Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 - Council Reading File - 71 Palomar - Attachment k_ MND (11-15-2016) 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 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 th e 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. 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. 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)). 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 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a re 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 operat ional 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 whet her 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 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. 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 Cod e/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. 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 downwar d 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-- 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), a lthough 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 docu ment 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 juri sdiction, 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 a nd other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while area s 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 o r 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 contamina nt. 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 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 subjec t 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 1,00 0 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 ap plicant 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 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 dus t 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 tha n 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 so il 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 nu mber 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, e xcept 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 grea ter 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 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, t he 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: 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 pl ant 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 wou ld 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 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 t o 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, mater nity, 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 measure s, 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 pr ehistoric 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 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 1 869), 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 no w 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 Histori c 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 structur e 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 Hi storic 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 parce l. 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 S andford 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 imp aired. 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 porti co projection, two-story solarium, 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 materi al. 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 ar chaeologically 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 t he 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. 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 o f 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. 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 al l 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 liqu efied 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. 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 Van ce 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 connec t 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 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 CO 2 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 qu ality 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-- 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 haza rd 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 r elease 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 chemi cal 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 regulate d chemical materials. Additionally, hazards i nclude 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 rele ase 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. 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 a pproach 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 freq uently 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 constr uction 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 pr oject. 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 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, plu mbing 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 ab atement 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 appropr iate 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: 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 corre sponds 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 Cree k, 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 m oving 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. 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 ar ea. 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 pe ak 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 chamber s. 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. T his 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 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. 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 prop onent 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 Residen tial 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 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 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 substantia l 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 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 wer e 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 Preve ntion 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 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 capa cities. 