of the heights
recorded in Table 2 of the Arborist Report. Data collection and reporting for the 71 Palomar project
was conducted for only those trees on site. The Arborist Report describes Norfolk island pines as
ranging to a height of up to 160 feet. The commenter states that the tallest national champion A.
heterophylla in Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall According to the book Trees of Santa Barbara by Robert N.
Muller and J. Robert Haller (page 24), Norfolk Island pines can have a growth habit to 160 feet tall.
Response 1.2
The commenter questions the accuracy of the Arborist Report identification of ten of the trees on site.
The commenter specifically states that Tree #46 is incorrectly identified as Eucalyptus cerbra. The
commenter also states that Tree #33 is incorrectly identified as “Painted Eucalyptus” (Eucalyptus
deglupta). The identification of five tree species in the Arborist Report has been corrected: two Canary
Island pines (Pinus canariensis) were incorrectly noted as Canary Island palms (Phoenix canariensis),
one Atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica) has been revised to deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), the ironbark
Eucalyptus crebra) has been revised to narrow-leaved peppermint (Eucalyptus nicholii), and the
painted eucalyptus has been revised to blue gum (Eucalyptus saligna). The revised species
designations do not otherwise change the conclusions of the report. All other tree species were
reviewed and confirmed on January 6, 2017 by Rincon Consultants.
Response 1.3
The commenter stated that there are spelling errors, inaccurate common names, and poor botanical
writing throughout the report. The report was re-reviewed by Rincon and typo corrections have
been made. Without reference to specific instances in the report, no further response is possible.
Response 1.4
The commenter states that the Arborist Report does not include a map, making it difficult to review
the report. The commenter also questions why the Arborist Report includes the same tree
misidentifications as the June 2016 tree report. A map has been included with the revised Arborist
Report. Two separate tree inventories were conducted by Rincon Consultants and A&T; however,
the Canary Island pines were correctly noted in the A&T report.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 1.5
The commenter states that the notes column of the Arborist Report contains cryptic and inaccurate
statements about the health of the trees. The notes are typical of what is recorded for tree reports and
tree inventories that are submitted to municipalities throughout California. For clarity, the notes in
Table 2 of the report have been revised as follows:
The term “suppressed” used to describe Tree #17 has been revised to read “Canopy in
competition with other canopies.”
The statement regarding Tree #14 that states “Dead branches in canopy, canopy competition
with other canopies” has been revised to describe fronds rather than branches.
The statement that Tree #2’s canopy is in competition with other canopies was revised to
state that the lower branches of the canopy are in completion with other canopies.
Response 1.6
The commenter states that the Arborist Report includes additional “random, inaccurate, and
misleading statements about our city ordinance, the findings of the CHC, and archaeological
resource inventory report.” Statements regarding the City’s ordinance, CHC and the archaeological
report have been removed from the report. The purpose of the Arborist Report is to identify the on-
site trees and their health. Interpretation of the City’s tree ordinance will be conducted by the City’s
review bodies.
Response 1.7
The commenter states that they disagree with the conclusions of the Arborist Report, which state
that “the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance.” Statements regarding the
City’s ordinance have been removed from the report.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 2: Loren A. Riehl, LR Development Group, LLC, December 13, 2016
Response 2.1
The commenter describes the concern expressed in Letter 1 regarding the height of the Norfolk
Island pine on the project site, and provides an explanation for why this piece of information
shouldn’t be used to devalue the Arborist Report. The commenter also states that there are no
specific City criteria pertaining to height and tree removal, and notes that there is a nearby Norfolk
Island Pine that will be preserved as part of the project and designated for heritage tree status. Refer
to Response 1.1 for a response to comments regarding the height of the Norfolk Island pine.
Response 2.2
The commenter reiterated that the Arborist Report was accurate because it indicates that “the City’s
tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, nor does it
recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings.” Section 12.24.090(I) states that approval
conditions “may” require planting of replacement trees. While the City’s tree ordinance allows for
mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, the ordinance does not establish a regulatory
requirement for mitigation plantings, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement
plantings. The Arborist Report has been revised to reflect this information.
Response 2.3
The commenter states that at least one Tree Committee Member indicated that he did not believe
there were any unique trees on site proposed for removal, and that the Arborist Report was generally
accurate regarding the condition of the trees on-site. This comment will be forwarded to City
decision-makers for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 3: Allan Cooper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 3.1
The commenter states that the environmental checklist does not properly identify mature non-native
vegetation located on the project site or acknowledge the health, rarity, or maturity of this vegetation.
The Arborist Report provides an assessment of the on-site trees’ condition, including health,
evidence of disease, insect pests, structure, damage and vigor. As described in the Arborist Report,
no rare trees were observed on site. The IS-MND was updated to reflect the tree information relevant
to the site provided in the Arborist Report. In addition, the IS-MND identifies resources that have
potential to occur on the project site, describes project impacts on those resources, and prescribes
adequate mitigation to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.
Response 3.2
The commenter states that the Arborist Report makes the observation that the majority of the trees
are in fair to poor condition. The commenter states that the largest rarest trees are slated for removal,
and that among these trees, eight are in good condition, five are in fair condition, and one is in poor
condition. The largest trees on site (based on diameter at breast height [DBH]) are blue gum
eucalyptus, which are not considered rare. As described in the Arborist Report, no rare trees were
observed on site.
The commenter states that the health of the trees that are stressed due to lack of water could be
improved with an irrigation system. This statement may be true for those trees that are water
stressed, but does not change the conclusions of the Arborist Report or IS/MND.
Response 3.3
The commenter quotes the conclusions of the Arborist Report and states that participation in the
City’s Heritage Tree Program is not voluntary. The commenter states that there are at least 14 trees
associated with the historic Sandford House that are unusual in size. Finally, the commenter states
that the Arborist Report’s conclusion that the historical landscape has been materially altered is
incorrect.
There are currently no designated heritage trees on the site. The Heritage Tree Program only allows
for designation with a property owner’s consent. While the Heritage Tree Program information
states that cooperation may be required, there is nothing in the Tree Ordinance that gives that
statement regulatory power. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City
by the applicant or property owner at the time of the survey.
Response 3.4.
The commenter states that the City Arborist cannot unilaterally determine heritage trees. None of
the trees on the project site are currently designated as heritage trees. The City Arborist has
recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the 2:1 replacement
planting ratio would be sufficient.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 3.5
The commenter states that the “required cooperation” clause of the City’s Tree Ordinance is
applicable to this project because it is new development. A proposal for heritage tree designation
was not submitted to the City by the applicant at the time of the survey. See Response 3.3.
Response 3.6
The commenter states that the City Arborist is incorrect in stating that there are two trees that qualify
as heritage trees. The commenter also provides information regarding the cultural importance of
trees, tree species that may be historically important, and lists trees that are recommended for
removal as part of the project as part of two footnotes within this comment.
There are currently no designated heritage trees on the site. The Heritage Tree Program only allows
for designation with a property owner’s consent. While the Heritage Tree Program information
states that cooperation may be required, there is nothing in the Tree Ordinance that gives that
statement regulatory power. The Arborist Report did not evaluate the trees on the project site for
heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City by the
applicant or property owner at the time of the survey. The City Arborist has recommended removal
of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the 2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient.
See Response 3.3.
Response 3.7
The commenter states that the Tree Committee has the responsibility to inform the ARC and the
CHC regarding the condition, permanence, visual accessibility, arboricultural interest, and historic
interest of the trees on the project site. The commenter also states that the City may determine that
the trees qualify as heritage trees in spite of the property owner’s refusal. See Response 3.3.
Response 3.8
The commenter states that Rincon’s peer review of biological resources is speculative on the basis
that only one site visit was conducted. Conducting protocol-level surveys or exhaustive studies,
during preparation of the IS-MND is not a requirement to analyze impacts to biological resources
under CEQA. The one-day visit by Rincon served as a reconnaissance level survey to ascertain
conditions on-site, including an evaluation and characterization of the habitats found on site to
identify sensitive resources and to inform the potential for sensitive resources to occur. The potential
for impacts to special-status species, including nesting birds, was determined based on the potential
for occurrence derived from information gathered during the reconnaissance survey, queries of
standard databases and references regarding sensitive resources, as well as the activities of the
project. The IS-MND adequately identifies those resources that have potential to occur, describes the
potential impacts of the project, and prescribes mitigation for all identified impacts.
Response 3.9
The commenter states that the mature eucalyptus grove may be visited by the Swainson’s hawk and
the yellow warbler. The commenter indicates that the two species are listed as threatened by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Although the commenter is correct that the Swainson’s
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
hawk is listed as threatened under the California endangered species act, the yellow warbler is not
listed under the California Endangered Species Act. The yellow warbler is a Species of Special
Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Although Swainson’s hawk migrants
may pass through the San Luis Obispo area, the project site is outside of the breeding range for the
species. Therefore, no impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks are expected.
The commenter also states that a number of bird species have potential to occur on-site and that
there is potential habitat for bat roosting. The IS-MND (Section 4) identifies that avian species and
roosting bats have potential to occur and that there could be direct and indirect impacts to avian
nesting and bat roosting. The IS-MND prescribes adequate mitigation to reduce identified impacts
to a less than significant level.
Response 3.10
The commenter states that mature trees reduce pollution, sequester carbon, and provide habitat to
not only birds but also to insects and small mammals and reptiles. The commenter also states that
the trees provide nesting habitat for raptors. Common species are not required to be analyzed under
CEQA. The IS-MND identifies those sensitive resources required to be analyzed under CEQA with
potential to occur, and discloses the potential impacts on those resources. The IS-MND identifies that
raptors have potential to nest on the project site and could be impacted if active nests occur during
construction. Mitigation Measure Bio-1 addresses impacts to nesting birds and raptors through a
survey for and avoidance of active nests.
Response 3.11
The commenter expresses disagreement that the eucalyptus and olive trees are “unsightly” and that
their limbs have a poor connection to their trunks. Refer to Response 3.2 for a discussion of the
condition of the on-site trees. Also, refer to Response 7.7 for a discussion of the views of the project
site, including the views of on-site trees.
Response 3.12
The commenter lists a number of species that could occur on-site, most of which are common species
refer to Response 3.10 regarding common species). The commenter includes rough-skinned newt
in their list of species that can use the site; however, the rough-skinned newt does not occur within
San Luis Obispo County (the southernmost extent is northern Monterey County). The commenter
indicates that the California newt could occur on the project site; however, no suitable upland habitat
occurs within the project site as they require moist areas to seek upland refuge. In addition, the
project site is surrounded by roads and/or residential development and therefore it is not expected
that California newts could reach the project site as they move from aquatic breeding habitat to
upland areas. The commenter also notes that monarch butterflies use eucalyptus trees to overwinter.
The eucalyptus trees on-site are not known to and have not been recorded as an overwintering site
for monarch butterflies.
The commenter lists a number of bird species. Refer to Response 3.9.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 3.13
The commenter provides a proposal for heritage tree designation for on-site trees, including
supplementary information regarding the on-site trees. Refer to Responses 3.1 through 3.6.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 4: Jackie Loper, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 4.1
The commenter expresses their dismay regarding the removal of trees from the project site. The
commenter also notes their fondness of the existing uniqueness and natural appearance of the site.
The effects of the project on the on-site trees and aesthetic character of the site are described in the
IS-MND. The commenter suggests that the site be dedicated as a neighborhood park. The
commenter’s concerns and suggestion to alternatively develop the site as a park will be forwarded
to City decision makers for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 5: Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 5.1
The commenter states that they have serious concerns about the proposed removal of the 55 trees at
project site. The commenter also states that the project site is the neighborhood’s urban forest and a
cultural landscape and location of the Sandford House. The commenter states that the project site is
home to avian species, a nesting site, and a habitat to many animals. The IS-MND (Section 4) as well
as the biological peer review discusses the special status animal species or resources protected under
California Fish and Game Code which have potential to utilize the site. The proposed tree removal
is discussed under Section 4(e-f) of the IS-MND as well as the arborist report prepared by Rincon
Consultants (2016). The commenter’s concerns regarding the proposed tree removal will be
forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration.
Response 5.2
The commenter states that not all of the residents’ emails, letters, and public comments presented at
the meetings as part the ongoing packet that accompanies the project have been forwarded to City
decision-makers. The commenter goes on to state that the Arborist Report is “flawed and
inaccurate.” Tree size data (diameter at breast height [DBH]) was collected using a tree caliper and
DBH tape. Tree height data was verified using a Trimble unit with a Rangefinder. Tree condition
ratings were described under Methodology in the Arborist Report. Additional comments about the
accuracy of the Arborist Report are addressed in Responses 1.1 and 1.2. These comments will be
forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 6: Cheryl McLean, Private Citizen, Anholm, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 6.1
This comment is identical to Comment 5.1. Refer to Response 5.1.
Response 6.2
The commenter states that the one-day visit by Rincon misrepresents the size and condition of the
trees, avian species and nesting sites. Refer to Responses 3.8 and 5.2.
Response 6.3
The commenter states that an acceptable study of the avian species and habitat would take more
time and effort as required in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) due to the variety of bird and
due to the many changes due to their migration patterns, numbers and nesting habits. The
commenter also states that such a study would be yearlong throughout the nesting cycle to be
accurate and acceptable. The MBTA does not require a focused study to analyze potential impacts
to nesting birds for the project. Conducting exhaustive studies, such as protocol-level surveys,
during preparation of the IS-MND is also not a requirement to analyze impacts to biological
resources under CEQA. Refer to Responses 3.8.
Response 6.4
The commenter states that not all of the residents’ emails, letters, and public comments presented at
the meetings as part the ongoing packet that accompanies the project have been forwarded to
interested parties. The commenter urges the Community Development Department to include all
previous correspondence and testimony from the residents in the project packet. These comments
will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration
Response 6.5
The commenter states that the report prepared by Rincon is unacceptable and that the birds, animals
and 55 trees to be removed need to be advocated for. The report prepared by Rincon and the IS-
MND adequately address the biological resources required to be analyzed under CEQA based on
the potential for occurrence. Mitigation is required for all identified impacts, including impact on
trees, nesting birds, and bats.
Response 6.6
The commenter states that the Cultural Landscape of the Historic Sandford House should be
preserved. The historic analysis has been reviewed by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee for
consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines, and the measures for
historic preservation have been prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. While landscapes can be considered historic resources, the
entirety of the project site was reviewed for historic significance and the qualifying historic aspects
of the property have been identified as specific aspects of the existing Sanford House architecture
and not the cultural landscape. The commenter’s statements will be provided to City decision
makers for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 7: Richard Schmidt, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 7.1
The commenter states that the review process of the project has been confusing. The commenter also
states that the site should be considered for heritage trees, the project footprints should be redesigned
to accommodate the existing trees, that the tree planting plan should provide better species, and that
replacement trees should not be planted on adjacent property. These comments will be forwarded
to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 7.2
The commenter states that the original IS-MND for the project was a substandard document. The
commenter states that the IS-MND addendum is also substandard. These comments will be
forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 7.3
The commenter states that the condition evaluations in the Rincon report are subjective, and provide
no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the individual trees. The Methodology section of the
Arborist Report describes the criteria used for evaluating the trees’ conditions and is typical for the
arboriculture industry. The health assessment of tree characteristics, including evidence of disease,
insect pests, structure, damage and vigor, were incorporated into the overall health rating based on
archetype trees of the same species. The report was prepared by a Certified Arborist. The Arborist
Report was prepared to provide an inventory of the trees on-site including location, species, and
health information. The tree removals are proposed by the project applicant. The Arborist Report
provides the information regarding which trees would be removed based on the proposed project.
Response 7.4
The commenter states that there are misidentifications of trees, that there is no mention of Araucaria
in the Arborist Report, and that the report speaks of Canary Island pine instead of Canary Island
palm. Refer to Responses 1.1 and 1.2. The Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine) is addressed in
Table 2 of the Arborist Report and again in the Conclusion section of the Arborist Report.
Response 7.5
The commenter states that the Arborist Report re-endorses the contention that only four trees on the
project site are worth saving. The commenter states that the Araucaria issue is an example of low-
quality work represented in the report. As described in Response 7.3, the tree removals are proposed
by the project applicant. As described in Response 7.4, the report addresses the Araucaria heterophylla
Norfolk Island pine) in Table 2 and again in the Conclusion section. As noted in Response 3.2, the
health of the trees that are stressed due to lack of water could be improved with an irrigation system;
however, this statement does not change the conclusions of the Arborist Report or IS-MND.
Response 7.6
The commenter states that the report did not mention that on-site eucalyptus could be “saved” with
safety pruning. As described in Response 7.3, the tree removals are proposed by the project
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
applicant. The Arborist Report evaluates the project as proposed and is not intended to assess
whether or not on-site trees can be “saved”.
Response 7.7
The commenter states that the Initial Study did not address impacts to views of the site from
various viewpoints in the neighborhood and around the north quadrant of town. The commenter
states that the Aesthetics Evaluation (Attachment 6 to the Initial Study) dismisses impacts on
public views, and that the photographs provided in the Aesthetics Evaluation provide support
for a conclusion of significant impacts to public views as a result of tree removal involved in the
project. The commenter also provides additional photographs of views toward the site from
Foothill Boulevard and from the intersection of Felton Way and Ferrini Road and states that the
trees on the project site are prominently visible from these viewpoints. The commenter goes on
to state that the loss of trees with the project would constitute a significant impact to public views
from these areas.
For the Initial Study and Aesthetics Evaluation, the project site was observed and
photographically documented in its surrounding context from various public viewpoints for
which the public expressed concern during the first public hearing on the revised project. Figure
1 in the Aesthetics Evaluation shows the location of the six major key viewpoints from which the
site was examined and photographed, with four viewpoints from locations in the neighborhood
surrounding the site and two viewpoints from locations more distant, but elevated above the site.
Based on this comment, the site was reexamined from the two locations (Foothill Boulevard and
the intersection of Felton Way and Ferrini Road) from which the commenter provided
photographs. The following photographs represent views toward the project site from the
locations for which the commenter provided their own photographs, from a typical public viewer
perspective. The first photograph documents views of the site from Foothill Boulevard, including
the large trees located north of the site. As shown in the second photograph, the site is not visible
from the intersection of Felton Way and Ferrini Road due to these intervening trees. The trees on
the project site are visible from Foothill Boulevard. However, due to the visual context in which
the trees on the site exist, which includes other mature trees and residential development, the loss
of the trees with the project would not constitute a significant adverse change from this
viewpoint. Furthermore, as shown in the photograph for Key Viewpoints No. 2, No. 3, and No. 6
in the Aesthetics Evaluation, the properties surrounding the site possess large trees, maintaining
much of the tree ‘skyline’ that the commenter references as a significant resource that would be
lost due to the project.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 7.8
The commenter suggests that the project site should be considered as within a City designated scenic
vista and references views of the site from Foothill Boulevard. The commenter provides a
photograph of views toward the project site and the on-site trees from the perspective of Foothill
Boulevard. Refer to Response 7.7.
Response 7.9
The commenter suggests that distant views of the project site were inadequately assessed. The
commenter specifically references views of the project site from the intersection of Felton Way and
Ferrini Road and provides a photograph of views toward the site from this intersection. The
commenter states that the project would remove the entire skyline of trees from this view. Refer to
Response 7.7.
Response 7.10
The commenter indicates that the analysis included in the IS-MND and supporting technical
documents regarding avian species is inadequate and lacks information. Refer to Response 3.8.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 8: Richard Schmidt to the City, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 17, 2016
Response 8.1
The commenter states that the original IS-MND for the project was a substandard document. The
commenter states that the IS-MND addendum is also substandard. Comments 8.2 through 8.12
provide greater specificity to the commenters concern with the original IS-MND and IS-MND
addendum for the project. These comments and associated responses will be forwarded to City
decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 8.2
The commenter indicates that the analysis included in the IS-MND and supporting technical
documents regarding avian species is inadequate and lacking information. Refer to Response 6.3 for
a discussion of the project’s potential impacts on avian species.
Response 8.3
This comment is identical to Comments 7.3 through 7.6. Refer to Responses 7.3 through 7.6.
Response 8.4
The commenter states that the Arborist Report’s statement that “No designated heritage trees exist
on the portion of the site to be developed” is a meaningless, misleading, and manipulative statement,
and that many of the trees on the site would qualify for heritage status. The Arborist Report provides
the data collected during the inventory. The Arborist Report did not evaluate the trees on site for
heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City by the
applicant at the time of the survey. Refer to Response 3.3.b for a discussion of the heritage status of
the trees onsite.
Response 8.5
The commenter states that there is no mention of Araucarias and that many of the trees on site could
be relocated. This comments will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 8.6
This comment is identical to Comment 7.7. Refer to Response 7.7.
Response 8.7
This comment is identical to Comment 7.8. Refer to Response 7.8.
Response 8.8
This comment is identical to Comment 7.9. Refer to Response 7.9.
Response 8.9 and 8.10
The commenter provides comments on the project greenhouse gas emission analysis,
including the following:
The MND states that major sources of GHG emissions are transportation related but
provides no documentation to support this;
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
The commenter provides a web site stating that half of US GHG emissions cove from
building construction and operation, and transportation provides about 16% of total US
GHG emissions;
The commenter states that the MND downplays the project contribution to GHG emissions
related to energy consumption;
The commenter provides mitigation suggestions to reduce GHG emissions;
The commenter stipulates that “net zero” energy consumption should be required for the
project;
The commenter states that the MND analysis under Title 24 is manipulative because it fails
to realize other potential energy reduction measures.
The project impacts with respect to air quality emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions, have been
analyzed in detail under the project MND. It is important to note that project contributions to
community wide GHG emissions have been analyzed in detail, including emission modeling and
emission forecasts, under the City’s recent LUCE Update EIR. Please refer to Response 12.4, below.
While it is conceivable that nationwide GHG emissions could be dominated by energy consumption,
rather than transportation sources, it is important to note that the MND (as well as the LUCE Update
EIR) specifies that the local GHG emissions associated with the City of San Luis Obispo are primarily
related to transportation. This fact has been studied in detail under the City’s Climate Action Plan
CAP), as well as under the LUCE Update EIR. Please refer to these documents for a detailed analysis
of the City’s GHG emissions and measures to address emission reduction. Under these documents,
and the detailed analysis that they represent, the City has adopted a GHG emission reduction
strategy approved by the Air Pollution Control District, part of this strategy is to promote residential
infill development to reduce transportation related emissions.
