The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/19/2002, PH 3 - APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATIONS THAT THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 2238 BRO - f council j acenaa aepoin Ptl 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Directo6{ Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATIONS THAT THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 2238 BROAD STREET ARE SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC RESOURCES (ARC 138-00). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, holding in abeyance the appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's historical significance determinations for the buildings at 2238 Broad Street; pending full and independent analysis of Cultural Resources issues in the project Environmental Impact Report. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) has determined that three warehouse buildings located at 2238 Broad Street are significant historic resources because of their distinctive industrial vernacular style and their association with the development of the State highway system in the area. The Committee also recommended that a range of suitable alternatives be explored, including preservation and adaptive reuse of the buildings, in an appropriate environmental document. Albertsons, the applicant for a new development project on the site, has appealed the CRC's decision because proposed plans indicate that the buildings would be demolished. The appellant disagrees with the CHC's findings of significance and believes that the buildings should be allowed to be demolished with appropriate written and photo documentation (Attachment 3 — Appeal to City Council). Since the CHC's review of the project, the applicant has pursued additional studies to support their position. A summary of the conclusions contained in these documents is presented in the report. The Council has also been provided with background on the CHC's decision. Instead of recommending a final action on the specific appeal at this time, the CAO's recommendation is to postpone a final determination on the historical significance of the three structures in question until a third party consultant has had the opportunity to complete a full and independent analysis of the Cultural Resources issues that relate to the project as part of the EIR. This would enable the project to continue through the development review process, and also allow both the CHC and the Council to revisit the buildings' significance determinations through their subsequent review of the EIR. This recommendation is based on the advantage of final significance determinations being made with the benefit of the availability of a complete analysis, which also outlines a range of suitable mitigation measures, as suggested by the CHC. 3-1 Council Agenda Report J ARC 138-00 (Albertson' CHC Appeal) Page 2 The downside is that this approach will not provide the applicant with a "final answer" in the short-term. However, there are a number of other significant issues related to this project that will not be resolved until the EIR is completed. DISCUSSION Situation Albertson has submitted plan to the City for a new retail shopping center known as "Broad Street Station" at 2238 Broad Street. The project, because it involves the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of new buildings in a historical district, was referred to the CHC for comment prior to Architectural Review. Data Summary Address: 2238 Broad Street Applicant/Appellant: Albertsons (Jeff Dierck) Representative: Victor Montgomery Environmental status: An initial study has not yet been completed. However, staff has advised the applicant that the range of potentially significant environmental impacts warrants the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). See Attachment 4, a letter from Pam Ricci to Vic Montgomery explaining the project's status and a preliminary EIR workscope. Site Description The project site is located in the City's railroad historic district (Attachment 1). It occupies approximately 7.6 acres on the east side of Broad Street between Santa Barbara and Alphonso Streets. Access to the site is available from three streets Broad Street, Alphonso Street, and Roundhouse Avenue. Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way adjoins the site on the east. The City's Fire Station No. 1 is located immediately to the north. To the south and west are offices, service-commercial uses, and houses. In addition to Mid State Bank, which will be retained on-site in its current location, the site is currently developed with seven older structures that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development project (Attachment 2). The three warehouse buildings that are the subject of this appeal are located in the northeastern part of the site near Roundhouse Avenue and the railroad right-of-way. They are currently used as artist studios, automotive repair shops, and storage. Other buildings, determined not to be architecturally or historically significant and slated for demolition, house an exterminator and a freight and shipping company. Vegetation consists mainly of weedy grasses except for the ornamentals on the Mid State Bank property. A palm, several pepper trees and eucalyptus trees are along the eastern boundary of the site. A small wetland at the southeastern corner of the site supports willows, sedges, cattails, and saltgrass. 