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. T he 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. 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 defi nes 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 estima ted 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. 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 alterna tive 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-- 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 stor m 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 additio n 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 source s. However, the City also uses groundwater to supplement surface wate r 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 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 f acilities 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 h as 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 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 ap proved 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 con siderable.” 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 incorp oration 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 Negat ive Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion 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, 2 015 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. 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. 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. 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 Bo ard 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. 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 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. 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 monit oring, 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 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, 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 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. Site Location Site Location 1 in = 1,500,000 ft Figure 1 Site Vicintiy/Site Location1 in = 8,000 ft City of San Luis Obispo 71 Palomar Ave Multi Family Residential Development ATTACHMENT 1 71 Palomar Avenue Multi-Family Residential Development City of San Luis Obispo Figure 2 First Floor Site Plan/Aerial Overview ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 ''ATTACHMENT 3 ' ' W WWW' 'Ashley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETN264.4 FF - PODIUM DECK253.0' FF - 2ND LEVEL PARKING DECK244.0' FF - 1ST LEVEL PARKING DECK264.2 FS268.5 FF267.3 FG267.8 FG264.3 FSPALOM A R A V E N U E LUNETA DRIVE(258.7 EG)(253.0 EG)(244.4 EG)51,900 SF AREAEARTHWORK:16,000 CY CUT50 CY FILL20' MAX CUT5' MAX FILLLID STORMWATERREQUIREMENTS, TIER 2PROJECT UTILIZES:xUNDERGROUND RETENTIONxDISCONNECTED DOWNSPOUTSxVEGETATED SWALESxOPEN CELL BLOCK PAVING273.1 TW/FS264.3 TW(264.3 EG)264.3 TW(258.6 EG)264.2 TWSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:LIMITS OF PODIUM DECK/PARKING AREA ROOFREMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALLPROPOSED 5' MAX RETAINING WALLEXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAINNOT USEDNOT USEDEXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAINEXISTING AC PAVEMENT AND AC DIKELANDSCAPE MEDIANRELOCATED HISTORICAL STRUCTUREPROPOSED DRAIN INLET. SEE SHEET C3.1 FOR UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEBIO-FILTRATION RAIN GARDENSIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD 3410.DRIVEWAY PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110, 2120 AND 2130.EXISTING PARKING LOTEXISTING DROP INLET TO REMAIN20' WIDE DRIVEWAY RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110 AND 2120.LIMITS OF INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE RAMPEXISTING TREES TO REMAINTRANSFORMER PAD123478991012121212126'S/W12'TRAVEL LANE12'MEDIAN12'TRAVEL LANE6'EXISTS/W1PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 4' HORIZONTAL1" = 4' VERTICAL13(272.3 TC)MATCH EXIST(274.3 TC)(273.7 TC)271.6 TC270.5 TC(271.2 TC)267.6 TC(268.3 TC)(264.9 TC)(263.3 TC)MATCH EXIST251.7 BSW250.3 BSW248.5 BSW247.1 BSW246.2 FS@ DWY246.2 FS@ DWY253.0 FS@ DWY253.0 FS@ DWY141515161617186.0%13.8%12.1%4.8%191918.00'244.0 FS@ DWY244.0 FS@ DWY20(5.3%)(6.5%)3.5%3.5%PROPOSED 4' MAXRETAINING WALL(CUT WALL)PROPOSED 5' MAXRETAINING WALL(FILL WALL)2'SAWCUT(VARIES)(VARIES)VARIES3.5%2122270.9 FS268.0 FF268.0 FF268.5 FF271.0 FF264.8 FG264.3 FG267.8 FG267.9 FG1111111111111111111111270.9 FS268.4 FS266.9 FGBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING EBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING G1~266.5 FG264.3 FG264.0 FS265.4 FG269.5 FS267.8 FS268.8 FS267.5 FSATTACHMENT 3 ' 'SSW WWWSSSSSSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSAshley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNPALO M A R A V E N U E UNDERGROUNDRETENTIONCHAMBERS, SIZEAND TYPE TBD, TYPTIE INTO EXIST6" SEWER(1) NEW 2" DOMESTICMETER. SITE TO BESUBMETERED BEYONDTHIS POINTTIE INTO EXIST10" WATERCLEANOUT, TYPSTORM DRAINOVERFLOWS TOSTREET VIASIDEWALKUNDERDRAIN4" FIRE WATER,DDCV AND FDCASSEMBLY,LANDSCAPESCREENED(EXIST FIREHYDRANT)~75' FROM PL~150' FROM PL(EXIST FIREHYDRANT)REUSE (1) EXISTDOMESTIC METER, AND(1) EXIST IRRIGATIONMETER.NEW PADMOUNTEDTRANSFORMERLUNETA DRIVELANDSCAPE IRRIGATION NOTES:INSTALL WATER METER FOR CITY REGULATED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATIONINSTALL IRRIGATION SERVICE ASSEMBLY PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL 8560INSTALL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL 8520, LOCATION APPROXIMATEIRRIGATION SERVICEEXISTING PG&E POWER POLEEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE WATER LINEEXISTING SEWER MAIN4" PVC SLEEVE21344567889HDPE STORM DRAIN,SIZES VARY, TYPHDPE STORM DRAIN,SIZES VARY, TYPSDR 35 PVCSEWER, SIZEVARIES, TYP264.4 FF - PODIUM DECK253.0' FF - 2ND LEVEL PARKING DECK244.0' FF - 1ST LEVEL PARKING DECK268.5 FF268.0 FF268.0 FF268.5 FF271.0 FFBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING EBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING GATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 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 4 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 iv Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 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 viii Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review—71 Palomar Avenue ATTACHMENT 4 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 Figure 1-1 Project location in San Luis Obispo, California. 