The City’s CAP is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b). According to the CEQA Guidelines, project impacts related to GHG emissions
are considered less than significant if the project related growth is consistent with the approved CAP
and associated GHG Reduction Plan. The project would not result in growth beyond the SLOCOG
regional population forecast used to generate the GHG emission models for the City’s CAP.
Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to result in
growth beyond the population growth forecast for the region, and the proposed residential project
can therefore be considered consistent with the City’s CAP.
Response 8.10
See Response 8.9 above.
Response 8.11
The commenter states that the IS-MND fails to address the demolition of portions of the existing
Sanford House and stipulates that the analysis indicating that some portions of the house are not
considered historically significant are incorrect or insufficient. Please refer to Response 12.5 below
for a discussion of the project site historic evaluation. As stipulated, the historic analysis has been
reviewed by the City Cultural Heritage Committee for consistency with the City’s Historic
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines, and the measures for historic preservation have been
prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. The criteria for determining historic significance has been outlined in detail under the
historic evaluation prepared for the project and under the project IS-MND, and impacts to significant
cultural resources have been analyzed and measures have been required to reduce historic impacts
to less than significant levels based on these very specific standards.
The commenter provides a discussion of their interpretation of the period of historic significance
associated with the Sanford House and states that the period of significance has not been addressed
sufficiently. Please refer to the response above. Historic significance criteria, including significance
with respect to the time period represented by a given structure, has been outlined in detailed by the
City under the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines and preservation
measures have been designed in conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards as codified
by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The historic analysis prepared for the proposed
project incorporates these standards and the results have been reported in detail in the project IS-
MND. The commenter’s disagreement with the findings of the analysis will be provided to City
decision makers prior to project hearings.
The commenter states that the project IS-MND fails to address the significance of the cultural
landscape of the project site, outside of the existing structure, as well as the significance of the general
layout and structure proportionality. Please refer to Response 12.5, and the responses in letters 11
and 12 with respect to the standards required for historic evaluation under local and State standards.
While landscapes can be considered historic resources, the entirety of the project site was reviewed
for historic significance and the qualifying historic aspects of the property have been identified as
specific aspects of the existing Sanford House architecture. The commenter’s statements will be
provided to City decision makers for their consideration.
Response 8.12
The commenter states that the original IS-MND for the project was a substandard document. The
commenter states that the IS-MND addendum is also substandard. Comments 8.2 through 8.12
provide greater specificity to the commenters concern with the original IS-MND and IS-MND
addendum for the project. These comments will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their
consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 9: Jody Vollmer, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 9.1
The commenter requests that City decision-makers consider past individual requests to remove trees
that have been denied, and states that the trees on the project site do not present a danger, and have
not previously been requested for removal by the property owner. The commenter asks why
property owners would be expected to care for replacement trees that would be planted as a result
of the project. Although the City’s Tree Ordinance does not provide a regulatory requirement for
mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, it provides the Tree Committee, the Architectural
Review Commission, and the City Council the ability to require replacement trees and to require a
bond ensuring that the replacement trees shall be planted and maintained per the tree regulations.
The City Arborist has recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the
2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient mitigation for project impacts.
Response 9.2
The commenter states that the current trees are established, and require less water than newer
replacement trees would require. Depending upon the species of trees approved for planting, this
statement may be true; however, this does not change the conclusions of the Arborist Report or IS-
MND. Additional water use to establish replacement tree plantings would not result in a significant
environmental impact because sufficient water supply is available to meet this additional demand.
Response 9.3
The commenter states that some of the on-site trees may be considered heritage trees. Refer to
Responses 3.3 and 3.4 for a discussion of this issue. There are currently no designated heritage trees
on the site. The Arborist Report provides an assessment of the health of trees on the project site, but
is not intended to serve as an evaluation of the trees on the project site for heritage status. A proposal
for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the City by the applicant or property owner at the
time of the survey.
Response 9.4
The commenter requests that City decision-makers not allow 55 mature trees to be removed. This
comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 10: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 12, 2016
Response 10.1
The commenter recommends that the Tree Commission study the trees on the project site in person.
The commenter goes on to state that the project has not taken the appropriate path through the “City
process,” and that the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission have
found the process to be “illogical.” Finally, the commenter recommends that the project be
disapproved. This comment does not include information that refutes the analysis in the Initial
Study; however, this comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 10.2
The commenter states that house will be damaged if it is moved. Please refer to the discussion under
Response 11.1, above. The existing structure has been evaluated for historic significance and detailed
requirements for moving the structure and for the preservation of significant aspects of the house
have been analyzed in detail. Part of the professional review of the structure includes an inspection
of the structural integrity of the house. The project developer and engineering team will be required
to implement preservation measures and will work with the City to ensure that required measures
to address historic aspects of the house are implemented.
Response 10.3
The commenter states that the house will be further damaged by the removal of the trees. The project
proposes to relocate the house to a new foundation. The removal of trees and tree roots would be
analyzed a part of the construction of the new foundation.
Response 10.4
The commenter states that wildlife at the site will be negatively impacted by the project. As part of
the comment the commenter lists 20 avian species/taxa. Refer to Response 6.3 for a discussion of this
issue.
Response 10.5
The commenter recommends that the Tree Commission delay approval of the project. Refer to
Response 10.1 for a discussion of this issue.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 11: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 11.1
The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood character
with respect to traffic circulation. The proposed project consistency with the surrounding land uses
has been analyzed by the City with respect to the project site zoning and land use designation. The
project is consistent with the allowed use for the site under the existing zoning (R 4, High Density
Residential). This use is consistent with the City’s recent community wide General Plan Land Use
Update as analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR. With respect to traffic impacts, the project was
reviewed by the City’s transportation engineer and project trip generation was determined to be less
than significant with completion of the proposed improvements to Luneta Street and with required
participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
Response 11.2
The commenter states that the project is an apartment complex and not affordable housing. The
project is a for rent apartment development that includes 33 residential units. 4 of the 33 units will
be restricted for very-low income residents consistent with the City’s Housing Element.
Response 11.3
The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with and would have a negative impact on the
character of the established neighborhood. Section 1(c) of the Initial Study and the supporting
Aesthetics Evaluation (Attachment 6 to the Initial Study) recognizes that the proposed development
and overall amount of trees removed with the project would result in a less natural appearance of
the site when compared to existing conditions. However, this change in the aesthetic character of the
site does not constitute significant degradation to the site’s character in the surrounding context since
the project would include residential development with the same density and height restrictions as
existing adjacent high-density development to the east, north, and west of the site. In addition, the
visually prominent Sandford House, which possesses high aesthetic quality, would be retained on
site. Furthermore, the project would require a final determination of project consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines by the City’s Architectural Review Commission, ensuring that the
project is designed in a manner that responds to the unique characteristics of the site, but also fits
into the wider context of San Luis Obispo.
Response 11.4
The commenter states agreement with the historical research prepared for the project, and states that
the existing Sanford House should not be moved. The comments regarding consensus with project
research and opinions on the Sanford House location have been noted and will be provided to City
decision makers for consideration prior to project hearings.
Response 11.5
The commenter quotes from the developer stating that the existing house foundation is “weak”, and
stipulates that moving the house from the existing foundation would cause damage to the historic
structure. Please refer to the discussion under Response 11.1, above. The existing structure has been
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
evaluated for historic significance and detailed requirements for moving the structure and for the
preservation of significant aspects of the house have been analyzed in detail. Part of the professional
review of the structure includes an inspection of the structural integrity of the house. The project
developer and engineering team will be required to implement preservation measures and will work
with the City to ensure that required measures to address historic aspects of the house are
implemented.
Response 11.6
The commenter states that the project site, including its views, tree canopy, and wildlife, is part of
the history of San Luis Obispo and should be protected. Refer to Response 7.7 for a discussion of
views of the project site. Refer to Response 6.3 for a discussion of wildlife issues. Refer to Responses
1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of other comments received on the adequacy of
the Arborist Report.
Response 11.7
The commenter states that the project is inconsistent with neighborhood character. Refer to Response
11.3 for a discussion of the character of the project within the context of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The commenter also states that the existing Sanford House should be preserved in its entirety. Please
refer to the response above, and under Response 11.1, for a discussion of the project historic
significance and mitigation intended to ensure that significant historic aspects are preserved. The
statement has been noted and will be provided to City decision makers for consideration.
Response 11.8
The commenter states that there are better sites for multi-family dwelling such as the McDonald’s
site on Foothill Blvd. The commenter also states that another option for developing student housing
is on Cal Poly property. The project is consistent with the property zoning for high density
residential development. The statement has been noted and will be provided to City decision
makers for consideration.
Response 11.9
The commenter states that the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee recently found fault with the tree
report funded by the developer, and that there were errors in either identification, height,
significance, or health of existing trees. Comments about the accuracy of the Arborist Report are
addressed in Responses 1.1 and 1.2.
Response 11.10
The commenter provides a narrative of their experience interacting with the Tree Committee and
the impacts of making public comment on their personal property as a result of the illogical path of
review for the project. The statement has been noted and will be provided to City decision makers.
Response 11.11
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
The commenter states that the existing Sanford House will certainly be damaged if moved as
proposed. Please refer to the responses 11.1, 11.5, and 11.7 above. The commenter’s statement will
be provided to City decision makers prior to project hearings.
Response 11.12
The commenter requests that the project be considered in a logical, ethical and legal manner. Review
of the project has followed the development review process outlined in the Community Design
Guidelines and the City’s Municipal Code. The commenter’s statement will be provided to City
decision makers prior to project hearings.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 12: James Lopes, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 12.1
The commenter states that the current review of avian resources is inadequate and that a qualified
ornithologist should prepare an independent study and analysis of the avian population in the trees
on-site. The commenter indicates that an assessment of the impacts of losing such trees on a prime
bird habitat be prepared. Refer to Response 6.3 for a discussion of potential impacts to avian
resources and nesting birds.
Response 12.2
The commenter requests an independent arboreal analysis of the significance of the trees on the site.
The Rincon Arborist Report (2016) provides an inventory of the trees on the project site and their
health. Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of other comments
received on the adequately of the Arborist Report.
Response 12.3
The commenter states the tree removal included as part of the project would cause environmental
damage to the neighborhood and public views of the site. The commenter suggests that a landscape
architect be hired to provide expert opinion about the site and its trees within its setting in the
neighborhood. As discussed in Section 1(a) of the Initial Study, the analysis of impacts to public
views of the project site is based on the locally adopted standards for identified scenic vistas.
According to Figure 3 of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and Figure 11 of the General
Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the site is not within a City designated scenic vista. In
addition, as shown in the figures included in the Aesthetics Evaluation (Attachment 6 to the Initial
Study), the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out
as visually prominent or unique, when viewed from various other public viewpoints in the vicinity
of the site. As such, removal of trees from the site would not result in significant damage to public
views of the site under CEQA. The commenter’s suggestion to hire a landscape architect to provide
opinion about the site will be forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration in the
decision-making process.
Response 12.4
The commenter states that an accurate and objective greenhouse gas analysis should be provided to
address project emissions over time. Please refer to Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, of the current project MND for a detailed analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
related to the proposed project. As discussed, the project is part of the buildout analyzed under the
City’s recent Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. This EIR provides a detailed analysis,
including emission modeling, of greenhouse gases expected as a result of the General Plan buildout.
As stated in the project MND, project construction activities would generate GHG emissions through
the use of on and off road construction equipment in new development. Mitigation Measures AQ 3,
AQ 4, and AQ 5 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those
impacts to below a level of significance.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Additional long term emissions associated with the project relate to indirect source emissions, such
as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are enforced with new
construction. Table 1 1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the
construction of an apartment building (low rise) with less than 109 dwelling units would not exceed
the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e). Therefore,
operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant.
In addition, it is important to note that the City has adopted a GHG emission reduction strategy
thorugh the adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), which has been approved by the Air Pollution
Control District. A key part of the GHG emission reduction strategy is to promote residential infill
development to reduce transportation related emissions.
The City’s CAP is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15183.5(b) as specified under the passing of SB 97. According to the CEQA Guidelines,
project impacts related to GHG emissions are considered less than significant if the project related
growth is consistent with the approved CAP and associated GHG Reduction Plan. The project would
not result in growth beyond the SLOCOG regional population forecast used to generate the GHG
emission models used for the City’s CAP. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project
would not have the potential to result in growth beyond the population growth forecast for the
region, and the proposed residential project can therefore be considered consistent with the City’s
CAP and impacts related to GHG emissions are considered less than significant.
Please refer to the LUCE Update EIR for a detailed discussion of emissions, including modeling of
criteria pollutants, resulting from community development.
Response 12.5
The commenter is requesting an assessment of cultural and social impacts of removing parts of the
existing Sanford House and requests an analysis of the landscape on the site which they consider to
be a cultural artifact. The historic/architectural and cultural significance of the project site has been
analyzed in detail under the existing project IS-MND. Specifically, the site was evaluated by Applied
Earthworks, Inc. (October 2015). The entire property was evaluated for cultural significance under
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Guidelines, and the proposed
historic preservation measures have been designed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Based on these standards, the site was reviewed for cultural
significance and the aspects of the project site determined to be historically significant were
discussed in detail. Although the project site landscaping was not identified as historically
significant, portions of the existing Sanford House (including architectural elements as well as it’s
siting on the property) were identified as significant and mitigation measures have been identified
to ensure that impacts to the significance of these features are reduced to less than significant levels.
The details of the property’s cultural significance, including the proposed mitigation plan, was
reviewed and approved by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 13: Lydia Mourenza, Private Citizen, San Luis Obispo, December 19, 2016
Response 13.1
The commenter states that the Arborist Report advocates for the developer and the proposed project,
and that the report contains false, incorrect and irrelevant information intended to create a favorable
view to tree removal on the site. The Arborist Report was prepared by a third party consultant under
contract to the City, and contains information collected by the arborist intended to be used by the
City for review in the CEQA process. Comments about errors are addressed in Responses 1.1 and
1.2.
Response 13.2
The commenter states that heritage trees can only be designated by the City Council, and states that
such designation is not voluntary. Refer to Response 3.3 for a discussion of the designation process
for heritage trees.
Response 13.3
The commenter states that the Arborist Report is an attempt to diminish the significance of the
project site and the City’s urban forest. The commenter states that the City’s trees are home to over
20 bird species protected under the MBTA. Refer to Responses to Letters 1 and 2 regarding the
Arborist Report, and Response 6.3 for a discussion of the project’s potential impact on migratory
birds.
Response 13.4
The commenter states that the findings of the Cultural Heritage Committee are not subject to appeal,
and that it remains undetermined whether the on-site structure would be relocated, or whether on-
site trees would be determined. Refer to Response 3.3 for a discussion of the designation process for
heritage trees.
Response 13.5
The commenter states that the proposed tree replanting/replacement is required by the City and will
exceed the proposed 30 for 55 removed. The City will require the replacement of trees at a 2:1 ratio.
Replacement planting for removed trees will be a condition of project approval, and would not be
at the discretion of the developer.
Response 13.6
The commenter states that Table 2 of the Arborist Report doesn’t mention the abundant bird and
wildlife living on the project site. The Arborist Report is intended to address only the trees on the
project site. The Biological Resources Assessment and biological resources issue area discussion in
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration assess potential impacts on wildlife.
Response 13.7
The commenter states that members of the Tree Committee note issues with the Arborist Report,
and that members of the Tree Committee and the Cultural Heritage Committee are interested in a
consideration of the trees as historical landscape in relation to the Master Listed House as a whole.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of the accuracy of the Arborist
Report. Refer to Response 3.3 for a discussion of the designation process for heritage trees. Refer
also to Responses to letter 14, the Tree Committee meeting minutes.
Response 13.8
The commenter lists a number of avian species that could occur or have been seen on site. The
commenter also indicates that bats could also occur. The commenter states that a year-long survey
needs to be conducted. See Response 6.3 for a response to this assertion. In addition, the IS-MND
identifies on-site potential roosting sites for bats and prescribes mitigation to address impacts on
potential bat roosting.
Response 13.9
The commenter states that the developer should be directed to submit plans which leave the house
in place, preserves the urban forest and include a traffic study. Please refer to response 11.1 above.
The commenter’s statement will be provided to City decision-makers for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Letter 14: Tree Committee Meeting Minutes, December 12, 2016
Response 14.1
The commenter expresses support for the findings of the Arborist Report. Refer to the Responses 1.1,
1.2, and 1.4 through 1.7 as well as Response 2.2 for discussions of the findings and accuracy of the
Arborist Report. This comment will be also forwarded to City’s decision-makers for their
consideration.
Response 14.2
The commenter stated that he was surprised by findings and inaccuracies in the Arborist Report.
The commenter also added that topped eucalyptus can be hazardous and, while the trees are very
old, they are not unique specimens. Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a
discussion of the adequately of the Arborist Report. These comments are noted and will be
forwarded to City decision-makers for their consideration in the project review and decision-making
process.
Response 14.3
The commenter stated that the trees are very significant, in terms of the historical landscape of the
project site. The commenter specifically noted the planting location of the Norfolk Island Pines and
the Canary Island Date as very traditional and seen with old historic homes. Refer to Response 3.3
for a discussion of the heritage value of the trees onsite.
Response 14.4
The commenter states that he does not agree that trees should be removed to move the house, and
suggests that a project should be designed around the existing large trees. The commenter’s
opposition to tree removal and suggestion to alternatively design the project around the existing on-
site trees will be forwarded to City decision makers for their consideration.
Response 14.5
The commenter stated that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics and bird and
bat habitat. Refer to Response 7.7 for a discussion of the aesthetics issue raised in this comment. Refer
to Responses 3.9 and 3.10 for discussion of issues raised in this comment relative to on-site bird and
bat habitat.
Response 14.6
The commenter stated that the Arborist Report contained errors and inaccuracies including species
identification and tree heights. The commenter also noted that he measured the Norfolk Island Pine
at 95 feet tall, conducted a survey of other Norfolk pines in the City, and made the observation that
the subject site has the second tallest specimen in the City. Refer to Reponses 1.1 and 1.2 for a
discussion of the issues raised in this comment.
The commenter also stated that the Tree Committee needs more time to evaluate the trees on the site
since the report does not provides sufficient or correct information. This comment will be forwarded
to City decision-makers for their consideration.
ATTACHMENT 8
71 Palomar Project IS-MND
Responses to Comments
City of San Luis Obispo
Response 14.7
The commenters questioned whether the tree removals were mitigatable, and noted that the request
is to replace very old, large specimens. Refer to Response 2.2 for a discussion of mitigation plantings
requirements.
Response 14.8
The commenters concurred with the comments made by other Tree Committee members. This
concurrence is noted and will be forwarded to City-decision makers for their consideration.
Response 14.9
The commenter stated that the Rincon Arborist Report inappropriately states that the City’s
Ordinance does not provide mitigation requirements for trees that are removed. Refer to Response
2.2 for a discussion of mitigation plantings requirements and the Arborist Report’s inclusion of this
information.
Response 14.10
The commenter stated that the that the City Council, ARC and Tree Committee can require
mitigation. This comment will be forwarded to the City for consideration in the project review and
decision-making process.
Response 14.11
The commenter suggested that the Architectural Review Commission devalue the Rincon report due
to inaccuracies. Refer to Responses 1.1 through 1.7 and 2.2 through 2.3 for a discussion of the
adequately of the Arborist Report.
Response 14.12
The commenter recommended that the Tree Committee and staff consider mitigation as a key factor
in addressing the concerns of the public as well as in a responsible effort to preserve the City’s urban
forest. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City decision-makers for their consideration.
Response 14.13
The Tree Committee summarized their comments as: inaccuracies and inconsistencies found in the
Arborist Report; a need for more time to review the information provided in the Initial Study,
specifically relating to the errors in citing species and height of trees; a suggestion for a review of the
site’s historical and cultural landscape versus a review of individual trees as well as a more in-depth
biological report. Refer to Responses 14.1 through 14.2. The Tree Committee member comments are
noted and will be forwarded to the City for consideration in the project review and decision-making
process.
ATTACHMENT 8
Response to the Rincon Arborist Report for 71 Palomar, dated October 21, 2016
Matt Ritter, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
Biology Department, Cal Poly
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
805.756.2775,mritter@calpoly.edu
Delivered to Rachel Cohen on December 13th, 2016
This is a poor, misleading, inaccurate and not well researched report. The report is so full of
errant data that, in my opinion, none of the conclusions are valid. There are too many errors in
the report for me to spend the time delineating all of them, but I have listed the most egregious
below.
1.The estimates of tree heights are errant with regards to several of the trees in
table 2 of the report. It is unacceptable for an arborist to not be able to accurately measure
the height of trees. The Araucaria heterophylla, the Norfolk Island pine (Tree ID #2) is
reported as having a height of 65 feet. It is actually 95 feet tall as measured yesterday
12/12/16) by myself and my graduate student Jason Johns, who studies the genus. That
level of inaccuracy in a report like this is unacceptable. The contractor should be required to
return to the site and accurately measure all the trees.
a.There are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo. We
measured them yesterday and the individual at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis
Obispo, after the 104 ft. individual on McCollum near Grand.
b.The Rincon report says “The Norfolk Island pines are approximately 70 feet in height but
can reach as high as 160 feet.” In fact, the tallest national champion A. heterophylla in
Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall.
2.One of the reasons for commissioning this report was to discover if there are any particularly
interesting species on the site at 71 Palomar. By my count, the report fails to accurately
identify ten of the trees on site. How can a report directed at identifying the value of the tree
resources at 71 Palomar, not accurately identity almost 20% of the trees in the report?
a.Tree #46 is at Eucalyptus cerba. There is no such species in the genus
Eucalyptus called cerba. There is an ironbark species called E. creba, but that species is
not found on the site.
b.Another tree (#33) is at “Painted Eucalyptus” (Eucalyptus deglupta). This is a
tropical tree that doesn’t grow well in California north of Los Angeles. I also visited the
site to that this species is not found at 71 Palomar. I think the arborist may have
been referring to the E. saligna tree on site (however without a map, see 4 below, it’s
hard to say what they were looking at.
3.There are many spelling errors, inaccurate common names and poor botanical writing
throughout the report.
4.The report does not have a map associated with it, making it for anyone to review
the report and actually know which trees the arborist is referring to. This is especially true in
light of the comment in the third paragraph of the report: “A separate arborist report was
prepared by A&T Arborist (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project.This
report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is separate report providing analysis
ATTACHMENT 8
based on data collected by Rincon Consultants” If it is a separate report, why are all the
same tree in the both reports?
5.The notes column of the report is full of cryptic and inaccurate statements about the health
of the trees.
a.Tree #17 says “Suppressed”. What does this mean? I looked at the tree and it isn’t
suppressed any way that I could see. It is unclear what the word “suppressed” means in
this context.
b.Tree #14 says “Dead branches in canopy, canopy competition with other canopies”. But
tree #14 is a palm and palms don’t make branches, nor is the canopy of this tree near
the canopy of other trees.
c.Tree #2 says “Canopy in competition with other canopies”. This also makes no sense.
This is the 95 ft tall A. heterophylla mentioned above. How can the canopy of the tallest
tree on site be in competition with shorter trees?
Outside of the many errors in table 2, the report has a number of random, inaccurate, and
misleading statements about our city ordinance, the of the CHC, and archaeological
resource inventory report.
The report states: “It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree
ordinance.” I disagree with this statement and I think this statement is outside the expertise of
the hired arborist and goes beyond the scope of an arborist report.
I could go on, but I think we have all wasted enough of our time (and other people’s money) with
this poorly done work.
A new and accurate report needs to be done for the site. Rincon should not be involved. The
ARC should postpone any review of this project until the Tree Committee has the opportunity to
review a correctly prepared tree inventory and arborist’s report. The current information that the
city has is not accurate or complete enough for us to proceed with an informed decision on the
value of the biological resources on the project site.
ATTACHMENT 8
From:Loren Riehl
To:Cohen, Rachel
Cc:Combs, Ron; Thom Jess; arborist@tamagni.org; Corey, Tyler
Subject:Tree Committee Notes
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2016 3:33:07 PM
Dear Ms. Cohen:
We wanted to send you some follow up comments to the Tree Committee meeting last night because we
do not believe that the Rincon Arborist Report should be “devalued” as suggested by the Tree Committee.
Please see our comments below:
1. A Tree Committee Member indicated that the Rincon Arborist Report (the “ArboristReport”) should be devalued because of inaccuracies (with a specific focus on oneperceivedinaccuracy). The opinion was primarily based upon a Committee Member’s opinion thatthemeasuredheightofoneoftheNorfolkIslandPinetreeswasgrosslyinaccurate. TheCommitteeMemberstatedthattheactualheightofthetreeis96.5’ and the Rincon arborist only measuredittobe65’. The same member also indicated that the tree is the second tallest of its type inSanLuisObispo.a. Page 2 of the Arborist Report indicates that the information gathered in suchreportincludesa “visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread”. In other words, theArboristReportexpresslyindicatesthattheheightsincludedthereinarenotintendedtobeexactmeasurements, but instead, visual estimates. Therefore, it wouldseeminappropriateto “devalue” an entire report for misstating a height of a tree whenthereportexpresslystatesthatitdoesnotindicateexactheights.
b. After utilizing digital measuring equipment today to measure the height of the tree, theprojectarborist(A&T) estimates that the tree is approximately 85’ tall. While we are not attemptingtodefinitivelydeterminetheheightofthetree (as such analysis is not required or relevant),we would like you to consider that there is room for differences of opinion regardingtheexactheightofthetree (even when the project arborist utilizes advanceddigitaltechnology). More importantly, this difference in estimated height confirms that thevisualestimationoftheRinconarboristwasnotsofaroffastowarrantdisregardingtheentireArboristReport (e.g. the analysis of the other 54 trees and extensive treeconditionanalysiscontainedtherein).c. While one Tree Committee Member indicated that the specific Norfolk Island Pinewasuniquebecauseofitsheight, please note that 1) there is no specific criteria pertainingtoheightandtreeremoval (e.g. you can’t remove a tree taller than x’) and 2) there isanearbyNorfolkIslandPinethatwillbepreservedaspartoftheprojectanddesignatedforheritagetreestatus. It should also be noted that the tree being preserved is inbetterhealth, as indicated by both the Arborist Report and the arborist report prepared A&TArborists.
ATTACHMENT 8
d. The Tree Committee Member did not offer any sufficient evidence that the treeproposedforremovalisthesecondtallesttreeinSanLuisObispo, as a cursory review ofsimilartrees (e.g. driving around the city looking for similar trees) would not be sufficienttovalidatethatclaim.2. One of the Tree Committee Members indicated that the Arborist Report wasinaccuratebecauseitindicatesthat “the City’s tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings fortreesthatareremoved, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings.”a. Please note that the statement from the Arborist Report is accurate. Section12.24.090(I) states that approval conditions “may” require planting of replacement trees.As indicated in the arborist report, there is no specific requirement or indication as toanappropriateratio.3. Please note that at least one Tree Committee Member did indicate that he did notbelievethattherewereanyuniquetreesonsiteproposedforremoval, and that the Arborist Reportwasgenerallyaccurateregardingtheconditionofthetreesonsite.
Loren A. Riehl
LR Development Group, LLC
400 Continental Blvd., 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
310)266-2873
ATTACHMENT 8
To : SLO Tree Committee
Re: New Business: Review 7 1 Palomar Drive Development Plan
From : Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date : December 12, 2016
Honorable Chai r Ritter and Committee Members -
An Environmental Checklist Prepared by Jeff Oliveira of Oliveira Environmental
Consulting LLC for a proposed multi-family residential development located at 71
Palomar Ave. stated the following:
No heritage trees o r sign ificant native vegetation exist o n the portion of the site to be
developed. Multiple small to fully mature native and non -native landscaping trees would
be removed as part of t he proposed project development. T his includes mulberry trees/
sh ru bs, pine t rees, o live t rees, decorative pa lms , larch or spruce trees , eucalyptus and
redwood trees. T he proposed project inc ludes a conceptual landscape plan showing the
removal of all of the existing vegetat ion with the exception of a 28-inch diameter
euca lyptus tree at t he southwest corner of the site and a 74-inch palm tree midway along
the east property bo undary."
This report neither properly identifies the mature non-native vegetation located on this
property nor does it acknowledge the health , rarity or maturity of this vegetation. The
proposed project will involve the removal of all of this vegetation with the exception four
trees .
An Arborist Report for the 71 Paloma r Avenue Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
prepared by Rincon Consultants Inc. made the following observation :
The majority of t he trees are in fair to poor cond it ion . Some of them are stressed due to
lack of water, competition with neighboring trees , pests, or have been topped and now
have limbs with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are
noted in Table 2."
However, among the largest, rarest t rees sl ated for remova l, 8 are in good health , 5 are in
fair health and one is in poor health. For those trees identified as being stressed due to
lack of water, their health can be restored with little more than the installation of an
irrigation system.
For it's conclusion Rincon Consultants states the following:
The City's He ritage Tree Program is volu ntary, and none of the trees at the site are
currently so designated . T he City's Heritage Tree webpage provides information about
the currently designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available information
from that page, the heritage trees are associated wit h historic bu ildings/events/
properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size. While severa l tall healthy
trees are present, none of the trees have unusual character nor are they of unusual size
for their species. The Norfolk Island pines are approximately 70 feet in height but can
reach as high as 160 feet. T he healthy Canary Island palm is approximately 50 feet in
height but can reach as high as 75 feet.
ATTACHMENT 8
Furthermo re, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource
Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 20 16) prepared for this
project, "the original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by
prior development... As a res ult, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting have
been substantiall y diminished by prio r development." The City Cu ltural Heritage
Committee du ring t heir review of the project did not find that the landscap ing elements
present contributed to the historic nature of the property. Based on these assessments,
the trees at the site do not meet the historical context criteria to be class ified as heritage
trees.
It is o ur opi nion that t he proposed tree re movals are compliant with the tree ordinance."
Rincon mistakenly states that the City's Heritage Tree Program is "voluntary". However,
the City Municipal Code clearly states that "voluntary cooperation " applies to "privately
owned trees " while "required cooperation" applies to "tree preservation in new
developments". These trees are being considered eligi ble for the City's Heritage Tree
Program w ithin the contex t of a "new development".
Rincon mistakenly states that while heritage t rees are associated w ith histor ic buildings/
events/properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size, these trees slated
for removal have neither unusual character nor unusual size for their species. As clearly
illustrated elsewhere , there are at least 14 trees slated for removal which have a strong
association with the historic Sandford House and all of them are unusual for their size.
Finally, Rincon is mistaken that the cultural landscape has been materially altered as the
symmetrical plantings of the two Norfolk Pines and the two Eugenias -appropriate to
Italian Renaissance revival architecture -remain in place and tree species typical of
Italian Renai ssance revival architecture (i.e., Olives, Stone Pines and Frond Palms) are
also very much present on this property (in this regard, see the two attached
documents).
As for t he proposed clear cut of 55 specimen trees at 7 1 Palo mar: Based on my read ing of t he
Heritage Tree Program Of San Luis Obispo Information Packet And Form: http://www.slocity.org/
home/showdocu ment?id=4743, I wis h to alert you to the following:
When and if the City Arborist meets w ith the ARC he can not unilaterally make a
determination which of the 55 trees at Palomar are Heritage Trees . T his determination can
only be made by you -th e Tree Commi ttee -and C ity Council. All that the Arborist is
uni laterally empowered to do is recommend remova l of any tree that is deemed sick and/or
wi ll present a danger to the public because of imminent structural failu re.
The Palomar trees fall under the category of "Required cooperation -tree preservation in
new developments, etc." (see above website). In ot her words, because these trees are part
of a new development , vo luntary cooperation (presumably on t he part of the owner) is not
required. A precedent for this was established back in 1986 when a group of citizens
ATTACHMENT 8
undertook to save a matu re To rrey Pine proposed to be removed to make way for a n
apartment complex. 1
T he City Arborist previously stated that th ere a re only two trees on th e property that qualify
as Heritage Trees. T his assessment is false for a number of reasons:
Th ese long-lived t rees have historical interest because they most like ly were planted
by the orig inal owner who later happened to be an "orchardist" in Santa C lara, CA.
1 Torrey Pine -1185 Foothill
Pinus torreyana
Dedicated : February 18 , 1986
Torrey pines reach a height of 70', making our local tree at over 65' a very large specimen . These pines form a broad,
round head at maturity with sparse foliage covering its branches . Its seeds are edible and were used by native
Americans for food. Due to its size , it is seldom seen in home landscapes and its use is lim ited to parks and
botanical gardens.
This tree was to be cut dow n for an apartment complex , but timely action by res idents and the City Counci l
preserv ed it. This tree is the largest specimen of its species in San Luis Obispo County and unique to this area.
Torrey Pines are found naturally only on Santa Rosa Island and along the San Diego Coast.
ATTACHMENT 8
They also belong to a "cultural landscape" 2 because of their relevance to the Sandford
House architectural style and because of the symmetrical disposition in wh ich they
were planted.
2 Trees That Form A Part Of The Cultural Landscape
Like historic buildings and districts, cultural landscapes reveal aspects of our country's origins and development through their
form and features and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also reveal much about our evolving relationship with the
natural world. For example , the Italian Renaissance garden emerged in the late 15th century at villas in Rome and F lorence,
inspired by classical ideals of order and beauty, and intended for the pleasure of the view of the garden and the landscape beyond.
In the late Renaissance, the gardens became more symmetrical . The symmetrical placement of the two Eugenias and the two
Norfolk Pines relative to the entrance of the Sandford Residence should be preserved as they complement the Italian
Renaissance revival architecture. Olives are natural choices for Italian-style gardens, or planted in formal lines flanking a
driveway or walkway. Similarly, the lone Ston e Pine and Frond Palm, which were frequently planted within the context of
Italian Renaissance gardens, should also be preserved.
Trees That Are Either Enda ngered Or Historically Important
Seven trees on the 71 Palomar property should be preserved both for their historical importance and for their rari ty. Of the seven
trees, two are Norfolk Island Pine, two Eugenia, one Frond Palm , one Italian Stone Pine and one European Olive. The trees are
believed to have been planted by the owner, an orchardist, around 1895 when the historic Sandford residence was built. These
trees are large and healthy specimens . They add beauty to the north part of San Luis Obispo and are accessib le for viewing and
enjoyment by the public. The City Arborist remarked recently "I have admired the trees at 71 Palomar for some time now and
appreciate you and your group taking the time and effort to take pictures and fill out part of the Heritage Tree Form. Thank
you! ... Bob and I feel very strongly about preserving canopy and habitat. .. ". Nevertheless , these trees are scheduled to be cut
down for an apartment complex. Timely action by residents and the CHC/ARC may preserve them.
Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine are naturally long-lived and reach a height of 100', making our local trees at over
65' very large specimens . In modern home landscapes , where frost -free climates or protected locations allow, Norfolks are known
to live 150 years or more (see: The California Polytechnic State University SelecTree. "Araucaria Heterophylla Tree Record,"
1995-20 15). They are particularly tolerant of sandy soils and windy conditions . These pines are cylindrical at maturity. Due to its
size , they are seldom seen in home landscapes and their use is limited to parks and botanical gardens. Norfolk Island Pines make
spectacular specimen plants when situated on large expanses of lawn. Norfolk Island Pines are endemic to Norfolk Island located
between New Zealand and New Caledonia. They were an early introduction into California by Will iam Wa lker in 1859. These are
the largest s pecimens in San Luis Obis po County having been planted only 25 years after this species was first introduced into
California.
Eugenia brasiliensis, with common names Brazil Ch erry and grumichama, is medium sized tree (maximum 65' height) endemic
to Brazil which bears small fruits that are purple to black in color, and have a sweet cherry-like flavor. Its slow growth and low
rate of dispersal make it rare, and it's generally considered an enda nger ed species.
Although Phoenix canariensis or Frond Palm grows just six inches a year and requires many years to attain full height. But
because t he tree grows so slowly, needing decades to reach its full height of 60 feet, very few nurseries even try to grow it.
Exceptionally tall specimens can be up to 120 feet. The rare full-grown trees can fetch $20,000. While best in full sun and the
usual well-drained loamy soil, P. canariensis can tolerate a wide range of exposures , including deep shade, and a wide range of
soil types, including sand and heavy clay. It has a unique ability to tolerate both severe drought and flooding very we ll , whi ch
makes them ideal to plant in housing tracts in wh ich the soil was heavi ly compacted. Frond Palms dati ng back to the I880's are
middle aged and some live to be over 400 years old.
The pinus p inea or Italian Stone Pine is a coniferous evergreen tree that can exceed 82' in height , but 40'-65' is more typical. In
youth , it is a bushy globe , in mid-age an umbrella canopy on a thick trunk, and, in maturity, a broad and flat crown over 26' in
width. In Ita ly , the stone pine has been an aesthetic landscape element since the Italian Renaissance garden period and is
frequently planted within the context of Italian Renaissance arch itecture, such as is the case with the Sandford Residence.
Britain 's Kew Gardens has records of one of these Mediterranean beauties that atta ined an age of 300 years.
ATTACHMENT 8
Th ese trees are remarkable for t heir size both in height and girth3
Th ese trees are most li kely 100 years old. Their age could and should be verified
by coring into the bole and counting the ri ngs .
Several of these trees are unusual specimens and because of their size are seldom
seen in home landscapes.
3 Rinco n Consultants Inc . Recommended Tree Removals
Removal of Tree #2 (left side of entrance to house): Norfolk Island Pine : 60-65 feet tall : f air health
Norfolk Island pines are naturally long-li ved. Though not true pines, they're part of a plant family that dates back to
prehistoric times. "In modern home landscapes , where frost-free cli mates or protected locations allow, Norfolks are
known to live 150 years or more. Along parts of the California Coast, Norfolk Island pines grow 100 feet or taller,
stretch ing up to 60 feet wide and growing up to 2 feet pe r year." (sou rce: The California Polytechnic State Un iversity
SelecTree . "Araucaria Heterophylla Tree Record ," 1995-2015). On their native Norfolk Island, east of Australia,
they're known to grow twice as tall.
http://www.pennington.com/resources/fertilizer/indoor-gardening/nurturing -norfolk-island-pines-year-round
Removal of Trees #3 (to the left of tree #2 when facing entrance to house), #3A & 6 (up against the right front corner
of the house): Pittosporum spp.: 20-25 feet tall: good heath
Pittosporum plants tend to live to at least 50 years old and may live as long as 150 years. Pittosporums usually grow
to between 20 and 35 feet, though they may be kept smaller w ith pruning."
http ://homeguides.sfgate. com/fast-pittosporum-plant-grow-77521 . htmI
Removal of Trees #14 & #15 (along the north property boundary): Canary Island palm: 45-55 feet tall: 1 .5 foot trunk
diameter: fair-good health
Single-trunked, pinnate palm to 20 m (66 feet) or more tall; exceptional ly tall specimens can be up to 40 m {120
feet). The trunk is 60 -90 cm (2-3 feet) in diameter, often with a much wider base."
http://www.palmpedia.net/wiki/Phoenix_canari ensis
Removal of Trees #16, #18 & #19 (at the northeast corner of the property boundary): Atlas cedar : 35-45 feet tall :
20-35 feet width canopy: fair-good health
As a youngster the tree is stark ... but eventually it grows into a 60-foot tall tree that can be 35-feet across."
http://www.uaex.edu/yard-garden/resource-library/plant-week/blue-atlas-cedar.aspx
Removal of Tree #43 (south of trees #2 & #3): Stone pine: 35 feet tal l: poor health
Just as its name implies, umbrella pine has a broad, somewhat flattened round canopy, and the tree will ultimately
reach 80 to 100 feet in height though it is more often seen at 35 to 45 feet tall and wide."
http://edis.ifas .ufl.edu/st472
Removal of Trees #39 (near the garage), #41 (on the southern property boundary) & #44 {due west of tree #39):
Olive or Olea Europe : 35 feet tall: 35 feet width canopy: fair-good health
The olive tree can reach up to and sometimes over 40 feet tall at maturity, spread ing out with a large rounded crown.
The crown of leaves can spread outward as far as 20 feet from the trunk, making the spread of the olive tree as wide
as it is tall."
http ://homeguides.sfgate. com/olive-tree-growth-rates-56428. html
Removal of Tree #48 (on the southern property li ne): Monte rey pine: 35 feet tall: 25 foot wide canopy: good health
It grows from 80 to 100 feet tall and from 25 to 35 feet wide."
http://slobg .org/monterey-pine/
ATTACHMENT 8
The Tree Committee has the responsibility to inform the ARC and the CHG of these five
following points: condition/health, permanence of site location, visual accessibility,
arboricultural interest and historical interest
The owner in the sample "Owner Agreement" may say he/she does not want their trees
designated as a "Heritage Tree" and/or does not want their trees included on a self-guided
Heritage Tree tour. However, this form does not forbid the City, in spite of the owner's
refusal , to see if these trees "qualify" as "Heritage Trees". Without this determination, the
ARC could not, as Michael Codron confirmed , do the following:
The Architectural Review Commission has the authority to require preservation of trees on
the project site as a condition of approval , if the appropriate findings can be made."
Thank you!
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENT 8
To: SLO Tree Committee
Re: New Business: Review 71 Palomar Drive Development Plan
From : Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date : December 12, 2016
Honorable Chair Ritter and Committee Members -
I would like to address the superficiality of Rincon's Peer Review of the Biological Resources
Analysis of the IS-MND and IS-MND Addendum for the Proposed 71 Palomar Project in San Luis
Obispo County, California
Rincon 's peer review of biological resources is, at best, highly speculative because their biologist
conducted only one site visit on the subject property on September 20, 2016.
Rincon states that species listed as threatened, endangered, or rare are not known to be present at the site.
However, there is a chance that because of the presence of the mature eucalyptus grove the Swainson's
hawk and the yellow warbler, both listed as a threatened species by the California Department of Fish
and Game, may vis it this site.
Rincon mentions Cooper's hawk because they feed on mourning dove , rock pigeon , American robin
and sparrows -birds that presumably visit this site as well. Also, Cooper's hawk typically nest in the
foli age of eucalyptus trees. Nesting white tailed kite is mentioned because of close proximity to open
grasslands. We are told there is potential roosting habitat for the pallid bat. Most of the focus in thi s
report is on protecting the bat population and on the in stallation of bat boxes.
R incon gives no thought for how mature trees reduce pollution, sequester carbon , and provide habitat to
not only birds but also to insects and small mammals and reptiles. Nor does Rincon recognize the fact that
groves of trees only a few years old support fewer species than more established groves of trees .
What Rincon doesn't state is that large raptors require tall living trees . These predators need the height
protection and flat surfaces only tall trees can provide. The tallest trees on th is site are indisputably the
Eucalyptus trees and they provide a wealth of biodiversity which R incon was not prepared to recognize.
Although the eucalyptus trees have been topped, I dispute Rincon's claim that these trees are "unsightly"
and that their limbs would necessarily have a poor connection to their trunks. Without going into detail on
the biome that could be sustained by all of the trees on this site a nd for the sake of brevity , I would like to
simply focus on two tree species, the Eucalyptus and the olive trees.
Eucalyptus Globulos flowers are mainly pollinated by insects , but birds and small mammals may also
act as pollinating agents. In fact, Eucalyptus is particularly valuable as bee pasture, because it blooms
year-round. Migrating monarch butterflies depend on eucalyptus groves as a wintering spot. The
hollows in older Eucalyptus trees also provide homes to animals and birds. Amphibians such as arboreal
salamander , California slender salamander, Ensatina (Salamander), California newt , rough skinned
newt , and Pacific tree frog live primarily under fallen logs and duff. Amphibians feed on such
invertebrates as millipedes , centipedes, sow bugs , Collenbola (Springtail ), spiders and earthworms.
Several snakes such as the ring-necked snake, rubber boa and sharp tailed snake have adapted to
Eucalyptu s groves. The ring-necked snake feeds on the Cali forn ia slender salamander, the rubber boa
feeds on meadow mice , and the sharp tailed snake feeds strictly on slugs. Other common reptiles include
ATTACHMENT 8
the northern and south ern alligator li zards, which live under fallen logs, and the western fence lizard
and western skink , which live in the less densely forested groves.
Several mammals have adapted to Eucalyptus. Deer find concealment in dense groves where there are
suckers, coyote brush, and poison oak; moles li ve in the surface layer of the soi l , meadow mice, gophers,
and fox squirrels are found in the eucalyp groves.
Bi rders have identified over 45 species of birds in Sutro Forest. At J epson Prairie Preserve, CA ,
Swainson 's hawk and yellow warblers, both of which are "Blue Listed" species of concern, nest in the
trees. At Pescadero Creek County Park, south of San Franci sco along the coast of California , great blue
herons and egrets use the trees to bui ld their rookeries.