2 ATTACHMENT 4 Figure 1-2 Aerial overview of subject property and surrounding neighborhood. 3 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 Another likely late Paleo-Indian site with a more robust artifact assemblage is CA-SBA-1547 on Vandenberg Air Force Base (Lebow et al. 2014). Overall, inhabitants of the Central Coast during the Paleo-Indian Period are thought to have lived in small groups with a relatively egalitarian social organization and a forager-type land-use strategy (Erlandson 1994; Glassow 1996; Greenwood 1972; Moratto 1984). In general, these early sites are characterized by a strong maritime orientation and an apparent reliance on shellfish. There is a noted lack of ground stone during this period, suggesting dependence on faunal over floral resources. More conclusive evidence of human occupation has been found at sites dating to the early Holocene, between 8000 and 5000 B.C. A growing number of early Holocene components have been identified, most located in coastal or pericoastal settings. Two such components, at CA-SLO-2 (Diablo Canyon) and CA-SLO-1797 (the Cross Creek Site), are radiocarbon dated between 8300 and 6500 B.C., providing the earliest evidence for the widespread California Milling Stone adaptive pattern (Greenwood 1972; Jones et al. 2009). The most common artifacts in these assemblages are the eponymous milling slabs and handstones used to grind hard seeds and process other foodstuffs. Choppers, core tools, and large bifaces also are common, while side-notched dart points, pitted stones, simple bone awls, bipointed bone gorges, and possible eccentric crescents occur in lesser frequencies. Population density likely remained low, although settlements may have been semipermanent. Subsistence activities appeared to be aimed broadly at a diverse spectrum of terrestrial and marine resources. During this time, people appear to have subsisted largely on plants, shellfish, and some vertebrate species using a seemingly simple and limited tool technology. Sites of this age are notable for the prevalence of handstones and milling slabs and less abundant flaked tools and projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:135). Archaeological components from central California show substantial regional variability. Differences in site location, artifact assemblages, and faunal remains suggest that populations were beginning to establish settlements tethered to the unique characteristics of the local environment and adopt subsistence practices responsive to local conditions. Obsidian from several of these components originated on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, suggesting that long-distance trade networks were also established during this era. Glassow (1990, 1996) infers that occupants of Vandenberg AFB sites during this time were sedentary and had begun using a collector-type (i.e., logistically mobile) land-use strategy. However, others have argued for a broader and less permanent subsistence base as overexploitation of coastal resources pushed human residents toward the interior (Jones and Richman 1995). An important adaptive transition occurred along the Central Coast around 3500 B.C. (Jones et al. 2007; Price et al. 2012). Technological changes marking the transition into the Early Period (3500–600 B.C.) include an abundance of contracting-stemmed, Rossi square-stemmed, large side-notched, and other large projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:138). Mortars and pestles were introduced and gradually replaced manos and milling slabs as the primary plant processing tools, indicating expansion of the subsistence base to include acorns (Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988). Shell beads and obsidian materials indicate that trade between regions expanded (Jones et al. 1994). Site occupants appear more settled with more limited mobility, and they increasingly used sites for resource procurement activities such as hunting, fishing, and plant material processing (Jones et al. 1994:62; Jones and Waugh 1995:132). Farquhar et al. (2011:14) argue that cultural changes during this period are the result of population circumscription and economic 6 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 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 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 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 12 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS The CCIC records search revealed that no prior cultural resources investigations have been conducted within the current project area; however, seven previous investigations were conducted within 0.25 mile (Appendix B). The search also revealed that no archaeological sites have been documented within 0.25 mile of the project area. Two previous cultural resources investigations of note were conducted in proximity to the project area. In 1997, Thor Conway conducted an archaeological survey followed by Phase 2 testing at 61 Broad Street, just one city block east of the current project area. His study concluded that the parcel contains no surface or subsurface archaeological materials. Ethan Bertrando conducted an additional study in 1997 on a parcel of land one city block north of the current project area. This study included a records search and surface survey. Historic artifacts were noted; however, no significant cultural materials were recorded. 4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH On June 22, 2015, the NAHC responded to Æ’s information request and indicated that a search of their Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The lack of information in the NAHC files does not indicate conclusively that tribal resources are not present, and they recommended contacting local groups or individuals who might have additional information on the study area (Appendix C). On June 23, 2015, Æ archaeologist Simone M. Schinsing sent notification letters to each of the individuals on the NAHC list requesting their comments and providing contact information to direct any concerns or comments they may have (see Appendix C). Æ received three responses from local tribal representatives (Table 4-1). Lei Lynn Odom stressed how locations near downtown can be sensitive. Chairman Mona Olivas Tucker of the yak tityu tityu Northern Chumash Tribe suggested that sensitivity training be mandatory for all construction personnel as well as an onsite archaeological monitor during ground disturbance. 4.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS Approximately 50 percent of the project area was accessible or not otherwise obscured by structures or pavement during Æ’s pedestrian survey of 71 Palomar Avenue on May 28, 2015. The exposed ground surface afforded approximately 50 percent visibility, limited by grass and other landscaping. No prehistoric or historical deposits were noted in this investigation; however, a rectangular concrete foundation was observed along the property’s southern edge. This foundation likely belonged to a water tank or cistern used by past residents. The property owner’s representative stated that the tank had burned down sometime in the 1970s (Victor Johnson, personal communication 2015). This foundation, likely dating to construction of the original residence circa 1895, constitutes a historical feature and required further documentation. 15 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 appears to portray the same building, although it is unknown if these maps portray the subject property. Early ownership of the subject property is traced to William M. Hersman, a minister. In 1892, Hersman sold the then 15.8-acre property to Reginald Wills-Sandford. Historical references to Wills-Sandford indicate his position as a second lieutenant with the 4th Battalion, Gloucester Regiment, a militia unit of the British Army. He resigned his commission in 1882 and, according to 1930 U.S. Census data, immigrated to the United States the following year. In March 1892, Wills-Sandford, then a resident of Arroyo Grande, wed Mary Woods Sperry at St. Stephens Episcopal Church in San Luis Obispo. Sperry was the widow of Henry A. Sperry, a prominent local rancher. Mary grew up in San Luis Obispo, the oldest child of the highly successful Chauncey H. Phillips, one of the principal businessmen of late nineteenth century San Luis Obispo (Angel 1883). Reginald and Mary resided in San Luis Obispo County until 1899; the 1900 U.S. Census indicates the family had relocated to Santa Clara, California, where Wills- Sandford was employed as an orchardist. While no specific information was located confirming Wills-Sandford as the builder of the residence, the timeframe of Wills-Sandford’s ownership as well as his affluence make it likely that the residence was constructed circa 1895 during his era of ownership. In 1899, Wills-Sandford sold the subject property to Lottie Stewart. No biographical information was located regarding Stewart. Following her brief period of ownership, the subject property passed to Ellen Spangenberg. She was the spouse of Ernest A. Spangenberg, originally from Missouri. As an early businessman in San Luis Obispo, Spangenberg was engaged in the “book and drugs” trade, and from 1894 to 1906 he served as a court auditor for San Luis Obispo County (Morrison and Haydon 1917). Spangenberg owned the property for just 3 years, selling to W. H. Schulze in 1903. German immigrant William Schulze came to the United States in 1866 (U.S. Census 1900) and was working as a clothing merchant. Schultze and his large family lived at the subject property until 1909 (Figure 5-1), when it was sold to Henry Baehr. Baehr was a German immigrant and bank bookkeeper (U.S. Census 1910) who owned the property for 10 years, the longest tenure of any titleholder to that point. By the end of World War I, deed records indicate that the property was owned by Edward Elberg, proprietor of a local hardware store. In 1928, Alexander Taylor and his sister Agnes began residence on the subject property, which remained 15.8 acres at the time of purchase. Born in 1881, Taylor was a farmer and dairyman. He and Agnes were the children of dairy rancher Peter Taylor, described as “one of the most highly respected citizens of San Luis Obispo County” (Morrison 1917).A Scottish immigrant, Peter came to the United States in 1851, settling in New York. He arrived in San Luis Obispo County in 1869 and established a dairy farm near Cambria. After he died, Alexander took over management of the family ranch. Census data places Alexander in San Simeon, engaged in dairy ranching (U.S. Census 1920), but by 1928 the Taylor siblings had purchased and were residing at the subject property (Figure 5-2). 18 ATTACHMENT 4 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 In 1951, County Assessor data documents sale of the property to Christina Jacobson. Born in Colorado in 1904, she resided with her husband in San Luis Obispo where she was employed as a bookkeeper at Valley Electric Company, a local radio and appliance dealer (U.S. Census 1930). By 1940, Jacobson was manager of the company, which by that time was also serving as a radio broadcast facility (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015). Historical references note Jacobson’s pioneering role in bringing locally produced radio to the Central Coast. In May 1937, Jacobson secured the first local Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license to begin broadcasting KVEC-AM, the first local radio station on the Central Coast and the oldest remaining radio station in San Luis Obispo County. The station’s call letters reflect its beginnings as part of the Valley Electric