T he heavy-u se birds feed on Eucalyptus seeds by pecking the mature pods on trees or fallen pods; so they
must wait for the pods to disintegrate or be crushed by cars .. Among the birds that feed on seeds in the
trees are: the chestnut back chickadee and the Oregon junco. Examples of birds that feed on ground
seeds are the song sparrow, the fox sparrow, the brown towhee , and the mourning dove . Birds that
take advantage of the nectar from blossoms either by drinking the nectar or by feeding on the insects that
are attracted to the nectar include Allen's hummingbird , Bullock's oriole , red winged blackbird , and
black headed grosbeak.
Birds that use the trees as nest sites include the brown creeper , which makes its nest under peeling shags
of bark and feeds on trunk in sects and spiders, the robin , the chickadee, the downy woodpecker, and the
red shafted flicker. The downy woodpecker and the red shafted flicker peck into the trunk of dead or
dying trees to form their nests . When these nests are abandoned, chickadees, Bewick wrens , house wrens
and starlings move in. Downy woodpeckers use dead stubs to hammer out a rhythmic pattern to declare
their territories.
The red-tailed hawk prefers tall trees for a nesting site. It therefore favors eucalypts over trees such as
oak or bay. Great horned owls use nests that have been abandoned by red-tail hawks or they nest on
platforms formed between branches from fallen bark. The brown towhee and the golden crowned
sparrow are birds that use piles of debris on the ground for shelter during rains.
As for European Olive Trees, fruit and seed eating birds, in cluding finches , will steal fr ui t from these
trees and even ol ives that aren't yet ripe. The acorns of the Coast Li ve Oak feed everything from
squirrels and deer to wild turkeys and black bears . More than 500 types of butterflies and moths are
attracted to this host plant.
In conclusion, the focus of the Rincon Biological report was not on preserving this habitat but rather on
creating buffers around nesting sites, particularly during the nesting season (between February l and
September 15) while tree removal and construction takes place.
For comparison purposes , I am including below a list of biological species mentioned by Rincon and a list
mentioned in the follow in g several articles (https://sutroforest.co m/eucalyptu s-myths/) which expand on
the benefits of preserving mature eucalyptus groves .
ATTACHMENT 8
Rincon
Birds:
Cooper's hawk
Mourning dove
Rock pigeon
American robin
Sparrow
White tai led kite
Pallid bat
The Nature Conservancy &
Professor Dov F. Sax (Brown University)
Birds:
Swainson 's hawk
Yellow warblers
Great blue heron
Egret
Chestnut back chickadee
Oregon junk
Song sparrow
Fox sparrow
Brown towhee
Mourning dove
Allen 's hummingbird
Bullock's oriole
Red winged blackbird
Black headed grosbeak
Brown creeper
R obin
Downy woodpecker
Red shafted flicker
Bewick wrens
House wrens
Starlings
Red tailed hawk
Great horned owl
Golden crowned sparrow
Small Mammals:
Deer
Mole
Fox squirrel
Meadow mouse
Gopher
Reptiles:
Arboreal salamander
California slender salamander
Ensatina
California newt
Rough skinned newt
Pacific tree frog
Ring necked s nake
Rubber boa
Sharped tailed snake
Alligator lizard (northern and southern)
ATTACHMENT 8
Sources:
Western fence li zard
We stern sk.ink
Insects:
Monarch butterfly
Honey be e
Millipede
Centipede
Sow bug
Collenbola
Spider
Earthworm
Authors: Caitl in Bean . Mary J. Russo (revision). Gl obal Tf1 vasive Species Team , Th e Nature Co nservancy
http://wik.i .bugwood .org/Euca l.yptus g.l obulu s#POLLlNATION
http:/ /wiki .bugwood .orgLEucalyptus globulus#WlLDL1FE
Author : Gustavo I glesias Trabado
GIT Forestry Consulting
h ttp:/ Igit-forestry-blog .blogspot.com/2008 /06/eucalyptus-po ison in g-soi 1-i .htm l
Author: D ov. F. Sax
Equ al Diversity In Di sparate Spec ies Asse mb lages:
A Comparison Of Native And Exotic Woodland s ln Ca li forni a
http ://elkhornsloughc tp .org/uploads/fi les/ 11098 I 3068Sax2002 .pdf
ATTACHMENT 8
PROPOSAL FOR HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATION Criteria for Designation as San Luis
Obispo Heritage Trees
Trees shall be accepted for consideration as He ritage Trees when they fall with in the following
classification:
Project Location : 71 Palomar Ave. San Luis Obispo
H istorical Interest: The original owner of this property, Reginald Wills-Sanford, was an
orchardist. He resided in this house between 1895 and 1899 and most likely planted
many of the mature specimen trees still standing on this property.
Arboricu ltu ral Interest
a. S ize : over 24 inch diameter
b. Age (one of the oldest in the commun ity): yes
c. Rare or unusual species for this a rea: yes
d. Outstanding specimens: yes
e. Disti nct ive structural interest: Boles 20'-30' in height with bark furrows ; spreading crowns
The Committee shall judge the request for consideration of each t ree w ith the following factors
in mi nd:
1 . Condition a nd state of health of the specimen : healthy
2. Permanence of site location: pending sale of property
3 . Visual accessibi lity: very accessible
4. Address of tree and location on lot: 71 Palomar
5. Requesti ng party (individual or group): Allan Cooper, Richard Schmidt, Cheryl Mclean &
David Brodie
6. Propert y Owner: current owner: Delta Tau House Corporation : Future owner: Loren Riehl/
LR Development Group, LLC
7. Species:
2 -Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine (unique specimens & some of the
oldest in SLO)
North: Bole: 2 '-5 " Height: 60'
South: Bole : 2'-7 " (Rincon : 2'-6") Height: 65'
2 -Grumichama Eugenia brasiliensis or Eugenia (2 of the oldest)
North: Bole : 3'-6 " Height: 60'
South: Bole : 3'-8" Height: 60'
1 -Quercus agrifolia or native coastal oak
Bole : 2'-8 " Height : 40'
1 -Pheonix Canariensis or Frond Palm
Bole: 2'-O" (Rincon : 1 '-6") Height: 55'
1 -Pinus pinea or Italian stone pine
Bole : 2 '-10" (Rincon : 2'-3 ") Height : 35 '
1 -Olea europaea or European olive
Bole: 2'-O" (Rincon: 1'-7") Height: 35'
18 -Eucalyptus Globulus or blue gum
North to South encircling house: Height: varies 40' -80'
Bole: 4'-6 "
Bole: 4'-7 "
Bole: 2'-O"
ATTACHMENT 8
Bole: 3'-5 "
Bole: 2'-5 "
Bole: 4'-10"
Bole: 3'-8 "
Bole: 4'-8 "
Bole: 2 '-O'
Bole: 3 '-6 "
Bole: 2 '-3 "
Bole: 2'-3 "
Bole: 2'-10"
Ea st to West along Luneta
Bole: 5'-6 "
Bole: 3'-4 "
Bole: 3'-3 "
Bole: 3'-3 "
5. Age: 100 years+
Heig ht: 40-80 feet+ Spread: varies
6. Trunk diamete r at 24" above natural grade : Yes
7. Photographs (2) min im um at right ang les to each other : see attached
8. Desc ri be -Arboricultu ral or Historical Interest:
An Environmental Checklist Prepared by Jeff Oliveira of Oliveira Environmental
Consulting LLC for a proposed multi-family residential development located at 71
Palomar Ave. stated the following:
No heritage trees o r significant nat ive vegetation ex ist o n the portion of the site to be
developed. Multiple small to fully mature native and non -native landscaping trees would
be re moved as part of t he proposed project development. This includes mu lberry trees/
sh ru bs, pine t re es , o live trees , decorative pa lms , larch or spruce trees, eucalyptus and
redwood t rees . The proposed project inc lu des a conceptual landscap e pla n showing the
removal of all of the existing vegetat ion with the exception of a 28 -inch diameter
euca lyptus tree at t he southwest corner of the site and a 74-inch palm tree midway along
the east property bo undary."
This report neither properly identifies the mature non-native vegetation located on this
property nor does it acknowledge the health, rarity or maturity of this vegetation. The
proposed project will involve the removal of all of this vegetation with the exception four
trees.
An Arborist Report for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project for the City of San Luis Obispo
prepared by Rincon Consultants Inc. made the following observation:
The majority of t he trees are in fa ir to poor co ndition . Some of them are stressed due to
lack of water, competition with neighbori ng trees, pests, or have been topped and now
have li mbs with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are
noted in Table 2."
However, among the largest, rarest trees slated for removal, 8 are in good health, 5 are in
fair health and one is in poor health. For those trees identified as being stressed due to
lack of water, their health can be restored with little more than the installation of an
irrigation system.
ATTACHMENT 8
For it's conclusion Rincon Consultants states the following:
Th e City's He rit age Tree Program is volu ntary, a nd none of the trees at t he site are
cu rrentl y so designated . T he C ity 's Heritage Tree webpage provides information about
the currently designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available in formation
fro m that page, the heritage trees are associated wit h histori c bu ildings/events/
properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size . Wh ile several tall healthy
t rees are present , none of the t rees have unusual c haracter no r are th ey of unusual size
for their species. The Norfolk Island pines are approxim ately 70 feet in height but can
reach as high as 160 feet. T he healthy Canary Island palm is approxim ate ly 50 feet in
heig ht but can reach as hig h as 75 feet.
Furthermore, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource
Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 20 16) prepared for this
proj ect , "the ori ginal histori cal landscape and setting have bee n mate ri ally altere d by
prior development... As a res ult, the integ rity of the historic landscape and setting have
been substantially dimi nished by pri o r development." T he C ity C ultu ral Heritage
Committee du rin g t hei r review of t he project did not find that the landscap in g elements
present co ntributed to the histori c nature of the property. Based o n these assessm ents,
the trees at the site do not meet the historical context criteria to be class ifi ed as heritage
t rees.
It is o ur opi nion that t he proposed tree removals a re compli ant with the tree ordinance."
Rincon mistakenly states that the City's Heritage Tree Program is "voluntary". However,
the City Municipal Code clearly states that "voluntary cooperation " applies to "privately
owned trees" while "required cooperation" applies to "tree preservation in new
developments".
Rincon mistakenly states that while heritage trees are associated with historic buildings/
events/properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size, these trees slated
for removal have neither unusual character nor unusual size for their species. As clearly
illustrated elsewhere, there are at least 14 trees slated for removal which have a strong
association with the historic Sandford House and all of them are unusual for their size.
Finally, Rincon is mistaken that the cultural landscape has been materially altered as the
symmetrical plantings of the two Norfolk Pines and the two Eugenias -appropriate to
Italian Renaissance revival architecture -remain in place and tree species typical of
Italian Renaissance revival architecture (i.e., Olives, Stone Pines and Frond Palms) are
also very much present on this property (in this regard, see the two attached
documents).
ATTACHMENT 8
2 -Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine (unique specimens & some of the
oldest in SLO)
2 -Grumichama Eugenia brasiliensis or Eugenia (2 of the oldest)
ATTACHMENT 8
Ii
I r. ; . • • . -~· ... ' : . . ... ;·~ .. ~.
1...:.1 ~1:·. \: . . .._ l.il~ *· ..
1 - Pinus pinea or Italian stone pine
1 -Pheonix Canariensis
or Frond Palm
ATTACHMENT 8
1 -Olea europaea or European olive
East to West along Luneta
18 -Eucalyptus
Globulus or blue gum
North to South
encircling house:
Height: ave. 180'
ATTACHMENT 8
1 -Quercus agrifolia or native coastal oak
ATTACHMENT 8
Plot Plan
f ;
r--· ·
t.
ATTACHMENT 8
The following (see below) is what the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code says about
Heritage trees . It does NOT say the owner must sign an application. In fact , it is clear that the
public MAY PROPOSE DESIGNATION of ANY healthy tree. The Arborist and Tree Committee
will review it. The only place the owner explicitly comes in is when the Council makes the
designation . But up to that time --the investigative phase, the educational phase --the process
is indeed open to anyone pursuing a designation and the Tree Committee must consider this
request.
12.2.4.1 liO ""e rllage tr1186 .
A T'le cit·,r mcognizss th imp;;irlm r·::fo lren 'li:IYG pll)'Ud in the his:;or/ and d&Vtilo:J'J1enl c: San L.uis otiapo Oil d
raocign •z::es 1hat a ·.me varie'lr of tren <=an QMJ\\' In bi unlqus1and IBmperate dimale.
B. AA'a' ht :u thy t rM wilhn tl1c u:ll)' lrnil:i ntJy 11e propoocd a :; ii hc Jll~ tnm . Tnc eily mlJtlltil tind tree currtmil.lc.;c
re~ c1:t proposed htr laot tree ur1d, w1h the owief's cOMenl. ~nerid s"1.81:1re ee :'t:lldares to 1he eltf
ce1Joc for offic al des1gt'i3lon as horitaigl'.' lrooe.
C, Th'-' 1..11y SN I prQl.0'1 '1rld rrlillnl.Ol n '111 :!~~gnal.1;.'\I lwr ll;ag\I' ln:.:~ H.:ritiJgu tn:i:~ ~·mat be lo'l lJIW 1XW l~1'9 l '1 ~
Mihed •,ll ei davaoped a nd approva~ r.·y r.he pltillc ~o'b dtsct£w". All l martm melnteMnc:a 6ha be 1he r&!ipDns.lblllty at
th o :m::perty ~·oo.. (Crd. t544; 1 (pa:J. 2010)
ATTACHMENT 8
Trees That Form A Part Of The Cultural Landscape
Like hi storic buildings and di stricts , cultural landsc apes reveal aspects of our country's
origins and development through their form and features and the ways they were used.
Cultural landscapes a lso reveal much about our evolving relation ship with the natural
world. For example, the Italian Renai ssance garden emerged in the late 15th century at
villas in Rome and Florence, inspired by classical ideals of order and beauty, and
intended for the pleas ure of the view of the garde n and the land scape beyond. In the late
Renaiss ance , the garden s became more sy mmetrical. The sy mmetrical placement of the
two Eugenias and the two Norfolk Pines relative to the entrance of the Sandford
Resid e nce should be preserv ed as they comple me nt the Italian Re nai ssance revival
architecture. Olives are natural choices for Italian -style gardens, or planted in forma l
lines flanking a driveway or walkway. Similarly, the lone Stone Pine and Frond Palm ,
which were frequ ently planted within the context of Italian Renaissance garden s, should
also be preserved.
Trees That Are Either Endangered Or Historically Important
Seven trees on the 71 Palomar property should be preserved both for their hi storical
importance and for their rarity. Of the seven trees, two are Norfolk Island Pine, two
Euge nia , one Frond Pa lm, one Italian Stone Pine and one European Olive . The trees are
believed to have been planted by the owner , an orchardi st , around 1895 when the hi storic
Sandford residence was built. These trees are large and healthy specimens. They add
beauty to the north part of San Luis Obis po and are accessible for viewin g a nd e njoyme nt
by the public. The City Arborist remarked recently "I have admired the trees at 71
Palomar for some time now and appreciate you and your group taking the time and effort
to take pictures and fill out part of the Heritage Tree Form. Thank you ! ... Bob a nd I fee l
very strongly about preserving canopy and habitat. .. ". Nevertheless, these trees are
scheduled to be cut down for an apartment complex. Timely action by residents and the
CHC/ARC may preserv e the m.
Araucaria hetrophylla or Norfolk Island Pine are naturally long-lived and reach a height
of 100 ', makin g our loca l trees at ove r 65' very large specime ns . In modern home
landscape s, where fro st-free clim ates or protected locations allow, Norfolks are known to
live 150 years or more (see: The California Polytechnic State University SelecTree.
Araucaria Heterophylla Tree Record ," 1995-2015). They are partic ularly tolerant of
sandy soils and windy conditions. These pines are cylindri cal at maturity. Due to its size ,
they are seldom seen in home landscapes and their use is limited to parks and botanical
garde ns. Norfolk Island Pines make spectac ular s pecimen plants when situated on large
expanses of lawn. Norfolk Island Pines are e ndemic to Norfolk Island lo cated between
New Zealand and New Cale donia. They were an early introduction into California by
ATTACHMENT 8
William W a lker in 1859. These are the largest specimens in San Luis Obispo County
having been planted only 25 years after thi s species was fir st introduced into California.
Eugenia brasiliensi s, with common names Brazil Cherry and grumi cbama , is medium
sized tree (maximum 65' he ight) e ndemi c to B raziJ whi ch bears small fruits that are
purple to black in color, and have a sweet cherry-like fl avor. Its slow growth and low rate
of dispersal make it rare, and it's generally considered an endangered species .
Alth o ugh Phoenix canariensis or Frond Palm grows just six in ches a year a nd requires
many years to attain full height. But because the tree grows so slowly , needing decades to
reach its full height of 60 feet , very few nurseries even try to grow it. Exceptionall y tall
spec im en ~ can be up to 120 feet. The rare full-grown trees can fetch $20,000 . While
best in full sun and the usual well-drained loamy soil , P. canariensis can tolerate a wide
r ange of exposures , including deep sh ade, and a wide range of soi l types, including sand
and heavy cl ay. It h as a uniqu e ability to tolerate both severe drought and floodin g very
we ll , which makes them ideal to p lant in h ousi ng tracts in which the soil was heavily
compac ted. Frond Palms dating back to th e l 880's are middl e aged and some li ve to be
over 400 years old.
The pin us pinea or Italian Stone Pine is a coni ferous evergreen t ree that can exceed 82'
in height, but 40 '-65 ' is more typ ical. In yo uth , it is a bushy globe, in mid-age an
umbrella canopy on a thick trunk, and, in maturity, a broad and flat crown over 26' in
width. In Italy, the stone pine has been an aesthetic land scape eleme nt since the Italian
Renaissance garden period and is frequently planted withi n the contex t of Italian
Re naissance architecture, such as is the case with the Sandford Residence. Britain's Kew
Gardens h as records of one of these Mediterranean beauties that attained an age of 300
years.
O lea e uropaea, commonly call ed Common Olive . is an evergreen tree that is native to
the Mediten-anean region. It typically grows at a slow rate to 20' -30' tall with a rounded
crown. Common olive trees are drought tolerant once establi shed. The lifespan of the
European Olive tree ranges from 300 years to 600 years.
ATTACHMENT 8
The Italian Stone Pine was frequently planted within the context of Italian Renai ssance
gardens.
ATTACHMENT 8
The Italian Renaissance garden emerged in the late 15th century at villas in Rome and
Florence , inspired by classical ideals of order and beauty, and intended for the pleasure of
the view of the garden and the landscape beyond. In the late Renai ssance , the gardens
became more symmetrical.
The upper class, however, wanted European refinement, not ru stic gardens. They
favored aspects of Italian Renai ssance gardens, with axial design s, fountains, and
parterres, and the warm climate allowed them to incorporate into thi s frame a potpourri of
exotic ornamental plants that would not grow outdoors in Europe or back east. They
enjoyed living and entertaining outdoors here , appreciating the view of well-tended
gardens with rose bushes an palm trees ... "
ATTACHMENT 8
From: JM Loper
Sent Monday, December 12, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org>
Subject: Trees at Palomar
Good afternoon -
RECEIVED
DEC 13 2016
SLO CITY CLERK
I heard that you were to have discussion on the plans to remove many of the trees at 71 Palomar. Every time I think of
that happening I get very sad. I understand that many of the trees are not significant to many but my feelings about that
lot is how unique it is in this city and how it can never be replaced once the trees are gone. I would so love to see it
become the promised park for our area and remain as much in it's natural state as possible. I realize that would make it
a financial challenge but where else in our city do you have a spot that looks like that. Most of our parks are not so
nicely covered in trees and look as amazing as this lot does.
I am hoping, as you have your discussions, you will find a different plan to be more appropriate than cutting down these
trees, building the high density housing that is proposed and replacing the uniqueness of the area with a cookie cutter
look.
Many thanks for your time and effort, Jackie Loper
Warning: Don 't Use Probiotics Before You See This Gundry MD
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/584f3b0b118693b0911f3st02duc
1
ATTACHMENT 8
RECEIVED
SLO CITY CLERK
From: cc me lean
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Advisory Bodies<advisorybodies@slocity.0re >; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncll@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi
hha rmon@slocity .o rg>
Subject: Removal of 55 trees at 71 Palomar. Rincon IS/MND evaluation .
Please post on Agenda Correspondence for the 12/12/16 Tree Committee meeting and distribute to
the Tree Comm. members, Mayor Harmon, City Council members , ARC and Planning Commission
members. Thank you.
Dear Tree Committee members,
After reading the tree evaluation by Rincon Environmental Consultants I have serious concerns about
the removal of the 55 trees at 71 Palomar to facilitate the proposed development project. This is our
neighborhood's Urban Forest and a Cultural Landscape and location of the Sandford House (1890)
which is on the city's Historic Master List. It is home to many avian species, a nesting site and a
habitat to many animals.
I am sorry that our city does not forward to your committee, as part of your Agenda Packet, the many
letters and public testimony that were presented at the meetings prior to this one that addressed the
preservation of the trees. While our hard work disappears into cyberspace , the COD forwards its prior
reports from A& T Arborists and Olivera Environmental consultants hired by the developer. It feels like
we are starting over with each meeting . Please ask the COD to send all previous correspondence to
you from the residents .
The newest report, by Rincon is flawed and incomplete. Someone needs needs to advocate for the
trees and this is once again a task which has fallen on the residents . Your judgement is respected if
and when you are allowed to express your thoughts we will be listening .
Please help us to advocate for the preservation of the 71 Palomar trees and all that they give our city.
Thank you for your service to our city and its trees.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Mclean
Anholm , San Luis Obispo
t
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:cc mc lean <ccmslo@att.net>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 9:27 AM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Cc:E-mail Council Website; Advisory Bodies
Subject:Fw: 71 Palomar Rincon IS/ND evaluation
Please forward to ARC, Mayor Harmon, City Council, Tree Committee,Planning Commission and post to all websites
relating to this project. Thank you.
Dear Rachel,
After reading the tree evaluation by Rincon Environmental Consultants I have serious concerns about the
removal of the 55 trees at 71 Palomar to facilitate the proposed apartment development project. This is our
neighborhood's Urban Forest and a Cultural Landscape and location of the Sandford House (1890) which is on
the city's Historic Master List. It is home to many avian species, a nesting site and a habitat to many animals.