Company. Jacobson was also a central figure in bringing the first television station to the region, founding KVEC-TV in 1953. She sold both the radio and television operations in 1956. Jacobson died in 1964, while still in residence at the subject property (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015). Leslie Hacker, KVEC station manager under Jacobson and later a partner in the enterprise (San Luis Obispo County History Center 2015), appears to have briefly assumed sole ownership after Jacobson’s death. Hacker appears to have served as the executor of Jacobson’s estate and may have resided at the subject property with Jacobson. By 1966, the property was owned by Alexander P. and Carolyn J. Quaglino. The Quaglino family resided at the property for just 3 years until the Delta Tau House Corporation took ownership in 1969. Fraternity members, who worked for Alex Quaglino at the time, took out a $5,000 loan to purchase the 1.17-acre property. Delta Tau has retained the property for 46 years, the longest continuous ownership of the historic residence (Figures 5-3 and 5-4). Figure 5-3 Aerial image of the subject property in 1969 at the time of purchase by Delta Tau. The property retained relative isolation as surrounding urban density slowly increased. Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive were not yet constructed. 20 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (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 (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 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 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 technological advancements, or experimental plantings. Evidence indicates use of the subject property as a private residence not associated with specific activities, organizations, or functions important to the broader community. Further, the subject property does not appear to be associated with a specific event important in the history of the community or California. Accordingly, the Sandford House does not appear to be historically significant under this component of the Historic Criteria. Research into patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial or religious history potentially associated with the subject property did not yield connections with any of the listed historic themes. As such, Sandford House does not appear to be historically significant under this component of the Historic Criteria. 6.2.4 Integrity To be considered eligible for listing, a historic property must retain integrity in order to convey its historical significance. Further, a property that is important architecturally must retain the physical features that defines its particular style, particularly in terms of massing, fenestration patterns, retention of materials, and ornamentation. The majority of the building’s structural system and its materials should date from the period of significance and its key character- defining features also should remain intact. These may include architectural details, such as dormers and porches, ornamental features, fenestration, and materials as well as the overall mass and form of the building. It is these elements that allow a building to be recognized as a product of its time. The Sandford House period of significance is identified as circa 1895–1930. An assessment of each aspect of integrity for the Sandford House is provided below. • Location:The Sandford House is located where it was historically established, outside the boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo until incorporation into city limits in the 1950s. The property retains integrity of location. • Design:The Sandford House generally retains its original form, floor plan, and structural system. The solarium was constructed within the period of significance. The residence retains integrity of fenestration patterns, mass, and ornamental detailing. Original side-gabled roof orientation is also intact. The large majority of window and door types and accompanying spatial organization remain intact as does the prominent portico, an important neoclassical characteristic of the style. Taken together, design elements reflect the Colonial Revival style, which remain clearly recognizable. The property retains integrity of design. • Setting:The setting for the Sandford House retains some but not all of its original integrity. The immediate area around the residence remains open space, providing a semblance of the historic setting associated with the property. The building maintains its historic orientation atop a small slope facing east over the town of San Luis Obispo. While there is no known formal garden or landscaping plan associated with the property, expansive lawns remain around the residence to the east, west, and south. More broadly, the setting has experience significant urbanization. Since the 33 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 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 The four treatment approaches are preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction, outlined below in hierarchical order and explained: The first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made. Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.) Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods. Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non- surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials. The proposed project will relocate the Sandford House, retain and repair as much as possible of the historic character-defining features of the building, and remove two non-historic additions. Following the relocation of the Sandford House towards the south end of the site, the project will construct multiple new apartment buildings on the parcel. As such, the proposed work does not appear to be consistent with a preservation or restoration treatment as defined under the Secretary’s Standards. The proposed treatment of the subject property is, therefore, best characterized as rehabilitation under the Secretary’s Standards as it proposes continuation of a compatible use for the property and proposes retention and repair of key elements of the building’s historic exterior. 7.4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT Arris Studio Architects in San Luis Obispo prepared the conceptual design plans that illustrate the proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the Sandford House and construction of new multiple-family residential buildings (see Appendix E). The following summary of planned modifications is derived from the conceptual design plans and meetings with the project development team. 7.4.1 Relocation and Reuse of the Sandford House (Main Residence) The proposed project calls for the relocation of the Sandford House to a re-graded and slightly lower point on site approximately 40 feet southeast of its historic location. The historic orientation will remain intact, facing Palomar Avenue from the crest of a small slope, but the overall property height will be lowered slightly across the slope. The two-story residence will be rehabilitated, including a new foundation, exterior paint, and roofing materials. The four- bedroom residence will be converted into common spaces for residents. Two small sequential additions to the rear of the residence will be demolished (Figure 7-1). The solarium addition will remain and will be rehabilitated. 37 ATTACHMENT 4 Figure 7-1 Two non-original additions to the rear of the Sandford House, looking west. The proposed project will demolish both additions. 7.4.2 Demolition of Two Accessory Buildings and Carport Two small accessory buildings, a garage with attached carport and a secondary residential unit with attached storage, will be demolished to allow construction of new apartment buildings. A projecting porch element on the north side to which one addition was attached will remain and be preserved. 7.4.3 Construction of New Apartment Complex A new 41 unit apartment complex will be constructed on the subject property. The multiple buildings will occupy currently open space on the west and north areas of the parcel (Figure 7-2). As previously noted, two existing accessory buildings (a garage and secondary residential unit) will be demolished to allow construction of the new buildings. The apartment buildings will consist of six studio, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom units. Conceptual drawings illustrate multiple buildings will contain the apartments to the north and west sides of the Sandford House. The west complex will be a full two stories, while the natural slope along the far north side of the property will allow for construction of a two story complex. A proposed sub-basement level at the northern end of the site will contain all 75 parking spaces. 38 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 • Projecting flat-roofed north side entrance with grouped multi-light wood casement windows, a centered 10-light wood door, and 10-light French doors on its east side. The proposed project will retain and repair character-defining features associated with the architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the Sandford House. The proposed project appears to be consistent with this criterion. 7.6.3 Exterior Building Changes The proposed project will not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements to the exterior of the Sandford House. The project proposes to rehabilitate the historical building following the Secretary’s Standards. As such, all character-defining features of the building will be repaired or replaced with materials similar in size, shape, quality, and appearance (in kind) on the exterior. The only change to the house will be the elimination of the twin chimneys at the rear (west) elevation, which are already largely invisible from the street. A compatible patio off of the north elevation will be placed on grade and screened on the east Palomar Street elevation by a row of hedges. New construction will occur on the parcel that will change the contextual setting of the parcel itself, although the majority of the surrounding neighborhood is already infilled with multiple-family residential buildings. The proposed repair of the Sandford House appears to be consistent with this criterion. 7.6.4 Interior Building Changes As the Sandford House is and will remain privately owned property, this criterion does not apply. 7.6.5 Acquired Historic Appearance Based on the historical research presented in the significance evaluation, the Sandford House does not possess any changes to the building that have acquired historic significance in their own right. The proposed project appears to be consistent with this criterion. 7.7 CONSISTENCY WITH SECRETARY OF INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The proposed alterations to the Sandford House as communicated in the conceptual drawings by Arris Studio Architects are generally consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 68.3), although recommendations are included regarding additional architectural elements that could enhance the compatibility of the proposed new apartment building. Discussion of each of the standards and assessment of the proposed alterations for consistency is presented in this section. 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. The circa 1895 Sandford House was a single-family residence until conversion to multifamily housing following its 1969 purchase by the Delta Tau House Corporation and subsequent use as a fraternity house. The proposed project will rehabilitate the residence into residential amenity spaces, such as conference rooms and a gymnasium, and incorporate a leasing office. The 41 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 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 large, high-density 1970s–1980s era apartment buildings to the north and west, and single-family residences to the south that are not of historic age. Within the transitional space, the Sandford House is unique, surrounded by open space on a parcel that is over an acre in size. The proposed construction of the apartment building will alter the spatial relationships and building locations historically present at the subject property. However, the relocation of the Sandford House will allow