The Rincon report is a travesty and when residents asked for a thorough environmental report after reviewing
the extremely flawed reports by the developer's chosen firms, Olivera and A&T Arborists, we were assured by
our City Manager and Community Development Director that the environmental firm chosen by the City of San
Luis Obispo would produce an unbiased, accurate and quality report. Many residents suggested that the city
collaborate with an environmental group, such as the Sierra Club, to select the consultants for this important
environmental report; the request was ignored. The one day visit by Rincon's Stephanie Lopez totally
misrepresents the size and condition of the amazing trees, avian species and nesting sites. The cultural
landscape including animal habitat surrounding the Sandford House has been totally ignored. The Rincon report
is erroneous and incomplete.
A real study of the avian species and habitat would take time and serious effort as required in the Migratory
Bird Act due to the variety of birds and the many changes due to their migration patterns, numbers and nesting
habits; it would require a yearlong study throughout the nesting cycle to be accurate and acceptable.
I am sorry that our city does not forward all of the residents' many emails, letters. and public comments
presented at the meetings as part the ongoing packet that accompanies a project such as this as it proceeds
through the many city auspices, City Council, and advisory bodies. While our hard work disappears into
cyberspace, the CDD forwards prior biased reports from A&T Arborists and Olivera Environmental hired by
the developer. It appears that we are starting over at each step of the development process as it moves from
start to finish. The CDD needs to include all previous correspondence and testimony from the residents;
citizens are being shut out of the process at every juncture. This is a serious breach of the open, inclusive
and transparent governmental process which our city government touts.
The newest report, by Rincon is unacceptable. Someone needs needs to advocate for the birds, animals and 55
trees slated to be clear cut. This is once again a task which has fallen on the residents. Why can't our CDD join
ATTACHMENT 8
2
us in living up to San Luis Obispo's designation as a "Tree City?" How about seriously considering the effects
of Climate Change when evaluating a project such as this ?
Please help us to advocate for the preservation of the Cultural Landscape and Historic Sandford House. A
redesigned project which takes into consideration the wondrous qualities of 71 Palomar should be undertaken
by the architect and developer instead of the six box-like apartments which disrespect the gorgeous site. This
could be accomplished without killing the 55 trees or moving the house and risking its survival. This is an
opportunity for the city to require a quality project which is worthy of and honors the amazing site.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McLean
Anholm, San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Richard Schmidt
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.org >; Combs, Ron <rcombs@slocity.org>
Subject: Tree Committee --71 Palomar
RECE IVED
DEC 1.2 2016
SLO CITY CLER.I<
Could you please send this to tree committee members asap. Thanks. Richard .
1
ATTACHMENT 8
Proposed 71 Palomar Tree Slaughter
Dear Tree Committee,
I urge you to take your time in deliberating on this project, continue your deliberations
for another month, while you conduct your own independent research.
It is very confusing to the public, and I'm sure to you as well , that staff is attempting now
to limit your "purview" for this dreadful project proposal to taking and offering comments
on the Initial Study of Environmental Impact. I find it confusing because it seems the city
is spreading review of California Environmental Quality Act document review far and
wide among advisory bodies, most of which have not been rigorously trained in
performing such legalistic review . I suspect your committee may be feeling a bit
befuddled by this "death-by-process" approach of our current city staff. (In past times,
CEQA review was performed by the Planning Commission , period, and its members
were well trained in the nuance of the law, of what could and couldn't be demanded in
terms of project modification per CEQA, etc.)
I also find it confusing because your committee 's purview should be to find ways to
protect wonderful trees, such as this unique urban forest grove , not simply to acquiesce
in their wholesale removal. As we are all well aware, your committee attempted a
courageous action earlier this year (the study of this site's 59 trees to see which you
thought might have heritage tree potential), but were shut down by staff. Staff has also
railroaded and manipulated both the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural
Review Commission on this project. I do hope your courage persists, and you are willing
to do more than the limited bureaucratic signoff on this tree massacre that staff has
assigned you to do . This would be a fitting response to staff's idea that our city is a
government of, by and for staff and their developer clients rather than of, by and for the
people .
In a good city, an incredible site like 71 Palomar would be cherished and
protected, not viewed as just so much clearable, bulldozable nondescript land on
which to erect a generic and ugly LA-style apartment complex . That such is not
our city's choice speaks volumes about what our city has become.
So, please, act courageously in facing this proposed tree massacre, recognize this site
is emblematic of the things that make our city special, and do what you can to protect it.
I would suggest the following approach :
1. Revisit your previous desire to study the trees on site for potential heritage qualities .
This important task can best be done by you. It's not going to be done by the applicant,
who has proposed some trees he doesn't want to remove for heritage status merely as
a manipulative strategy to gain approval.
ATTACHMENT 8
2 . Disapprove the current project's building footprint on grounds no effort was made in
designing it to accommodate any of the site's wonderful urban forest. (An early lesson
for student architects is recognizing the importance of site-appropriate design. This
architect apparently missed that lesson .) Decide which parts of the grove must be
preserved, and tell the designer to accommodate them. (Please note that this must be
based on more than simply an esthetic review of the trees -biology is an implicit part of
the whole picture of what needs to be preserved -see below. Also, please try not to
reflect the general current prejudice against eucs -these are specially valuable trees .)
I don't know whether staff has told you this , but the ARC was critical of both the
footprint and massing, and asked them to be substantially revised. The staff report
before you doesn 't indicate this. So, if you were to ask footprint changes, you 'd not be
going out on a limb alone.)
3. If, against all common sense, this project does proceed , please disapprove the
proposed tree replanting program. The species selection is junky. The bulk of the trees
appear to be Tristania conferta , which is one of the ugliest, scrawniest parking lot trees
around , will never grow to provide the sort of habitat that's being removed, and is a
ridiculous replacement for the arboreal beauty on the site today. A replanted site should
have the potential to reach the full extent of the urban forest that exists today, and to
provide the habitat functions it provides (see comments on IS-ND below).
4 . Finally, note that many of the proposed "replacement trees" are to be planted on a
parcel not prospectively to be owned by the applicant (the triangle at Palomar and
Luneta), and you have every right to demand to know what prevents future separate
development and tree removal on that site prior to signing onto this odd arrangement.
Comments on the IS-ND for 71 Palomar.
The original IS-ND for this project was a shoddy document, full of inaccuracies and
omissions, and after months of citizen complaint the city agreed to redo it. We were led
to believe this would be a good faith effort to produce a first rate document.
Unfortunately, it has turned out to be more of the same, just another layer of gooey icing
on the same old cake . It is this document that now comes before you.
I will confine my current comments on it to sections that pertain to trees .
Tree Reports and Narrative Analysis
A. We were led to believe there would be a substantive study of the individual trees to
determine which might be of heritage quality and which are fully capable ,
arboriculturally, of preservation within a revised project. Unfortunately , none of that took
place, and we have mainly a rehash of the tree report (A& T) done by the applicant,
which is not a CEQA document even though staff persists in misrepresenting that it is
by including it within the CEQA folder in your agenda packet.
The "condition " evaluations in the Rincon report , as in the A& T report, are purely
subjective, and provide no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the individual trees.
ATTACHMENT 8
The report, instead of providing basis for judging individual trees, simply attempts to
justify the wholesale cutting of this urban forest grove by going no deeper than the
cuUleave designations of trees in the original project application , which had changed
prior to the Rincon study, yet is not reflected there . The Rincon report is thus mere
rationalization for wholesale tree removal.
The report does "discover" additional trees, but then suggests they all be cut down.
The Rincon report includes the same sort of careless misidentification of tree species
as the original IS-ND, which failed even to mention the presence of Araucaria on the
site . The Rincon report speaks of a "Canary Island Pine " to be preserved (is there even
one on the site?) when it probably means Canary Island Palm.
The revised report re-endorses the original's ridiculous contention that only 4 trees are
worth saving: two palm trees (among the least significant tree species on the site) one
of which isn 't even on the site but is on the Valencia parking lot easement owned by the
fraternity property; a single eucalyptus, arguably the least significant among the grove's
eucs; and a single Araucaria, the smaller of the two, with no explanation why the larger
perfectly healthy Araucaria is not equally worthy. The Araucaria issue is emblematic of
the shoddy tree work represented here. The smaller tree to be preserved appears to be
smaller because it's been topped ; it appears to have a multiple leader as a result -and
this correctible flaw isn 't even mentioned in the report. The larger tree is criticized
because it's "stressed ;" for sure , nobody's cared for these trees for years; give the thing
some TLC and it will be lush again .
By contrast, the extensive Eucalyptus plantings are dismissed on grounds they were
poorly trimmed in the past. No mention is made of an obvious corrective that could save
most of them : safety pruning .
Esthetics -Views of Trees.
B . The Rincon report states: "CEQA distinguishes between public and private views,
and focuses on whether a project would affect the public environment. .. ", and then
dismisses any impact on public views. This is done by sleight of hand.
The photos Rincon uses to make its point don't make its point.
For example, Photo 2 looking down Luneta has a red arrow allegedly pointing to the
site that doesn't in fact point at anything; but the photo shows a line of skyline trees
straight down the street and to its left, all of which will be removed . How can that be
said not to impact public views?
Photo 3 is taken from behind trees at the Village, which conveniently block view of
the skyline trees above, thereby apparently proving to Rincon's mind that there is no
visual impact. However, move over a few feet to where the Village trees don 't block
things , look straight up Palomar from Ramona, and the lost skyline tree view would
have been obvious .
In Photos 4 and 5, virtually every skyline tree looking straight ahead would be
removed, also indicating loss of viewshed amenity to this project.
Rincon 's photos simply don 't make the case their words allege. The photos show
there would be huge loss of public views towards the site.
C. Most incredibly the Rincon IS-ND on page 11 asserts the biggest view lie of all. It
asserts that the site "is not within a City designated [sic] scenic vista" as designated per
ATTACHMENT 8
Figure 11 in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan . (Contrary
to its name "general plan," there 's nothing "general " about a general plan -its specific
provisions carry the weight of a law.)
Figure 11 designates the length of Foothill Boulevard as a scenic highway, whose
views to right , left and straight ahead, are to be protected .
The site 's sk line trees are rominently visible from several locations along Foothill:
This entire horizon of skyline trees seen from Foothill would be removed under the
insignificant view impact" story put out by Rincon.
D. Had Rincon done a more thorough job of assessing distant views , it would have
found examples such as this at the intersection of Felton and Ferrini, considerably to the
north of the project site:
ATTACHMENT 8
The Mormon Church tower can be plainly seen below the entire skyline of trees this
project would remove .
Biology -Impact of Tree Removal
This site is prime bird habitat.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the current revise of the IS-ND is that the original
was so deficient in its assessment of bird life on the site -falsely claiming one would
expect to find nothing more than sparrows and doves on such a site when even the
most cursory inspection would reveal so much more, including active raptor nests
hawks and owls). After months of criticism from a number of citizens, the city realized it
had problem. It was our contention that the issue of birds was integrally wound up
with that of tree removal. So Michael Cedron said he 'd have parts of the IS-ND
redone to correct the deficiencies, and led us to believe our concerns would be dealt
with . What a cruel hoax of a response the Rincon report constitutes. Our concerns
about birds have still not been dealt with responsibly , and the city has merely kicked the
can down the project review timeline , so that if at this point a responsible bird study
were to be done, it would take another year. Here are a few of our unresolved concerns.
E. Birds are protected under the public trust doctrine that requires permitting agencies
to look out for their welfare. Some birds are also protected by international treaties
which our city cannot ignore . One would think, therefore , that an initial study justifying a
negative declaration of environmental impact on birds would look very carefully at bird
habitat and use on this heavily forested study site.
ATTACHMENT 8
This initial study utterly fails to do so, and it seriously misrepresents habitat conditions
and avian residents on the site. This apparently stems from the lack of site study by a
competent ornithologist.
F. We in the neighborhood are well aware of the abundant avian use of this site -for
nesting , for roosting , for winter shelter of migratory and native species, for feeding, and
for general habitat. It is an avian oasis of great value. Its neighborhood owl-nesting
habitat is both famous and important for neighborhood public health as the owls
suppress rat populations in the palms developers have planted in abundance to
tropicalize" their nearby developments.
G . Here is what the IS-ND says on birds:
Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the
property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the "Urban/Developed "
habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions
of the City. . . Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist
primarily of urban adapted avian species such as house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the
abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources ... The mature landscaping
present at the project site provides the tree and shrub habitats that have the
potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species
discussed above." [Initial study pp. 12-13]
This is utter nonsense . The IS-ND overlooks the presence on this site of a century-old
urban forest located just a few hundred feet from open countryside ; it is therefore not in
any way an "urban/developed " habitat of scattered miscellaneous small trees and
shrubs such as one would find in an intensely-developed part of a city, or such as one
would find in the proposed development after the existing forest is clearcut.
H. Rebuttal to above from IS-ND on birds .
I accompanied several others with better birding skills than mine on very brief "sidewalk
surveys " of the site at ecologically inopportune times in early July -i.e, during neither
nesting season when site use for avian reproduction is heavy nor during migratory
season when large numbers of part-time avian visitors are known to join year-round
natives in the site's trees . We visited early, mid-day, and at dusk.
We were limited to a sidewalk survey because applicants have filed an intimidation
lawsuit (SLAPP suit) against opponents of their project to keep them off the property
itself, for the explicit purpose of concealing habitats that could thus be observed. We
have requested the city intervene through the development process to permit our
expert's access to conduct a better study, but the city has refused. We further asked
that the city include a year-long bird survey in the revised initial statement's scope of
work, and again the city has refused. There is thus no effort at a bird survey in any of
the city's environmental documents.
ATTACHMENT 8
A sidewalk survey, from the public right of way can only assess a very small part of the
site's habitat value. Even so , here are -in contrast to the "expert's" nonsense about
house sparrows and collared doves -a few verified observations we came up with in
about one hour's overall observation in the slack season for bird activity at this site.
Species observed inhabiting the site:
1. Oak titmouse.
2 . Hooded oriole.
3 . Scrub jay.
4. Pacific slope flycatcher.
5. Orange crowned warbler.
6 . Warbling vireo .
7 . Chestnut-backed chickadee.
8. Band-tailed pigeon (a native pigeon).
9. Crow.
10. Kestrel.
11 . Anna's hummingbird .
12. Acorn woodpecker.
13. House finch.
14. House sparrow.
15. Cassin's kingbird .
16. Mourning dove.
17. Downy woodpecker.
18. American robin .
19. Turkey vultures.
In addition, we verified two very important nesting uses of the property:
1. Two hawk nests are plainly visible in eucalyptus trees proposed for removal along
Luneta. It thus boggles my mind that any supposedly reputable "survey" by Rincon
could state that no nests were visible on the site. During a late spring neighborhood
event on Luneta, red-tailed hawks were observed tending young in one of the nests.
Since we cannot enter the site, we cannot say for sure there are other raptor or large
bird nests in the more distant eucalyptus, but it seems very likely there are . It is clear
that this site is important raptor nesting habitat. The initial study's failure to mention this
raises questions about the extent of its writer's actual site observation since any
untrained casua l observer can spot the nests along Luneta.
2 . A perennial barn owl nest site in the palm (Phoenix canariensis) in front of the
Sandford house is notorious, in the good sense, in the neighborhood. Each year parents
raise kids there , and on summer evenings the cute-faced noisy kids can be seen
practicing their flying with short hops between the palm, the Italian stone pine, coast live
oak, and araucarias. As mentioned above, these owls are not only a source of
neighborhood pride, but also important public health vector control agents nature
provides for free .
Another important avian use of the property is as a major roost for turkey vultures .
Each evening they fly into the eucalyptus behind the Sandford house, roost overnight,
ATTACHMENT 8
and in the morning spread out through the property's 59 trees to stretch, warm up, and
get ready for another day aloft. One summer morning we counted two dozen of these
huge birds at 71 Palomar. My theory is these trees , with their dense foliage, provide
exactly the sort of protective roost vultures need and seek . In the summer evening , they
can be seen gathering in the less dense eucs behind the Mormon Church, preen for a
time, then glide over to the trees at 71 Palomar and disappear into the foliage , where
they are visible only to the seriously observant eye.
We believe our snapshot sidewalk survey during a relatively "sterile" period in early July
merely scratches the surface of this site's avian activity. A proper environmental study
of avian use of the property would take a year, to visit the site repeatedly to document
seasonal variations and events. Why didn 't the city undertake such a study instead of
endorsing the initial study's clear nonsense? Had such study been initiated at project
application, the year would be well along by now, and we'd have a lot of professional
information instead of a mere sidewalk study by res idents versus a non-study by the
city 's "experts."
An initial study that so completely misrepresents avian conditions is insufficient grounds
for granting a negative declaration of environmental impact.
Conclusion .
I urge the Tree Committee to incorporate these comments and considerations into its
deliberations .
I would urge you to take your time. You are under no obligation to render your
conclusions today. Today should be the beginning, not the end point, for your study of
this project site.
ATTACHMENT 8
To the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Director
From Richard Schmidt
December 17, 2016
Comments on the IS-ND for 71 Palomar.
The original IS-ND for this project was a shoddy document, full of inaccuracies and
omissions, and after months of citizen complaint the city agreed to redo it. We were led
to believe this would be a good faith effort to produce a first rate document.
Unfortunately, it has turned out to be more of the same, just another layer of gooey icing
on the same old inedible cake. The IS-ND is still completely inadequate to meet the
intent of CEQA – to lay out for decision-makers all the significant environmental data
they need to consider prior to making their decisions on a project.
I cannot begin to comment on all the problems in this flawed document, so will focus on
several areas of personal concern, interest, and knowledge.
Birds, and the Impact of Tree Removal. One of the most frustrating aspects of the
current revise of the IS-ND is that the original was so deficient in its assessment of bird
life on the site – falsely claiming one would expect to find nothing more than sparrows
and doves on such a site when even the most cursory inspection would reveal so much
more, including active raptor nests (hawks and owls). After months of criticism from a
number of citizens, the city realized it had problem. It was our contention that the
issue of birds was integrally wound up with that of tree removal. So Michael
Codron said he’d have parts of the IS-ND redone to correct the deficiencies, and led us
to believe our concerns would be dealt with.
What a cruel hoax of a response the Rincon report constitutes. Our concerns about
birds have still not been dealt with responsibly, and the city has merely kicked the can
down the project review timeline, so that if at this point a responsible bird study were to
be done, it would take another year. Here are a few of our unresolved concerns.
Birds are protected under the public trust doctrine that requires permitting agencies to
look out for their welfare. Some birds are also protected by international treaties which
our city cannot ignore. One would think, therefore, that an initial study justifying a
negative declaration of environmental impact on birds would look very carefully at bird
habitat and use on this heavily forested study site.
This initial study utterly fails to do so, and it seriously misrepresents habitat conditions
and avian residents on the site. This apparently stems from the total absence of site
study by a competent ornithologist.
We in the neighborhood are well aware of the abundant avian use of this site – for
nesting, for roosting, for winter shelter of migratory and native species, for feeding, and
for general habitat. It is an avian oasis of great value. Its neighborhood owl-nesting
habitat is both famous and important for neighborhood public health as the owls
ATTACHMENT 8
suppress rat populations in the palms developers have planted in abundance to
tropicalize” their nearby developments.
This is primo bird habitat.
One does not learn that, however, from the initial study’s brief examination of the
subject. Here is what the study says on birds:
Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the
property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed”
habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions
of the City. . . Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist
primarily of urban adapted avian species such as house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the
abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources. . . The mature landscaping
present at the project site provides the tree and shrub habitats that have the
potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species
discussed above.” [Initial study p. 14]
This is utter nonsense. This initial study’s contribution to understanding actual habitat
conditions on the site is totally inadequate. The study, among other things, overlooks
the presence on this site of a century-old urban forest located just a few hundred feet
from open countryside; it is therefore not in any way an “urban/developed” habitat of
scattered miscellaneous small trees and shrubs such as one would find in an intensely-
developed part of a city, or such as one would find in the proposed development after
the existing forest is clearcut and the place replanted with the proposed shrubs and
parking lot trees.”
Here, in briefest form, is a short rebuttal sufficient to demonstrate the nonsensicality of
this consultant’s disinformative prose about birds.
I accompanied several others with better birding skills than mine on very brief “sidewalk
surveys” of the site at ecologically inopportune times in early July – i.e, during neither
nesting season when site use for avian reproduction is heavy nor during migratory
season when large numbers of part-time avian visitors are known to join year-round
natives in the site’s trees. We visited early, mid-day, and at dusk.
We were limited to a sidewalk survey because applicants have filed an intimidation
lawsuit (SLAPP suit) against opponents of their project to keep them off the property
itself, for the explicit purpose of concealing habitats that could thus be observed. We
have requested the city intervene through the development process to permit our
expert’s access to conduct a better study, but the city has refused. We further asked
that the city include an expert-recommended year-long bird survey in the revised initial
statement’s scope of work, and again the city has refused. There is thus no effort at a
bird survey in any of the city’s environmental documents.
ATTACHMENT 8
A sidewalk survey, from the public right of way, can only assess a very small part of the
site’s habitat value. Even so, here are – in contrast to the “expert’s” nonsense about
house sparrows and collared doves – a few verified observations we came up with in
about one hour’s overall observation in the slack season for bird activity at this site.
Species observed inhabiting the site:
1. Oak titmouse.
2. Hooded oriole.
3. Scrub jay.
4. Pacific slope flycatcher.
5. Orange crowned warbler.
6. Warbling vireo.
7. Chestnut-backed chickadee.
8. Band-tailed pigeon (a native pigeon).
9. Crow.
10. Kestrel.*
11. Anna’s hummingbird.
12. Acorn woodpecker.
13. House finch.
14. House sparrow.
15. Cassin’s kingbird.
16. Mourning dove.
17. Downy woodpecker.
18. American robin.
19. Turkey vultures.
indicates species of local concern as per City of SLO)
In addition, we verified two very important nesting uses of the property:
1. Two hawk* nests are plainly visible in eucalyptus trees proposed for removal along
Luneta. It thus boggles my mind that any supposedly reputable “survey” by Rincon
could state that no nests were visible on the site. During a late spring neighborhood
event on Luneta, red-tailed hawks* were observed tending young in one of the nests.
Neighbors report the second nest was used by red-shouldered hawks.* Since we
cannot enter the site, we cannot say for sure there are other raptor or large bird nests in
the more distant eucalyptus, but it seems very likely there are. It is clear that this site is
important raptor nesting habitat. The initial study’s failure to mention this raises
questions about the extent of its writer’s actual site observation since any untrained
casual observer can spot the nests along Luneta, so one would not expect them to
escape an actual “expert’s” eyes.