the historic residence to maintain a prominent position on the parcel. To enhance the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence, the architects have proposed multiple new apartment buildings that have been placed to maintain reasonable dominance of the Sandford House on the property despite a slightly reduced grade height. Proposed new construction elements at the 71 Palomar apartment complex will assume a secondary position, and their siting somewhat suggests that they are on their own parcels, especially to the north side of the historic residence. A transitional hierarchy that the architects have sought to create can be viewed in the Palomar Street site elevation, moving from the long block of lower apartments to the north towards the Sandford House and residential single-family homes to the south, as demonstrated in the plans (Appendix E). Other new apartment buildings behind (to the west) of the Sandford House will be approximately the same height as the lowered historic building, but less obvious from Palomar Street due to the elevated nature of the site. Additionally, they will be screened by trees and the Sandford House itself. While Standard 9 states that new construction should be clearly differentiated from the historic, National Park Service recommendations for new construction within the boundaries of historic properties also note that: “As with new additions, the massing, size, scale and architectural features of new construction on the site of an historic building must be compatible with those of the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new construction must be subordinate to these buildings” (National Park Service 2015b). The new apartment building immediately adjacent to the Sandford House, and the two buildings on the south along Luneta Drive, are subordinated through their low-profile hipped roofs; subdued neutral colors, and lower heights, yet they also relate to the historic building in the rhythm of their facades and use of stucco finishes and multi-light windows. The proposed hipped-roof design of the new construction differs from the Sandford House’s Colonial Revival style side-gabled roof and from surrounding apartment buildings and single-family residences, most of which feature gabled roofs. The Secretary’s Standards note that new construction should be differentiated from the existing historic built environment. Use of a hipped-roof for the new construction does not appear to weaken or diminish the historic character of the Sandford House, which will retain its primary role as the architectural anchor of the property. A patio area is proposed for the north side of the Sandford House to help create a sense of place in that area. It is designed to sit on grade and will be screened by a hedge on the prominent east, Palomar Street, side. To enhance the relationship between the historic residence and the new construction, we recommended that porticos be added to the front façades (those facing the Sandford House) of the proposed apartment building. The neoclassical portico is a primary component of the historic residence, and while the portico’s associated with the new construction should not mirror the historic feature, an appropriate rendition of the portico on the new construction could serve to 45 ATTACHMENT 4 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 APPENDIX A Personnel Qualifications 56 ATTACHMENT 4 57 ATTACHMENT 4 58 ATTACHMENT 4 59 ATTACHMENT 4 60 ATTACHMENT 4 61 ATTACHMENT 4 APPENDIX B Records Search Results 62 ATTACHMENT 4 63 ATTACHMENT 4 64ATTACHMENT 4 APPENDIX C Native American Outreach 65 ATTACHMENT 4 66 ATTACHMENT 4 67 ATTACHMENT 4 68 ATTACHMENT 4 69 ATTACHMENT 4 APPENDIX D Cultural Resource Record Forms 70 ATTACHMENT 4 71 ATTACHMENT 4 72 ATTACHMENT 4 73 ATTACHMENT 4 74 ATTACHMENT 4 75 ATTACHMENT 4 76 ATTACHMENT 4 77 ATTACHMENT 4 78 ATTACHMENT 4 79 ATTACHMENT 4 80 ATTACHMENT 4 APPENDIX E Design Plans 81 ATTACHMENT 4 82ATTACHMENT 4 83ATTACHMENT 4 84ATTACHMENT 4 85ATTACHMENT 4 86ATTACHMENT 4 87ATTACHMENT 4 88ATTACHMENT 4 89ATTACHMENT 4 90ATTACHMENT 4 91ATTACHMENT 4 92ATTACHMENT 4 93ATTACHMENT 4 94ATTACHMENT 4 95ATTACHMENT 4 96ATTACHMENT 4 97ATTACHMENT 4 98ATTACHMENT 4 99ATTACHMENT 4 100ATTACHMENT 4 101ATTACHMENT 4 102ATTACHMENT 4 103ATTACHMENT 4 104ATTACHMENT 4 105ATTACHMENT 4 106ATTACHMENT 4 107ATTACHMENT 4 108ATTACHMENT 4 109ATTACHMENT 4 110ATTACHMENT 4 111ATTACHMENT 4 112ATTACHMENT 4 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 5 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 5 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  grafted  tree 9 BG  Euc.51 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 10 BG  Euc.48 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 11 BG  Euc.18 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 12 BG  Euc.2x30 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 13 BG  Euc.22 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 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  beetle  infested 21 BG  Euc.36 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 22 BG  Euc.54 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 23 BG  Euc.30 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 24 BG  Euc.58 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 25 BG  Euc.48 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 26 BG  Euc.42 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 27 BG  Euc.48 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 28 Privet 4x20 3 y 29 Privet 3x16 3 y 30 Ash 29 5 y 31 Ash 24 5 y ATTACHMENT 5 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  beetle  infested 35 BG  Euc.53 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 36 BG  Euc.44 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 37 BG  Euc.46 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 38 BG  Euc.72 2 y prev.  topped,  tortoise  beetle  infested 39 Olive 18 4 y 40 Myoporum 6x13 1 y Tree  will  die  from  thrips 41 Myoporum 5x15 1 y Tree  will  die  from  thrips 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  in  other  areas 48 MO  Pine 8 2 y Against  power  pole,  PGE  will  probably  remove 