2. A perennial barn owl* nest site in the palm (Phoenix canariensis) in front of the
Sandford house is notorious, in the good sense, in the neighborhood. Each year parents
raise kids there, and on summer evenings the cute-faced noisy kids can be seen
practicing their flying with short hops between the palm, the Italian stone pine, coast live
oak, and araucarias. As mentioned above, these owls are not only a source of
neighborhood pride, but also important public health vector control agents nature
provides for free.
ATTACHMENT 8
Another important avian use of the property is as a major roost for turkey vultures.
Each evening they fly into the eucalyptus behind the Sandford house, roost overnight,
and in the morning spread out through the property’s 59 trees to stretch, warm up, and
get ready for another day aloft. One summer morning we counted two dozen of these
huge birds at 71 Palomar. My theory is these trees, with their dense foliage, provide
exactly the sort of protective roost vultures need and seek. In the summer evening, they
can be seen gathering in the less dense eucs behind the Mormon Church, preen for a
time, then glide over to the trees at 71 Palomar and disappear into the foliage, where
they are visible only to the seriously observant eye.
And, the site is frequeneted regularly seasonally by wild turkeys.
The IS-ND revision mentions that such a site might be used by “the State Fully
Protected and local species of concern” white-tailed kite,* which it states has been
observed “within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site.” Really! That’s the best they can
do with this remarkable bird? In fact, it has been sighted at 71 Palomar and is
commonly in the immediate area. Our late great 140-foot Monterey pine, unfortunately
removed just last month after its demise, a few hundred feet from 71 Palomar, was
frequented by these birds, much to our delight. Just last weekend I spotted a pair on
Garden Street near Islay, in downtown’s southern fringe, just over one mile from 71
Palomar. It seems not much effort was put into determining whether kites are present at
the site. Actual serious expert site observation is lacking.
We believe our snapshot sidewalk survey during a relatively “sterile” period in
early July merely scratches the surface of this site’s avian activity. A proper
environmental study of avian use of the property would take a year, to visit the site
repeatedly to document seasonal variations and events and nexting/rearing activities.
Why didn’t the city undertake such a study instead of endorsing the initial study’s clear
nonsense? Had such study been initiated at project application, the year would be well
along by now, and we’d have a lot of professional information instead of a mere
sidewalk study by residents versus a non-study by the city’s alleged “experts.”
So, it is clear that a number of protected avian species inhabit and use 71 Palomar’s
trees, and the city to date has done absolutely nothing to try to verify that fact or to
mitigate the problems presented by development. This malfeasance sets the city up for
legal problems going forth. This lack of proper bird study must be corrected.
An initial study that so completely misrepresents avian conditions is insufficient grounds
for granting a negative declaration of environmental impact.
Trees. This site is an extraordinary urban forest with 51 significant trees, plus 8 others
that were “discovered” since the initial IS-ND was done, many about a century old or
older. The initial study fails to mention this salient fact, and is dismissive of the trees –
as if this is an ordinary building site instead of a unique and special feature of our city
deserving some degree of respect and protection. Instead of looking at the true
ATTACHMENT 8
character of this unique site, the initial study endorses clear cutting this wonderful urban
forest without even examining it.
In a good city, an incredible site like 71 Palomar would be cherished and
protected, not viewed as just so much clearable, bulldozable nondescript land on
which to erect a generic and ugly LA-style apartment complex. That such is not
our city’s choice speaks volumes about what our city has become.
Tree Reports and Narrative Analysis
We were led to believe in the revised IS-ND there would be a substantive study of the
individual trees to determine which might be of heritage quality and which are fully
capable, arboriculturally, of preservation within a revised project. Unfortunately, none of
that took place, and we have mainly a rehash of the tree report (A&T) done by the
applicant, which, incidentally, as a submission by the developer is not a legitimate
CEQA document even though staff persists in misrepresenting that it is by including it
within the CEQA folder in the project’s CEQA file. Instead of fresh thinking, we have
something called a “peer review” of the developer’s tree report – a “review” so friendly
and shoddy as to mock the very meaning of the term “peer review.”
The “condition” evaluations in the Rincon report, as in the A&T report, are purely
subjective, not scientific, and provide no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the
individual trees.
The report, instead of providing basis for judging individual trees, simply attempts to
justify the wholesale cutting of this urban forest grove by going no deeper than the
cut/leave designations of trees in the original project application, which had changed
prior to the Rincon study, yet those changes are not reflected here. The Rincon report,
like the A&T report, is thus mere rationalization for wholesale tree removal.
The report does “discover” additional trees, but then suggests that like the previously
known trees they all be cut down.
The Rincon report includes the same sort of careless misidentification of tree species
as the original IS-ND, which failed even to mention the presence of Araucaria on the
site. The Rincon report speaks of a “Canary Island Pine” to be preserved (is there even
one on the site?) when it probably means Canary Island Palm. And it calls out other tree
species that don’t appear to be on the site as well.
The revised report re-endorses the original’s ridiculous contention that only 4 trees are
worth saving – 4 which just happen to be the same 4 the applicant doesn’t plan to cut:
two palm trees (among the least significant/important/interesting tree species on the
site) one of which isn’t even on the site but is on the Valencia parking lot easement
owned by the fraternity property; a single eucalyptus, arguably the least significant
among the grove’s eucs; and a single Araucaria, the smaller of the two, with no
explanation why the larger perfectly healthy Araucaria is not equally worthy. The
Araucaria issue is emblematic of the shoddy tree work represented here. The smaller
tree to be preserved appears to be smaller because it’s been topped; it appears to have
a multiple leader as a result – and this correctible flaw isn’t even mentioned in the
report, while the report attempts to make a big deal out of the fact the eucalyptus have
been topped. The larger Araucaria tree is criticized because it’s “stressed;” for sure,
nobody’s cared for these trees for years; give the thing some TLC and it will be lush
ATTACHMENT 8
again. A fine thriving example of a similar-sized Araucaria rescued from a much more
dire state is located at the southwest corner of the Student Services Building on the
CPSU campus.
By contrast, the extensive Eucalyptus plantings are dismissed on grounds they were
poorly trimmed in the past. No mention is made of an obvious corrective and very cost-
effective alternative to removal that could save most of them: safety pruning.
Failure to properly evaluate local significance of the trees at 71 Palomar.
The initial study fails in still other ways – it fails to identify the local significance of trees
that are unique in the city yet are proposed for removal! For example, the two large
Araucarias are rare for their size and height in this area. They should both receive
heritage” designation. (See below for their historic design significance.)
The IS-ND states:
No designated heritage trees exist on the portion of the site to be developed.”
This is a meaningless, misleading and manipulative statement without any merit. It is
clear that many of the trees on the site would qualify for heritage status should such be
considered by the city.
To claim there are no heritage trees is to ignore the city’s very weak heritage tree
program’s multiple weaknesses coupled with city staff interference. Under the city’s
heritage designation program, trees can be nominated only by the owner. This owner
wants to clear-cut, so he’s not going to nominate his trees. When citizens became
concerned about the fate of the many clearly heritage-qualified trees on this site, they
asked the Tree Committee to study the trees to verify in advance, as part of this
environmental review process, whether any met heritage criteria. The committee agreed
to do that, but then was shut down by city staff, who went so far as to prohibit them from
even entering the property to look at the trees! Even more amazing, the minutes
prepared by staff for the meeting where the Tree Committee had agreed to study the
trees failed to contain that action taken by the committee.
The property owner plans to retain four trees on the site, as mentioned above, and is
manipulatively offering to designate those four as heritage trees, even though three of
them are of dubious heritage significance, while many others he plans to cut are of clear
heritage significance.
The IS-ND also states:
55 small to fully mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed
as part of the proposed project development. This includes trees such as mulberry,
pine, olive, decorative palms, oak, ash, eucalyptus and redwood . . .”
What’s fascinating about this description is its collective incompleteness and thus
distortion of the site’s trees. No mention of perhaps the two most remarkable Araucarias
ATTACHMENT 8
in town. With the exception of the eucalyptus and one large pine, none of the other
enumerated trees are significant for size or quality, though the olives are very good –
and are easily moved should they be in the way – i.e., there’s zero excuse for cutting
any of them.
Esthetics – Views of Trees.
During public discussion of the project prior to redoing the IS-ND, view impacts from
various points in the neighborhood and around the north quadrant of town were pointed
out. One alleged purpose of the IS-ND redo was to study this issue. Unfortunately, the
issue wasn’t so much studied as intentionally obfuscated and covered up.
The Rincon report states: “CEQA distinguishes between public and private views, and
focuses on whether a project would affect the public environment…”, and then
dismisses any impact on public views. This, however, is done by sleight of hand.
The photos Rincon uses to make its point don’t make its point.
For example, Photo 2 looking down Luneta has a red arrow allegedly pointing to the
site that doesn’t in fact point at anything; but the photo beautifully shows a line of
skyline trees straight down the street and to its left, all of which will be removed. How
can wholesale removal of that skyline be said not to impact public views?
Photo 3, alleged to show no view impact from Ramona, is taken from behind trees
at the Village, which conveniently block a view of the skyline trees above, thereby
apparently proving to Rincon’s mind that there is no visual impact. However, move
over a few feet to where the Village trees don’t block things, look straight up Palomar
from Ramona, and the lost skyline tree view would have been obvious. This sort of
sleight of hand by carefully positioning one’s camera to show nothing is unworthy of
any serious CEQA document.
In Photos 4 and 5, virtually every skyline tree looking straight ahead would be
removed, also indicating loss of viewshed amenity to this project.
Rincon’s photos simply don’t make the case their words allege. The photos show
there would be huge loss of public views towards the site.
Most incredibly the Rincon IS-ND on page 11 asserts the biggest view lie of all. It
asserts that the site “is not within a City designated [sic] scenic vista” as designated per
Figure 11 in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. (Contrary
to its name “general plan,” there’s nothing “general” about a general plan – its specific
provisions carry the weight of a law.)
Figure 11 designates the length of Foothill Boulevard as a scenic highway, whose
views to right, left and straight ahead, are to be protected. By law.
The site’s skyline trees are prominently visible from several locations along Foothill:
ATTACHMENT 8
Caption: This entire horizon of skyline trees seen from Foothill would be removed
under the “insignificant view impact” story put out by Rincon. The “non-significant”
Araucarias unmentioned in the IS-ND’s enumeration of trees on site tower in the photo’s
center.)
Had Rincon done a more thorough job of assessing distant views, it would have found
examples such as this at the intersection of Felton and Ferrini, considerably to the north
of the project site:
ATTACHMENT 8
Caption: The Mormon Church tower can be plainly seen below the entire skyline of
trees, silhouetted against the grassy slope of Cerro San Luis Obispo, this project would
remove. This is estimated to be ½ mile from site. Instead of this important view, Rincon
included a photo from further out Ferrini in which the view was selectively blocked,
similar to what they did in the view from Ramona with the view hidden behind nearby
trees.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The IS-ND’s discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and energy matters in general is
completely incompetent. I have personally urged Mr. Codron to correct this deficient
discussion in the revised IS-ND, but he didn’t. So the old stuff remains.
The section’s problems begin with the following questionable statement: “The major
sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation related emissions from cars and
trucks, followed by energy consumption in buildings.” There is no documentation in the
report for such a statement, it is simply presented as unquestioned fact. That lack of
documentation matters because the statement is significantly at variance with the
national breakdown of GHG sources.
The respected ARCHITECTURE 2030 website indicates almost half of US GHG
emissions come from buildings (construction plus operating energy), while about a third
come from all types of transport, of which private transport makes up about half the
transport sector. That is, private transport accounts for about 16% of total US GHG
emissions.
So, how does it become the largest local source?
ATTACHMENT 8
This apparent conceptual error multiplies as it progresses through the report, leaving us
with no understanding how to mitigate or lessen actually significant project GHG
impacts.
While the IS-ND appears to exaggerate the transport sector’s GHG emissions, it ignores
the impact of this poorly-designed project’s rather large contributions. It states: “The
emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total
project CO2 emissions,” again without evidence to back this allegation, and downplays
project operational energy consumption throughout its life. This has the cart backwards
being pulled by a back-stepping horse.
There are a number of places where energy use could be mitigated through good
design, which this project lacks.
The project has totally enclosed under-building parking, which by code requires 24/7
mechanical ventilation (with presumably a stinky discharge point for the exhaust), which
sucks energy a better parking design with open air circulation could completely avoid.
Properly designed buildings in our climate can heat themselves, cool themselves,
ventilate themselves and light themselves by capturing free non-carbonized site
energies to do the work electricity and gas might otherwise be called upon to do. This
design appears to totally ignore the potential to use natural energy flows to do such
work.
Most of the buildings have the worst possible solar orientation, with long building
facades, containing windows, facing east and west. This means morning and afternoon
interior heat buildup in the hot seasons, and an inability to capture winter heat from the
south sun. The consequence is excess use of electricity for summer cooling and excess
use of gas and electricity for winter heating, compared to a design with majority N-S
facing windows properly specified to promote winter heat gain and shaded from summer
sun.
Most of the roofs have the worst sort of orientation (east and west) to make use of PV
electric generation on site. In this day, there is zero excuse for that on a site with
excellent southerly orientation potential. It’s just plain bad design.
The broken-up floor plans suggest it will be next to impossible to ventilate the buildings
naturally with cross ventilation or stack ventilation. Again, there’s no excuse for this in
today’s world. We know how to do this, using “free” natural energy flows to keep our
indoor air fresh and cool in summer.
One suspects the buildings will be air conditioned to compensate for their poor siting
and poor design configuration. That would mean a totally unnecessary energy suck for
the lifetime of the buildings, an energy albatross around the climate’s neck for the next
century or so. (Even if not air conditioned, it seems likely portable AC units will be
chosen to mitigate for summer heat buildup due to poor orientation of windows.) Not
ATTACHMENT 8
only is this poor practice in today’s world, it is immoral. It is also hypocritical for city that
claims to be concerned about climate change to tolerate this sort of poor design.
Why is such an energy-inefficient building complex being given a pass in 2017,
less than 3 years before California law would require such buildings to achieve
net zero energy consumption? The state PUC and Energy Commission, jointly
charged with implementing the residential net zero requirement, have recommended
local jurisdictions “ramp up” to net zero so there’s understanding all around (not the
least among staff) of various ways to implement net zero prior to the deadline. Why has
San Luis Obispo not done this? Why are we dragging our feet? Why are the huge
projects being built today being built pretty much like projects of the past instead of like
projects of the future? Does the city simply not care?
The IS-ND concludes that Title 24 will save us all. “State Title 24 regulations for
building energy efficiency are enforced with new construction.” While not false, that
statement is deliberately manipulative. A code-compliant building is a legal building. It is
not a good building, or a green building, or an energy sipping building. It is merely a
code-compliant building. The difference between code and what can be done is vast,
and it’s not being done here. The city, if it really cares, should demand better.
Looking at the poor design of 71 Palomar, it is clear this is yesterday’s project, not
tomorrow’s. There appears to be no obvious way it could ever become net zero.
Cultural Resources.
Historic building preservation.
The IS-ND fails to adequately explore the project applicant’s intention to demolish
portions of the historic-listed Sandford House. It is said he will preserve the “historic”
portions of the house while demolishing “non-historic” portions.
This is verbal gobblegook.
When determining the “period” to which a restoration is to be made, one has to ask a lot
of questions that haven’t been asked in this study and its historical analysis companion
study.
The key is to decide what “period” is significant to the resource. If it’s when “George
Washington slept here,” that’s explicit.
In the current case, nothing has been made explicit. If we don’t have a rationale for a
specified “period” in mind, any pretext of an accurate or meaningful restoration is bogus.
It appears instead that the applicant has determined he wants to move the “historic”
house out of his way to maximize his profit, and so the “experts” support his lopping off
an arm here, a wing there, an ear someplace else in order to make the move easier.
This has nothing to do with historic preservation. It has everything to do with making the
developer happier.
ATTACHMENT 8
Let’s look at this intelligently instead of rationalizing the project’s plans. One might
argue, for example, the most important “period” of the house was its occupancy by a
pioneering female radio operator and America’s first female TV station owner, at mid-
20th century. In that case, ALL of the accretions now allegedly added onto the “original”
house are “historic” – both by period merit and by age. In that case, all must be
preserved in any historic restoration.
The IS-ND’s failure to define the period for establishing “historic” importance thus
means the determination that alleged “non-historic” features can legitimately be
removed as part of an alleged “restoration” is a bogus contention.
Without establishing the “period” of authenticity and a firm reason for choosing that
period, the ND-IS cultural heritage section is without merit.
Historical importance of building/landscape interaction.
The IS-ND fails to look at the cultural landscape of which the house is but a part.
The entire site consists of a cultural landscape in which house, tree placement,
pathways, etc., are intentionally, by design, interlocked into a unique and meaningful
fabric. The proposed project will destroy all of this cultural meaning even if individual
pieces of it (diminished relocated house, a few individual trees) remain. The IS-ND
insensitively fails to so much as look at this aspect of cultural heritage.
Given the current prejudice against eucalyptus trees as aliens (as if nearly everything
we plant weren’t alien), one tends to overlook that their historical vernacular use was
with good purpose, and this is demonstrated at the Sandford House site. There appear
to be two different uses of the eucs, two different historic groves, plus a few apparently
planted later without the cultural understanding of the two groves. One grove is to the
northwest of the house, clinging to the house outline but out a bit from it, to provide a
windbreak from those brisk summer winds we all know; it is a planned planted alteration
of one of this site’s less desirable natural energy flows. The other, to the southwest of
the house, appears to be a prototypical “shade grove,” providing a shaded place for
outdoor activities. These were both common vernacular design uses for eucs. The IS-
ND is mute on the cultural significance of these principal historic eucalyptus plantings.
ATTACHMENT 8
Caption: Illustration of the two principal historic eucalyptus groves on a site diagram for
some proposed heritage tree designations. Note also the Eugenia and Araucaria tree
locations discussed below. The Eugenias are actually on an adjacent property the
applicant plans to use for landscaping, even though he doesn’t own it.)
This site is unique in our city, with its on-site topography determining the sensitive
placement of house and many of the trees; its hillside location offering views outwards
from the site but also views upward from below to the ancient forest on the city’s
skyline; the somewhat formal arrangement of trees, house entry, walkway indicating
whoever laid it out was familiar with the classical architectural language of approach,
entry, and object placement, as well as sensitivity to what happens as a person moves
in time through space, and how to architecturally augment that time/space journey, in
this instance with trees. The proposed plan destroys all of this by mucking with the
underlying fabric of the site – moving the house, cutting the trees, destroying the axial
spatial movement to the house entry thoughtfully laid out by some designer in the past.
This site is the nearest we have to the sort of dignity one finds in a hilltop park in
Florence, gazing out over the city to the mountains beyond while surrounded by
beautiful trees (including a lovely Italian stone pine – how appropriate for the Florentine
analogy!) in a peaceful place. Yet this project proposal ignores all of this specialness
and proposes something that’s Anyplace LA to displace it.
Cultural landsapes are a recognized part of historic preservation and cultural heritage.
In 1981, the National Park Service, keeper of the National Register of Historic Places,
recognized cultural landscapes as a National Register preservation category, and
UNESCO followed in 1992. Cultural landscapes, says the NPS, “are composed of a
number of character-defining features which, individually or collectively contribute to the
landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to
vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include . . . circulation features,
ATTACHMENT 8
such as roads, paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences,
benches, lights and sculptural objects.” Vegetation, topography, paths, and building all
compose important aspects of the cultural landscape of 71 Palomar and define the
site’s significant and unique historic fabric.
NPS continues: “Most historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is
integral to the significance of the resource. . . A historic property consists of all its
cultural resources—landscapes, buildings, archeological sites and collections.”
The entire 71 Palomar site must be considered as a cultural landscape, of which the
building is but one part. If one looks only at the building, and not at the site as a
historical/cultural artifact, one misses the bulk of what there is of cultural value. One
must look at the whole site – historic building, historic grounds layout, historic trees,
topography, placement of building and plantings with respect to topography, views to
and from the site – as what has cultural heritage significance for our community and
what merits cultural heritage protection.
The NPS requires “integrity” of a resource for National Register qualification. By integrity
it means “the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evinced by the survival of
physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period.
The seven qualities of integrity as defined by the National Register Program are
location, setting, feeling, association, design, workmanship, and materials.”
When one starts moving historic buildings about on their historic cultural landscape, one
creates a muddle, disturbs the meaning, significance and integrity of the place. For
example, moving the Sandford House and cutting the historic trees as applicant
proposes totally destroys three of the essential aspects of integrity considered for
National Register qualification: location, setting and feeling. The IS-ND fails to look at
this issue.
A good cultural heritage IS-ND evaluation would thus note that historic preservation is
not about a building alone, but about a building in its setting. This IS-ND fails to do that.
Consider just one of the simplest cultural heritage relationships that would be
destroyed, and which a good IS-ND would have analyzed: the classical axial approach
to the house, which was laid out with utmost thought by someone in the past. Passing
between two vertical elements is a classic way architects and vernacular designers alike
understood to denote entry. At the Sandford House, one does this twice, along a
walkway that leads, on axis, from a viewing platform at the top of the stairs from the
street, to the front door: First, after rising to the level of the front yard from the now-
depressed street, one passes between two Eugenia trees, then, continuing in a straight
line, between two Araucaria trees. One moves through the space between top of stairs
and front door by entering this “propylaea” formed by trees before continuing through
the open on a straight path to the front door. This timeless time/space passage is
punctuated by a culturally-recognizable object composed of trees instead of stone.
ATTACHMENT 8
And the passage works in reverse, also, from house front door, through the “propylaea”
to the “Florentine” viewing platform offering a purposefully composed view out over the
city to the hills beyond.
Caption: An axial approach pathway is framed three-dimensionally from viewing
platform, bottom, to house door, top, by the Eugenia trees at bottom and pair of
Araucarias further towards house. This is emblematic of the sort of land/built-object
relationship, with historic cultural meaning, the project would destroy and upon which
the IS-ND is mute.)
YET ALL OF THIS – THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PASSAGE AND THE PHYSICAL
RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ARTIFACTS AND THE BROADER LANDSCAPE --
WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT’S INSENSITIVITY.
Moving the house, cutting the trees, putting a mundane zig-zag walk from relocated
stairs to relocated house. Why should this wanton destruction of historic fabric and
meaning be allowed when it’s not necessary or desirable? Why does the IS-ND not look
at such issues instead of signing off on whatever the destructionist wishes to do?
CONCLUSION. This IS-ND is a very disappointing document. The first version was
clearly inadequate and non-competent. After public pressure, the Michael Codron
agreed to redo it and correct its deficiencies. Instead, it appears the emphasis was
merely on making the record deeper and thicker rather than undertaking an honest
reappraisal to correct previous faults. Old faults remain. New ones are added.
This document is unfit to be considered adequate CEQA work for the City of San Luis
Obispo. It needs to be redone again, and this time done right – a year-long bird study,
for example, and competent tree analysis rather than mere rationalization for a massive
clearcut.
ATTACHMENT 8
RE CEIVED
DEC 12 2016
SLO CITY CLERK
From: jody vollmer
Sent: Monday, Dec .. . .. ' . ,.. '
To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slacity.org>
Cc: Codron -mcodron@slocity.org; Harmon, Heidi <hharrnon@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>;
Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy
apease@sloc.ity.org >
Subject: Tree Committee Communication
Dear Tree committee members :
Thank you for your careful consideration of the plan to remove so many
trees from 71 Palomar Ave, and the negative impact this will have on the
neighborhood, ecosystem, and overall beauty of this property.
Please consider how many individual requests you have received over the
years to remove 1 or 2 trees on personal property, and then have denied
them for various reasons.
Even though the health of some of the trees at 71 Palomar is currently in
question-they are NOT a danger nor have they EVER been considered or
requested for removal by the owners before. It is only an issue at this
time because of a developer who wants to remove them, because they are "in
the way" of his planned massive apartment complex.
If any of the trees on this property are in questionable condition, or
were allowed to be cut/pruned improperly so that it affected their health-
then the property owners are responsible for allowing this to happen. so
why would they now start caring for/nurturing the new trees they plan to
plant so this doesn't happen again?
The current trees are established and thus require less water to maintain
them--whereas the developer's plan to plant new smaller trees that will
presumably require large amounts of water in order to sustain them during
our continued drought.
I still believe that some of these trees could be considered Heritage
Trees, but the owners of 71 Palomar have never seemingly cared about
requesting this designation or preserving the trees on this property.
Please do not allow 55 majestic, mature, and established trees--and the
scenic screen they provide for the residents of this neighborhood--to fall
victim to a developer .
Thank you for your consideration
Jody Vollmer
1
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:52 PM
To: Advisory Bodies <adviso rvbodies@s locity.org >; Gallagher, Carrie <=CG=a=ll=a =h=e,_,,r ==i...:.::..:.q
Subject: Tree Committee -71 Palomar 12/12/16
Mila Vujovi ch-la Barre
San Luis Obispo, California -
December 12, 2016
San Luis Obispo CityTree Commissioners
CA-
Dear Members of the Tree Commission ,
RECEIVE D
DEC 1 3 201 6
SLO CITY CLER J<
It is my hope that you deny the proposal for 71 Palomar that is on your agenda for this evening. Like
so many other concerned citizens , I urge you to continue your deliberations for another month , while
you conduct your own independent research.
As you recall about six months ago, you expressed a desire to study the trees on site for potential
heritage qualities in person . This important task should be done by you.
It is my understanding that your committee's purview is to protect wonderful trees in our community,
not simply to agree to their removal to facilitate development. Your committee should have been
consulted at the onset of this process.
This particular project has taken a very unusual path through the City process. It has not been dealt
with in a logical and linear fashion .
The Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission have weighed in on this
project and they too have found the process to be illogical.
Please disapprove the current project's building footprint on grounds no effort was made in designing
it to accommodate any of the site's wonderful urban forest. The ARC was critical of both the footprint
and massing , and asked them to be substantially revised . They have not been. The current proposal
is for high-priced students dormitories with insufficient parking -it is not for "affordable" or 11workforce"
housing .
The current property at 71 Palomar should be cherished and protected since it is a historical master
listed house, su rrounded by a healthy urban forest. The house will most certainly be damaged if it is
moved in the way that is proposed .
The roots of the trees are part of the infrastructure of the land that the house is on. Certainly the
destruction and clearing of the trees will further destroy support of the house.
1
ATTACHMENT 8
There is significant wildlife at this site according to experts that will be negatively impacted including
the hooded oriole, scrub jay, Pacific slope flycatcher, orange crowned warbler, warbling vireo,
chestnut-backed chickadee, band-tailed pigeon, crow, kestrel , Anna's hummingbird, acorn
woodpecker, house finch , house sparrow, Cassin 's kingbird, mourning dove, downy woodpecker,
American robin turkey vultures, barn owls and hawks.
I urge you as members of the Tree Committee to delay any approval of this project until you can
personally observe the concerns of residents and make the most informed decision.
Thank you for your service and consideration .
Cordially,
arre
San Luis Obispo, CA-
2
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 5:17 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel; Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; carlyn christenson; Lichtig,
Katie
Subject:71 Palomar Update
Date: December 19, 2016
To: Rachel Cohen - Planner: City of San Luis Obispo
CC: City Council of San Luis Obispo
From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre
Dear Ms. Cohen,
This proposal at 71 Palomar by LR Development of El Segundo is inconsistent with
neighborhood character and poses problems for traffic circulation, impacting the traffic on
Broad, Serrano, Luneta and all nearby streets.
In addition, it threatens the existence of both trees and the master listed house at the location.
This is, in essence, an apartment complex - not “affordable” housing adjacent to an
established R-1 neighborhood.
It would also have a negative impact on the character of the established neighborhood, the
safety of our streets for bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles, and on our City’s water supply.
As an involved community member, I have read several of the communications that have been
forwarded to you about this proposal and I have also attended a variety of meetings in regard to 71
Palomar.
Suffice to say that I am in complete agreement with the research and assertions about the historical
significance of the Sandford House. I am also convinced that the house should not be moved.
In The Tribune article on this matter, published on June 18, 2016, and written by reporter Nick Wilson,
there are some other details that I hope you are aware of. The developer Loren Riehl stated that “the
home has a weak foundation” and “it’s feasible and advisable to move the structure.” That logic, to
me, is contradictory.
The current tenants invited me to the site in June to closely examine the current condition of the
home. The huge foundation is on an immense sturdy slab. Taking the century- old home off that slab
will undoubtedly cause the home to be severely damaged.
The established property, with its magnificent views, tree canopy and wildlife, is part of the history of
our town and it should be protected.
Furthermore, the developer was instructed in a past CHC meeting to reduce the number of units on
the property. He reduced the number of units but just increased the number of bedrooms in the
proposed units. They are obviously dorm rooms. He also decreased the number of original parking
spaces.
ATTACHMENT 8
2
The ARC was critical of both the footprint and massing, and asked them to be substantially revised.
They have not been.
A development of this magnitude should not be at this site. It is inconsistent with neighborhood
character. This mastered-listed historical home should be preserved in its entirety.
While the developer may boast that he is helping with the housing crisis in our City, there are other
sites that are better suited to multi-family dwelling. One site is the defunct McDonald's that has been
empty for years on Foothill Boulevard. Since this proposed development appears to be student
housing by design, another option would be to pursue a public/private partnership with Cal Poly and
build on Cal Poly property.
On another note, I know that you are aware that the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee recently found
fault with the tree report funded by the developer. There were a minimum of 22 errors in either
identification, height, significance, or health of existing trees.
I have followed City development often for the last 15 years. This particular development has not
been dealt with logically. I also was encouraged to share some additional information with you to
shed additional light on my sentiments about how unusual this process has been.
First of all, at the request of resident Cheryl McLean and I in mid-May during public comment at a
Tree Committee meeting, the topic of 71 Palomar tree analysis and preservation was put on an
agenda in early June by the Tree Committee chair at our request. The agenda item was then “pulled
by City staff” in early June.
For many residents and members of the advisory body, it seemed that the preservation of the trees
would have a significant impact on where and what type of building can go on the site at 71 Palomar.
It was not logical or linear to not have had the input from the Tree Committee before then deciding on
the preservation of the Sandford House and then giving guidance to the developer for the eventual
plan for development for the entire parcel.
Shortly after that cancellation in early June, I announced that I was going to run for City Council at a
City Council meeting during public comment. Less than 48 hours later, I was to have a press
interview with The Tribune about 71 Palomar at 71 Palomar with other residents, a journalist, and a
photographer.
Prior to the interview, I came home to change clothes from my work day and discovered that my
home had been burglarized mid-day. I kept my composure and went on to the interview with The
Tribune and then called the police on my way home from 71 Palomar.
Approximately $20,000 in jewelry and electronics were taken from my home. I have lived there for
over 25 years and never have I had a problem. There was a man in a getaway car and I suspect two
individuals inside the house and the guest house that worked somewhat quickly. My astute neighbor
got what he thought was a complete license plate. The license plate was run through the system by
San Luis Obispo Police Department detectives and came came back as a license plate registered to
the local prison.
Although my neighbor initially stated that he was certain that he had the right number, he then stated
that maybe he “was wrong.”
ATTACHMENT 8
3
When two people in the media found out I had been burglarized, they called and then stated that they
thought it was politically motivated due to my outspokenness on this particular development. I said I
did not think that “was possible or probable.” I said that I have been very trusting over the years and
took the blame for not locking my back door.
The next day, a neighbor adjacent to 71 Palomar who has been vocal about the project had her tire
slashed. Two days later a man who has been vocal against this project had his car mirror vandalized.
Many have thought this all to be an interesting coincidence.
Since I, as a middle school teacher, did not want to think that any of these negative assumptions
were true about the owners or the developer, I took the proverbial “high road” and called members of
Delta Tau to ask about whether or not they were open to a “backup offer” on 71 Palomar, in the event
that it fell out of escrow. Delta Tau Leader, Bob Nastase, who is a real estate attorney in Southern
California had given me his card and said to “keep communication open.” He stated that day in a
telephone call, “Mila, by all means ‘Yes’! Submit a backup offer.”
That next day, I went to the Land Conservancy and also spoke with a member of the Cultural
Heritage Committee about a potential backup offer. I was excited at the possibility that this property
may fall out of escrow and that City residents could possibly have their much awaited park in the
North Broad Street neighborhood. This enthusiasm was due to the fact that the City Council, under
the direction of Mayor Jan Marx, had recently granted $900,000 on paper to purchase a piece of
property for a neighborhood park in the North Broad Street area at our request.
That very next day, I was shocked to learn that Bob Nastase, the very same man who had
encouraged me on the phone to submit a backup offer, had filed a lawsuit against me and the other
concerned citizens for “trespassing at 71 Palomar” the day of The Tribune interview. The residents
who had given us permission to be on the property were also evicted. Although we were never served
with a lawsuit, it was definitely intimidating for some.
In September, more shenanigans occurred at my home property that necessitated police
involvement. It frightened both my daughter and me. During the interview with the police, my neighbor
and the police commented that it looked “just like a fraternity prank.” I said nothing.
My home is now fully alarmed and protected.
People just need to be aware of the occurrences that have taken place.
I just wanted to share with you the fact that there appears to be an illogical path to development for
71 Palomar that needs to be corrected. I said that in May. I am saying it again now.
The current property at 71 Palomar should be protected since it is a historically master listed house,
surrounded by a healthy urban forest. The house will most certainly be damaged if it is moved in the
way that is proposed.
The roots of the trees are part of the infrastructure of the land that the house is on. Certainly the
destruction and clearing of the trees will further destroy support of the house.
The current proposal is for high-priced students dormitories with insufficient parking - it is not for
affordable” or “workforce” housing.
ATTACHMENT 8
4
Please let logic prevail and postpone any decision on this development until a decision on the trees
and the master listed house are appropriately evaluated. That way, the project can be considered in a
logical, ethical, and legal manner that will provide a clear and transparent path for decision-making.
The Delta Tau Housing Corporation is not in financial dire straits and the developer has a number of
other projects pending from his home base in El Segundo, California.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
milavu@hotmail.com
Cell:805-441-5818
ATTACHMENT 8
1
1336 Sweetbay Lane
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
December 19, 2016
Michael Codron, Director
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo, California
RE: 71 Palomar Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Codron:
I wish to express support for a more comprehensive revision of the above
referenced study, which is deficient. Briefly, I suggest that the following occur:
1. A qualified ornithologist prepare an independent study and analysis of the
avian population in the trees on this site, and prepare an assessment of
the impacts of losing such trees on a prime bird habitat. The current study
is clearly inadequate.
2. An independent arboreal analysis of the significance of the trees on site, in
terms of their health, environmental and cultural, historical setting, and
which ones are within the category of a heritage tree.
3. The report should use the required findings for tree removal by the Tree
Committee, in particular that their loss would cause environmental
damage to the neighborhood and public views of the site. A landscape
architect should be hired to provide an expert opinion about the site and
its trees within its setting in the neighborhood.
4. An accurate greenhouse gas should be provided which is objective about
the amounts which the proposed project will generate over time from
energy use, vehicle emissions, building operations and inability to provide
solar energy.
5. Cultural and social impacts of removing parts of the Sanford house,
moving it and building new wings and porch which are not consistent with
its historic design. An analysis of the landscape on the site which is a
cultural artifact of an estate left to deteriorate; the loss of more of this
cultural heritage should be reported.
Thank you for conveying my comments to the consultant and providing an
independent analysis with more expertise.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Lydia Mourenza <mourenza@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 4:52 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Subject:71 PALOMAR RINCON REPORTS
71 Palomar: RINCON 10/21/2016
Arborist Report
This report is blatant advocacy to
favor the developer and his proposed
project. It contains false, incorrect
and irrelevant information intended
to creat a favorable view to tree
removal on the site.
Heritage Tree (HT) designation can
only be made the City Council. Such
designation is not voluntary when a
development permit is involved (see
attached). In this case it is unknown
whether there are any such trees on
site as the City Attorney unilaterally
removed that issue from the Tree
Committee agenda due to threat by
the developer of trespass charges
being brought against the committee
members if they entered the property
for purposes of potential HT
evaluation. This discussion is an
attempt to diminish the significance
of this 1.3 acre site of our rapidly
depleting Urban Forest, home to over
20 bird species protected under the
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. IRRELEVANT TO HEALTH
OF TREES
Findings of the Cultural Heritage
Committee are advisory only and
therefore not subject to appeal. It
remains undetermined whether the
location of the Master Listed
Historical house will be relocated
and/or whether any of the trees will
be determined as part of the
ATTACHMENT 8
2
site/setting. Attempt to impress upon
the reader that the trees are
insignificant. IRRELEVANT TO
HEALTH OF TREES
Tree replanting/replacement IS
required by the City and will exceed
the proposed 30 for 55 removed.
Attempt to paint developer as
manganous. IRRELEVANT TO
HEALTH OF TREES
Multiple notes in Table 2 indicating
trees as "unsightly" with no mention
of the abundant birds and wildlife
living there. Attempt to devalue the
trees. IRRELEVANT TO HEALTH
OF TREES
The members of the tree committee note significant issues with the report including multiple
misidentification of trees, mis-measurement of over 30 feet in height, and additional errors and omissions. The
tree committee, as the Cultural Heritage Committee was interested in a consideration of the trees as historical
landscape in relation to the Master Listed House as a whole. Moving the Sanford House and cutting 55 trees
many of which are old large specimens and provide canopy will cause a dramatic change in the neighborhood
both aesthetically and due to loss of bird habitat.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
In following with the trend this report is full of errors, omissions and demonstrated lack of either
knowledge of attention. Two large hawk nests are readily visible from Luneta. Red tailed Hawks and at least
20 other species included in the Migratory Bird Act are readily seen on the subject property, in addition to those
enumerated by Richard Schmidt in his correspondence. Raptors include the red tailed and red shoulder hawk, in
addition to white tailed kite and turkey vultures which aid in keeping rodents at bay. Wild turkeys and mountain
quail, western-scrub and steller's jays, american crow and common Raven, American robin, mourning dove,
numerous wood-peckers and owls abound. Bats are ever present.
A year long survey by someone who is able to identify aviary species and their nest, and bats, needs to be
obtained.
THESE INADEQUATE, FLAWED AND BIASED REPORTS SHOULD BE
REJECTED.
EITHER THE DEVELOPER BE DIRECTED TO SUBMIT PLANS WHICH LEAVE THE HOUSE IN
PLACE AND PRESERVES THE URBAN FOREST I.E. BUILD WITH RESPECT TO 71 PALOMAR
RATHER THAN DEGRADE THE SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THE PROJECT MUST UNDERGO
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION WITH UNBIASED EXPERTS TO AFFORD RELIABLE INFORMATION
WHICH SHOULD ASLO INCLUDE A FULL TRAFFIC STUDY.
Lydia Mourenza, Luneta Drive
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Lydia Mourenza <mourenza@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, December 19, 2016 4:56 PM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Subject:71 PALOMAR
Photos of nest from Luneta
ATTACHMENT 8
2
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 8
1
Cohen, Rachel
From:Lydia Mourenza <mourenza@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:08 AM
To:Cohen, Rachel
Subject:71 PALOMAR
The photos are of 2 different nests in 2 different trees visible from Luneta by the posts.I failed to make that clear when
sent yesterday.Thank you,Lydia Mourenza
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT 8
Minutes - DRAFT
TREE COMMITTEE
Monday, December 12, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, December 12, 2016
at 5:03 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Ritter.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Alan Bate, Scott Loosley, Angela Soll, Jane Worthy, Vice-Chair
Ben Parker, and Chair Matt Ritter
Absent: Committee Member Rodney Thurman
Staff: Urban Forest Supervisor & City Arborist Ron Combs, Community Development
Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Community Development Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, and Recording Secretary Brad Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER SOLL, the Minutes of the Tree Committee Meeting of October 24th, 2016,
were approved on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Soll, Bate, Loosley, Worthy, Ritter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Thurman
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1. 857 Santa Rosa Street
Property Manager Bill Carpenter provided a brief overview of the damage the subject ficus tree
has posed to the property and surrounding area, including sidewalk damage, destruction of the
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 2
foundation of the structure, and liability concerns over the raised and cracked foundation;
presented a report from J.R. Spencer Construction.
City Arborist Ron Combs stated the scope of his review and acknowledged the challenging
maintenance issues raised by the tree; explained that root pruning may not be a viable solution
because of the number of roots present and the extent of the damage; referred to a street
maintenance employee for confirmation that the roots do pose a trip-hazard to the public.
In response to Committee inquiry, City Arborist Combs confirmed it has been several years since
the last heavy pruning of the trees limbs and at least 4 years since the last root pruning.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Matt Quaglino, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of tree removal and replacement.
Chuck Lowe, San Luis Obispo, urged the Committee to consider heavy pruning of the
tree rather than removal.
Committee discussion ensued.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER BATE, to allow for the ficus tree removal, based on both the presentation of
undue hardship to property owners and the promotion of good arboricultural practices,
and for its replacement in City-approved, minimum 24-inch box, the specific location
to be determined by City Arborist. Motion passed 4-2-1 on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Parker, Bate, Loosely, Ritter
NOES: Soll, Worthy
ABSENT: Thurman
2. 1234 Santa Rosa Street
Owner Chelsea Ruiz presented her application for the replacement of four Ginkgo Biloba trees,
stating her desire to plant a species more compatible with the environmental factors of her
property, specifically a drought-tolerant California native.
City Arborist Ron Combs stated his findings of one healthy tree and three trees in need of extra
care; spoke in favor of removal.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Christine Husk, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern over the tree removal and aesthetic impact
to the neighborhood.
Committee discussion followed, during which members discussed alternatives to removal such
as better care and maintenance.
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 3
In response to public inquiry, the Committee stated the property owner is responsible for proper
maintenance, including watering of the trees; stated there is no basis to assume the trees are
causing an undue hardship for the homeowners.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LOOSLEY, SECONDED BY
VICE-CHAIR PARKER, to allow for the gingko biloba tree removal, second-from-
right in the progression of four (4), based on the promotion of good arboricultural
practices, and for its replacement with a 15-gallon tree of the same species; on the
following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Loosley, Parker, Bate, Soll, Worthy, Ritter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Thurman
3. 3057 S. Higuera Street
Association Manager Caleb Lim, presented an application for the removal of three pine trees
based on proximity to the building, concern for safety of residents, potential liability, and
financial hardship; expressed desire to replace the pine trees with something more appropriate
for the property and its residents.
City Arborist Ron Combs stated he cannot present basis for removal due to the healthy nature of
the trees.
Chair Ritter acknowledges the applicant as a representative of a Home Owners Association and
requests submission of a roll call vote as evidence of the governing board’s desire to move
forward with this application.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bill Rich, homeowner, spoke against the tree removal, stating there was no formal decision of his
HOA to apply for the tree removal.
Bill & Vicki Ann Richardson, Jo Anne Howell, and Nona Ward, San Luis Obispo, expressed
concerns over tree removal, specifically proper identification of trees being removed and safety
of physically challenged residents.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR RITTER, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR
PARKER, to table the Item to a date of Hearing to be determined and at such time that
further required evidence would be made available for presentation to the Committee;
on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Ritter, Parker, Bate, Loosley, Soll, Worthy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Thurman
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 4
4. 990 Palm Street
ACTION: The Tree Committee removed the Item from the Agenda for lack of
Representative Applicant and tabled it for a Committee Hearing at a future date to be
determined.
Action on Items 5 & 6 pending review by staff due to the lack of precedent for decision a tied vote. **
5. 2119 San Luis Drive
Applicant Mary Kay Harrington presented an application for tree removal.
City Arborist Ron Combs confirmed the presence of decay on the sycamore tree, stating it is of
marginal health with some potential for failure; stated the oak tree has been heavily pruned and is
outside of the original footprint of the building, confirming the diameter of the tree.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kelsey Reynold, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition of the tree removal.
Committee discussion included potential for the trees to cause structural damage based on their
proximity to the approved building plans for the property and the financial hardship applicants
would face through loss of building permit fees paid to the City.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER LOOSLEY, to allow for the sycamore tree removal based on promotion of
good arboricultural practices, and for its replacement; on the following 5:1:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Loosley, Bate, Soll, Worthy
NOES: Ritter
ABSENT: Thurman
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY CHAIR
RITTER, to allow for the oak tree removal based on presentation of undue hardship to
the property owners, and for its replacement with a 15-gallon live oak on the property;
on the following 3:3:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Ritter, Worthy
NOES: Bate, Loosley, Soll
ABSENT: Thurman
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 5
6. 2159 San Luis Drive
Applicant Steve Simoulis presented an application for the removal of a live oak tree to
accommodate approved building plans and to avoid potential damage to the structure and the tree
itself.