49 Live  Oak 2x7 1 y broken  top  from  Luneta  traffic/truck ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 5 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 Key Viewpoint No. 1 Key Viewpoint No. 2 Key Viewpoint No. 3Key Viewpoint No. 4 Key Viewpoint No. 5 Key Viewpoint No. 6 Project Site Location Camera Key Viewpoint Cerro San Luis St a t e R o u t e 1 City of San Luis Obispo 71 Palomar Project Location of Key Viewpoints Figure 1 ATTACHMENT 6 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. Site LocationSite Location Approximate Site LocationApproximate Site Location ATTACHMENT 6 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. Site LocationSite Location Site LocationSite Location ATTACHMENT 6 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. Site LocationSite Location Approximate Site LocationApproximate Site Location ATTACHMENT 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 6 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 January 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. 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 (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 ATTACHMENT 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 2 of 8 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 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 3 of 8 Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 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 9040 1 30 Fair Y Lower branches of canopy in competition with neighboring canopies 3 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 20 2 9 10.5Good Y3A Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 20 10 1 11Good Y4 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 3Fair Y Sparse canopy6 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 30 4 7 8 7 7 Good Y7 Mexican Fan Palm Washingtonia robusta 50 15 1 19Good N8 Avocado Persea americana 10 10 2 4 9Poor Y9 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 Pine Pinus canariensis 55 15 1 18 Fair Y Dead fronds in canopy, canopy in competition with other canopies ATTACHMENT 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 4 of 8 Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 15 Canary Island Pine Pinuscanariensis 45 20 1 17Good Y16 Atlas Cedar Cedrus atlantica 35 25 1 16Good Y17 Gray Pine Pinus sabineana 35 25 1 12.5 Good Y Canopy in competition with other canopies 18 Atlas Cedar Cedrus atlantica 35 20 1 13.5Good Y19 Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodaraa 40 35 1 15Fair Y20 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 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 ATTACHMENT 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 5 of 8 Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 30 Shamel Ash Fraxinus udhei 45 35 1 26Good Y31 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 25 1 19.5Fair Y Sparse canopy32 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 45 1 16.5Good Y33 Blue gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus saligna 55 40 1 18Fair N Previously topped34 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 19Fair Y Major branch removed previously40 Myoporum Myoporum sp 15 10 2 3 3Dead Y Standing dead42 Myoporum Myoporum sp 20 20 2 4 3 Poor Y Splitting bark on trunk 42 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 2 18 15Good Y 43 Stone Pine Pinus pinea 35 40 1 27Poor Y Stressed44 Olive Olea europaea 30 40 1 16 9 Fair Y 45 Olive Y Removed, not present 46 Narrow –leafed peppermint Eucalyptus nicholii 25 25 1 17Fair Y47 Acacia Acacia sp 30 35 1 11Fair YATTACHMENT 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 6 of 8 Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 48 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata 35 25 1 13Good Y49 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 15 20 1 6Poor Y Broken stem, trunk splitting50 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3.5Good Y Recently planted51 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Good Y Recently planted52 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Fair Y Recently planted53 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Fair Y Recently planted54 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Fair Y Recently planted55 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Fair Y Recently planted56 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Fair Y Recently planted57 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3Good Y Recently planted58 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 5 5 1 3 Fair Y Sapling, under privet canopy 59 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10 10 1 4Good Y SaplingATTACHMENT 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 7 of 8 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. . Conclusion The proposed project would remove 55 trees and replant over 30 trees. 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. 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) ATTACHMENT 8 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 8 of 8 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 on the trees to be retained before any work commences. 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 8 12 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 141516 1718 19 20 2122 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 474849 50 51525354555657 58 59 3A Luneta Dr Palo m a r A v e Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2016. Figure 1Rincon Consultants, Inc. Tree Locations ±0 6030 Feet Acacia Ash Atlas Cedar Avocado Blue Gum Eucalyptus Canary Island Palm Coast Live Oak Coast Redwood Deodora Cedar Gray Pine Narrow-leafed Eucalyptus Mexican Fan Palm Monterey Pine Myoporum Norfolk Island Pine Olive Blue Gum Eucalyptus Pittosporum Privet Stone Pine Willow olive removed Tree Species Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo - 71 Palomar Project ATTACHMENT 8 811 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. ATTACHMENT 9 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. ATTACHMENT 9 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. ATTACHMENT 9