City Arborist Ron Combs stated the tree is healthy therefore, he cannot find basis for removal.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Kelsey Moe, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns over the City approving plans that would
require later removal of trees; suggested property owners consider the placement of existing trees
before submitting plans that conflict with available space.
Jesse Bilsten, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of preserving the current placement of the tree;
suggested modifying plans to accommodate the tree or considering replacing the tree with equal
aesthetic value.
Committee discussion ensued.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER WORTHY, to allow for the live oak tree removal based on promotion of
good arboricultural practices, and for its replacement with a live oak; on the following
3:3:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Worthy, Loosley
NOES: Bate, Soll, Ritter
ABSENT: Thurman
7. 1610 Colina Court
Brenda Lunceford, owner, presented her application for the removal of a Red Flowering Gum
Eucalyptus) tree based on home owner’s allergy to the tree as well as concerns over the tree’s
apparent lean toward the home on the property.
City Arborist Ron Combs, stated no basis for removal.
In response to Committee inquiries, the applicants provided information about their allergy to the
tree; expressed plans to replace the tree with another species that would not only relieve them of
challenges to their health but also complement the existing trees in the neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 6
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER SOLL, to allow for the third (#3) eucalyptus tree removal based on
presentation of undue hardship to the property owners, and for its replacement;
CARRIED on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Soll, Bate, Loosley, Worthy, Ritter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Thurman
8. 1628 Mill Drive
Michael Harkness, owner, presented his application for the removal and replacement of a liquid
amber tree.
City Arborist Ron Combs stated no basis for removal under his purview.
No Committee discussion.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LOOSLEY, SECONDED BY
VICE-CHAIR PARKER, to allow for the liquid amber tree removal based on promotion
of good arboricultural practices, and for its replacement with a 15-gallon little gem
dwarf southern magnolia tree; CARRIED on the following 5:0:1:1 vote:
AYES: Loosley, Parker, Soll, Worthy, Ritter
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Bate
ABSENT: Thurman
9. 1545 Tanglewood Drive
Applicant Diane Helbert, presented an application for the removal and replacement of a single
plum tree and two palm trees.
City Arborist Ron Combs stated he could not offer complete approval under his purview.
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR RITTER, SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIR PARKER,
to allow for the single plum tree and two (2) palm trees’ removal based on promotion of
good arboricultural practices; CARRIED on the following 5:1:1 vote:
AYES: Ritter, Parker, Bate, Loosley, Soll
NOES: Worthy
ABSENT: Thurman
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 7
NEW BUSINESS
1.71 Palomar Drive
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen provided a brief overview of the development plan, requesting
feedback from the committee and members of the public.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following San Luis Obispo residents spoke in opposition of tree removals as described in the
proposed development plan: Alan Cooper, David Brody, Camille Small, Lydia Mourenza, Mila
Vujovich- La Barre, Cheryl McLean, Carolyn Smith, Peter Croft, Bob Mourenza, and Cathy
Wydell.
Chip Tamagni, local arborist, supported the findings of the arborist report.
Chair Ritter opened for discussion and comments from the committee and staff.
In response to committee inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen confirmed there was one site visit by
the non-partisan arborist to provide an arborist report; stated a biological assessment was
conducted which included recommended mitigation in the initial study.
Committee Member Soll commented that she attended previous CHC and ARC meetings
regarding the subject site and these advisory bodies were interested in comments provided by the
Tree Committee.
Committee Member Loosley mentioned he was surprised by some of the findings and
inaccuracies of the arborist report, but also noted that if you look at the trees as structures the
information provided by both arborist is not that far off; topped eucalyptus can be hazardous, and
while the trees are very old they are not unique specimens. But in terms of the historical
landscape, the trees are very significant. In particular, the planting location of the Norfolk Island
Pines and the Canary Island Date is very traditional and is seen with old historic homes.
Committee member Loosley also commented that he did not agree that trees should be removed
to move the house, but a project should be designed around the existing large trees. Committee
Member Loosely also opined that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics, and
bird and bat habitat and that that stating that the project would have a less than significant impact
is a misrepresentation.
Chair Ritter commented that the Rincon report contained many errors and inaccuracies including
species identification and tree heights. Chair Ritter noted that he measured the Norfolk Island
Pine at 95 feet tall and conducted a survey of other Norfolk pines in the City and made the
observation that the subject site has the second tallest specimen in the City. Committee Member
Ritter commented that the committee needs more time to evaluate the trees on the site since the
report does not provides sufficient or correct information.
Committee Member Soll questioned whether the tree removals were mitigatable. Chair Ritter
responded that he did not have an answer to that question.
ATTACHMENT 8
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 8
Committee Members Bate and Parker concurred with the comments made by Committee
Member Loosley and Chair Ritter.
Chair Ritter commented that the Rincon report states that the City’s Ordinance does not provide
mitigation requirements for trees that are removed. Chair Ritter read an excerpt from the Tree
Ordinance that mentions that a property owner be required to plant a new tree unless the tree
replacement is waived by the tree committee.
City Arborist Combs mentioned that the City Council, ARC and Tree Committee can require
mitigation.
Chair Ritter suggested the Architectural Review Commission devalue the Rincon report due to
the gross inaccuracies of information; stated the challenge in forming a valuable
recommendation in the absence of an accurate and thorough tree assessment.
City Arborist Combs urged the Committee and staff to consider mitigation a key factor in
addressing the concerns of the public as well as a responsible effort to preserve the City’s urban
forest.
In response to Committee inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen clarified that the final decision, as it
pertains to the trees on the property, will be made by the Architectural Review Commission
ARC) after consideration of the Tree Committee’s comments and feedback.
Committee Members summarized their comments as follows: inaccuracies and inconsistencies
found in the consultant arborist report; expressed a need for more time to review the information
provided in the initial study, specifically relating to the errors in citing species and height of
trees; suggested a review of the site’s historical and cultural landscape versus a review of
individual trees and a more in-depth biological report.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Tree Committee is
scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., in Conference Room A of the
Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2016
ATTACHMENT 8
ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
October 21, 2016January 10, 2017
Rincon Project Number: 16-03127
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
Attention: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Subject: Arborist Report for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project for the City of San
Luis Obispo
Dear Ms. Cohen:
This Arborist Report was prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo’s 71 Palomar Avenue
Project. It was prepared to meet the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance for tree
removals, per Section 12.24.090 E - Tree Removal with a Development Permit.
The proposed project involves implementation of a 33-unit multi-family residential project on
a property located on a 1.32-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue. The property currently
contains the Master List Historic Sandford House, a secondary residential building, a
remodeled garage with adjacent carport, expansive lawns, and many mature trees. The
project would rehabilitate, relocate, and reuse the historic Sandford House, remove non-
historic structural elements, remove almost all of the trees on the site, and replant trees.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of the trees and location of the project components.
A separate arborist report was prepared by A&T Arborists (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71
Palomar Avenue Project. This report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is a
separate report providing analysis based on data collected by Rincon Consultants. Tree
numbers from the A&T report are generally consistent with the numbers in this report.
City of San Luis Obispo’s Tree Ordinance
Per Section 12.24.090 E of the City’s Municipal Ordinance, removal of trees for projects with
a development permit is allowed assuming the following documentation is provided:
a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal,
b. All information to support the reason for removal,
c. Any other pertinent information
Heritage Trees
Per Section 12.24.160 Heritage Trees, any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed
as a heritage tree. Also per the ordinance, heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic
interest or trees of an unusual species or size. Heritage trees are protected and maintained by
the city. The City’s Heritage Tree Page
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 2 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917d
a8bbc7) maps trees that have been proposed and designated as heritage trees by the City. No
tree located on the project site has been designated by the City as a heritage tree. It should be
noted that this is a voluntary program.
Methodology
Rincon’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, Stephanie Lopez,
was on site September 15, 2016 to collect data for the trees at the 71 Palomar site. The trees
were not evaluated for heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not
submitted to the city by the applicant at the time of the survey. All trees located within the
study area were mapped and visually evaluated for health based on the criteria in Table 1.
The evaluation was conducted for the above ground portion of the trees only.
Table 1: Overall Condition Rating Criteria
Rating Structure
Excellent
In addition to attributes of a ‘good’ rating, the tree exhibits a well -developed root flare
and a balanced canopy. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and is aesthetically
pleasing.
Good
Trunk is well developed with well attached limbs and branches; some flaws exist but
are hardly visible. Good foliage cover and density, annual shoot growth above
average. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and has minor aesthetic flaws.
Fair
Flaw in trunk, limb and branch development are minimal and are typical of this
species and geographic region. Minimal visual damage from existing insect or
disease, average foliage cover and annual growth.
Poor
Limbs or branches are poorly attached or developed. Canopy is not symmetrical.
Trunk has lean. Branches or trunk have physical contact with the ground. May
exhibit fire damage, responses to external encroachment/obstructions or existing
insect/disease damage.
Dead
Trunk, limbs or branches have extensive visible decay or are broken. Canopy leaves
are non-seasonally absent or uniformly brown throughout, with no evidence of new
growth.
In addition, the following information was gathered:
Scientific and common name,
Geographic location of each tree using a Trimble® Geo 7x handheld GPS with
integrated rangefinder.
Diameter of all trees at 54 inches above natural grade (i.e., Diameter at Breast Height
DBH])) using an English unit diameter tape or caliper. Trees were considered
multiple trunks if a split occurred at or below DBH. Where deformity occurs at DBH,
measurement was taken immediately below or above deformity, as close to 54 inches
above natural grade as possible.
Visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread; and
General health observations.
Tree numbers correspond directly to those in the A&T Arborists report for trees #1-49. Data
was collected for 59 trees. This number of trees varies from the A&T Arborists report
because data was collected for recently planted trees and oak tree saplings/volunteers. Table
2, below, provides a summary of the data collected for all 59 trees.
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 3 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
lt
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
1 Canary Island
Palm
Phoenix
canariensis
50 25 1 38 Good N Ivy at base of trunk, but healthy
2 Norfolk Island
Pine
Araucaria
heterophylla
965
0
40 1 30 Fair Y Lower branches of canopyCanopy in
competition with other canopies
3 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 20 2 9 10.5 Good Y
3A Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 20 10 1 11 Good Y
4 Norfolk Island
Pine
Araucaria
heterophylla
60 35 1 29 Good N Some tip die back on branches
5 Willow Salix sp 15 15 3 4 2 3 Fair Y Sparse canopy
6 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 30 4 7 8 7 7 Good Y
7 Mexican Fan
Palm
Washingtonia
robusta
50 15 1 19 Good N
8 Avocado Persea
americana
10 10 2 4 9 Poor Y
9 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 30 1 49 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
10 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 30 1 45 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
11 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 25 1 20 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
12 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 30 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
13 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 35 1 26 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
14 Canary Island
Pinealm
PinusPhoenix
canariensis
55 15 1 18 Fair Y Dead branches fronds in canopy,
canopy in competition with other
canopies
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 4 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
lt
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
15 Canary Island
Pinealm
Phoenix
Pinuscanariens
is
45 20 1 17 Good Y
16 Atlas Cedar Cedrus
atlantica
35 25 1 16 Good Y
17 Gray Pine Pinus
sabineana
35 25 1 12.5 Good Y Canopy in competition with other
canopiesSuppressed
18 Atlas Cedar Cedrus
atlantica
35 20 1 13.5 Good Y
19 Atlas Deodar
Cedar
Cedrus
deodaraatlantic
a
40 35 1 15 Fair Y
20 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 20 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
21 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 25 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
22 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
60 25 1 51 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
23 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
40 20 1 23 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
24 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
60 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
25 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 20 1 30 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
26 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
55 25 1 36 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
27 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
50 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 5 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
lt
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
28 Privet Ligustrum
lucidum
20 20 1 11 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on
trunk
29 Privet Ligustrum
lucidum
25 30 4 5 6 8 5 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on
trunk
30 Shamel Ash Fraxinus udhei 45 35 1 26 Good Y
31 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 25 1 19.5 Fair Y Sparse canopy
32 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 45 1 16.5 Good Y
33 Painted Blue gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
deglupta
saligna
55 40 1 18 Fair N Previously topped
34 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
60 40 1 38 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
35 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
80 35 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
36 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
75 45 1 44 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
38 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
80 35 1 46 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
38 Blue Gum
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus
globulus
75 55 1 72 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached
new growth, unsightly
39 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 1 19 Fair Y Major branch removed previously
40 Myoporum Myoporum sp 15 10 2 3 3 Dead Y Standing dead
412 Myoporum Myoporum sp 20 20 2 4 3 Poor Y Splitting bark on trunk
42 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 2 18 15 Good Y
43 Stone Pine Pinus pinea 35 40 1 27 Poor Y Stressed
44 Olive Olea europaea 30 40 1 16 9 Fair Y
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 6 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
lt
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
45 Olive Y Removed, not present
46 Narrow –leafed
peppermintIronba
rk
Eucalyptus
nicholiicerba
25 25 1 17 Fair Y
47 Acacia Acacia sp 30 35 1 11 Fair Y
48 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata 35 25 1 13 Good Y
49 Coast Live Oak Quercus
agrifolia
15 20 1 6 Poor Y Broken stem, trunk splitting
50 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3.5 Good Y Recently planted
51 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted
52 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
53 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
54 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
55 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
56 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted
57 Coast Redwood Sequoia
sempervirens
10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted
58 Coast Live Oak Quercus
agrifolia
5 5 1 3 Fair Y Sapling, under privet canopy
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 7 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
Table 2: Tree Data Summary
Tr
e
e
I
D
Co
m
m
o
n
Na
m
e
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Na
m
e
He
i
g
h
t
F
e
e
t
Ca
n
o
p
y
Wi
d
t
h
Fe
e
t
o
f
Tr
u
n
k
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
DB
H
In
c
h
e
s
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
He
a
lt
h
Re
m
o
v
e
No
t
e
s
59 Coast Live Oak Quercus
agrifolia
10 10 1 4 Good Y Sapling
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 8 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
Observations
The tree survey was conducted in September of 2016 when flowers and fruit of trees were not
evident. Species of trees were determined based on the plant material that was present at the
time of the survey..
Trees #50-59 were recently planted or are saplings/volunteers and data had not been collected
on them previously. Tree #45, an olive tree, was not observed and was assumed removed.
The majority of the trees are in fair to poor condition. Some of them are stressed due to lack
of water, competition with neighboring trees, pests, or have been topped and now have limbs
with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are noted in Table 2.
Tree Removals and Plantings
The removal or retention of trees noted in Table 2 is based on the current design plans
prepared by Summers/Murphy and Partners dated June 16, 2016. Based on that plan, four (4)
trees will be retained onsite and 55 (12 of which are small, 6 inches or less DBH), will be
removed. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows that over 30 trees will be planted on the
property as part of the proposed project.
The City’s tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, nor
does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings. The tree ordinance provides
the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council
the ability to require replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that the
replacement trees shall be planted and maintained per the tree regulations.
While the City’s tree ordinance allows for mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, the
ordinance does not establish a regulatory requirement for mitigation plantings, nor does it
recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings.
The City Arborist has recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and
determined that the 2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient mitigation for this
project. Due to the number of trees and total loss of canopy the city arborist
recommends a 2-1 ratio to be planted on site, adjacent to the site and planting
opportunities as near to the site as possible.
Conclusion
The proposed project would remove 55 trees and replant over 30 trees. To be compliant with
the City’s tree ordinance the removals will be reviewed by the City Arborist. There are
currently no designated heritage trees on the site. Rincon did not evaluate the trees for
heritage status because no such proposal was provided by the applicant.
The City’s Heritage Tree Program is voluntary, and none of the trees at the site are currently
so designated. The City’s Heritage Tree webpage provides information about the currently
designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available information from that page, the
heritage trees are associated with historic buildings/events/properties, have unusual character,
or are of an unusual size. While several tall healthy trees are present, none of the trees have
unusual character nor are they of unusual size for their species. The Norfolk Island pines are
ATTACHMENT 10
Arborist Report
City of San Louis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project
Page 9 of 9
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l annersEngineers
approximately 70 feet in height but can reach as high as 160 feet. The healthy Canary Island
palm is approximately 50 feet in height but can reach as high as 75 feet.
Furthermore, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource Inventory,
Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 2016) prepared for this project, “the
original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by prior development…
As a result, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting have been substantially
diminished by prior development.” The City Cultural Heritage Committee during their
review of the project did not find that the landscaping elements present contributed to the
historic nature of the property. Based on these assessments, the trees at the site do not meet
the historical context criteria to be classified as heritage trees.
It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance.
Tree Protection Recommendations
Standard practices for protecting trees during construction are recommended for those trees
that will be retained on site. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) should be protected during
construction to ensure that the construction activities will not negatively impact the trees. The
Critical Root Zone is the extent of the dripline of the tree’s canopy and 5-foot buffer.
Fencing should be established at the perimeter of the CRZ for the duration of the
project. The fencing should be temporary, a minimum of 4-feet high, and constructed
of durable material with stationary posts set at no greater than 10-foot intervals. The
fencing should effectively: 1) keep the foliage, crown, branch structure and trunk
clear from direct contact and damage by equipment, materials or disturbances; 2)
preserve roots and soil in an intact and non-compacted state; and 3) easily identify
the CRZ.
If work needs to occur within the CRZ, a certified arborist should be on site to
monitor the activities and advise about impacts to the CRZ in order to avoid negative
effects to the trees’ health and stability.
A site specific tree protection plan will be required by the city. The Tree Protection Plan will
be completed by a certified arborist and approved by the city arborist for the trees to be
retained onsite, prior to commencement of project activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to work on this important project. If you have
questionsquestions, please contact us at 805-547-0900.
Sincerely,
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Stephanie Lopez
Certified Arborist #WE-10-442A, TRAQ
ATTACHMENT 10
Minutes - DRAFT
TREE COMMITTEE
Monday, December 12, 2016
Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, December 12, 2016
at 5:03 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Ritter.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Alan Bate, Scott Loosley, Angela Soll, Jane Worthy, Vice-Chair
Ben Parker, and Chair Matt Ritter
Absent: Committee Member Rodney Thurman
Staff: Urban Forest Supervisor & City Arborist Ron Combs, Community Development
Principal Planner Tyler Corey, Community Development Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, and Recording Secretary Brad Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER SOLL, the Minutes of the Tree Committee Meeting of October 24th, 2016,
were approved on the following 6:0:1 vote:
AYES: Parker, Soll, Bate, Loosley, Worthy, Ritter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Thurman
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1. 857 Santa Rosa Street
Property Manager Bill Carpenter provided a brief overview of the damage the subject ficus tree
has posed to the property and surrounding area, including sidewalk damage, destruction of the
ATTACHMENT 11
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 7
NEW BUSINESS
1. 71 Palomar Drive
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen provided a brief overview of the development plan, requesting
feedback from the committee and members of the public.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following San Luis Obispo residents spoke in opposition of tree removals as described in the
proposed development plan: Alan Cooper, David Brody, Camille Small, Lydia Mourenza, Mila
Vujovich- La Barre, Cheryl McLean, Carolyn Smith, Peter Croft, Bob Mourenza, and Cathy
Wydell.
Chip Tamagni, local arborist, supported the findings of the arborist report.
Chair Ritter opened for discussion and comments from the committee and staff.
In response to committee inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen confirmed there was one site visit by
the non-partisan arborist to provide an arborist report; stated a biological assessment was
conducted which included recommended mitigation in the initial study.
Committee Member Soll commented that she attended previous CHC and ARC meetings
regarding the subject site and these advisory bodies were interested in comments provided by the
Tree Committee.
Committee Member Loosley mentioned he was surprised by some of the findings and
inaccuracies of the arborist report, but also noted that if you look at the trees as structures the
information provided by both arborist is not that far off; topped eucalyptus can be hazardous, and
while the trees are very old they are not unique specimens. But in terms of the historical
landscape, the trees are very significant. In particular, the planting location of the Norfolk Island
Pines and the Canary Island Date is very traditional and is seen with old historic homes.
Committee member Loosley also commented that he did not agree that trees should be removed
to move the house, but a project should be designed around the existing large trees. Committee
Member Loosely also opined that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics, and
bird and bat habitat and that that stating that the project would have a less than significant impact
is a misrepresentation.
Chair Ritter commented that the Rincon report contained many errors and inaccuracies including
species identification and tree heights. Chair Ritter noted that he measured the Norfolk Island
Pine at 95 feet tall and conducted a survey of other Norfolk pines in the City and made the
observation that the subject site has the second tallest specimen in the City. Committee Member
Ritter commented that the committee needs more time to evaluate the trees on the site since the
report does not provides sufficient or correct information.
Committee Member Soll questioned whether the tree removals were mitigatable. Chair Ritter
responded that he did not have an answer to that question.
ATTACHMENT 11
DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting December 12, 2016 Page 8
Committee Members Bate and Parker concurred with the comments made by Committee
Member Loosley and Chair Ritter.
Chair Ritter commented that the Rincon report states that the City’s Ordinance does not provide
mitigation requirements for trees that are removed. Chair Ritter read an excerpt from the Tree
Ordinance that mentions that a property owner be required to plant a new tree unless the tree
replacement is waived by the tree committee.
City Arborist Combs mentioned that the City Council, ARC and Tree Committee can require
mitigation.
Chair Ritter suggested the Architectural Review Commission devalue the Rincon report due to
the gross inaccuracies of information; stated the challenge in forming a valuable
recommendation in the absence of an accurate and thorough tree assessment.
City Arborist Combs urged the Committee and staff to consider mitigation a key factor in
addressing the concerns of the public as well as a responsible effort to preserve the City’s urban
forest.
In response to Committee inquiry, Associate Planner Cohen clarified that the final decision, as it
pertains to the trees on the property, will be made by the Architectural Review Commission
ARC) after consideration of the Tree Committee’s comments and feedback.
Committee Members summarized their comments as follows: inaccuracies and inconsistencies
found in the consultant arborist report; expressed a need for more time to review the information
provided in the initial study, specifically relating to the errors in citing species and height of
trees; suggested a review of the site’s historical and cultural landscape versus a review of
individual trees and a more in-depth biological report.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Tree Committee is
scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2016, at 5:00 p.m., in Conference Room A of the
Corporation Yard, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2016
ATTACHMENT 11