3-2 Council Agenda Report - ARC 138-00 (Albertson' CHC Appeal) Page 3 Project Description Albertson's is proposing to construct 54,560 square feet of new retail space on the site consisting of a 45,300 square-foot grocery store and 9,260 square feet of shops. The new retail building would be located in the northwestern part of the site closer to Fire Station No. 1. A 30,000 square-foot office building earmarked for the Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) is proposed in the southeastern part of the property near the railroad tracks. The existing 9,120 square-foot Mid State Bank branch office would remain, but seven other existing industrial and warehouse structures on the site are proposed for demolition. About 400 parking spaces are proposed to serve existing and proposed development. A later addition to the project is the idea of providing nine senior housing units above the shops building (see Attachment 5 — revised project description). Previous Review The project was reviewed by the CHC at three meetings. On September 24, 2001, the CHC continued action on the project. Members present wanted more information on existing structures, a copy of Clay Singer's cultural resources survey, and to schedule a special meeting to view the site in the field (see Attachment 6 — 9-24-01 CHC meeting update). On October 25, 2001, the CHC conducted its special site visit and viewed the existing structures slated for demolition in the field. On November 26, 2001, the CHC determined that the three buildings that are the subject of this appeal were historically and architecturally significant(Attachment 7— 11-26-01 CHC action letter& meeting update). They also determined that the proposed new shopping center structures and office building were not consistent with the design guidelines for the Railroad District. Discussion The proposed shopping center project is still in the early stages of review although it was submitted to the City in August of 2000. The main reason for the delays has been a very complicated traffic and circulation analysis that has involved numerous drafts of the study and many meetings between City and Caltrans staffs. Caltrans has been involved because of the site's location on Broad Street, a portion of State Highway 227 through the City. The underlying site is made up of several different properties with different zoning categories and Land Use designations. The rear portions of the site are designated Services and Manufacturing and zoned C-S-H and C-S-S-H, while the portions of the site near Broad Street are designated Neighborhood Commercial and zoned C-N-H. Because the project involves both a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, potentially with a Planned Development overlay, it is not subject to State Permit Streamlining deadlines. Other project entitlements include a Street Abandonment, Parcel Map, and Architectural Review. Typically one of the earliest steps in the development review process is to take new projects on sites with known historic resources or that are located in a historic district to the CHC. Initially staff believed that the CHC's main role with the review of the project would be to focus on the 3-3 1 Council Agenda Report ARC 138-00 (Albertson' CHC Appeal) Page 4 architecture of the new buildings and their consistency with the Railroad District's design guidelines. This conclusion was based on the review of files for two earlier unsuccessful commercial projects proposed on the site. After reviewing these files, staff found that the historical and architectural significance of the existing buildings was not previously raised as an issue. However, after the CHC's first review of the project at their meeting in September of 2001, it became clear that the Committee needed additional research and documentation on the buildings to determine whether or not they had any historical, architectural, or cultural significance. A. The CHC's Significance Determinations On November 26, 2001, the CHC determined that the buildings labeled "1, 2, and 3" to be demolished on the Broad Street Station conceptual site plan were historically and architecturally significant, based on the following findings: 1. The buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, namely, the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo; and 2. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, namely, industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials. The Committee recommended that a range of suitable alternatives be explored, including preservation and adaptive reuse of the buildings, in an appropriate environmental document. The above findings were crafted by the CHC based on criteria contained in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which outlines the factors to be considered in deeming a structure to be a significant historic resource (Attachment 8). B. Early Historic Documentation At the time of the CHC's review of the project in November of 2001, they had two reports that the applicant had commissioned as background on the site's potential historical resources. These reports are a Structural Analysis by Stephen F. Taylor dated 11-4-01 (Attachment 9) and a Supplemental Historical Analysis prepared by Clay Singer and Associates and dated 11-4-01 (Attachment 10). The structural analysis concluded that the buildings would need to be extensively retrofitted to comply with Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements and that the cost of this work would likely surpass the costs associated with new construction. The Singer report concludes that the three subject buildings should be classified as historic resources because they are "good examples of early modern industrial architecture representing the period when commercial steel products were introduced, and wood was replaced as a structural material in the construction of large buildings." The report goes on to describe the early use of the buildings by the State Department of Transportation and the ties of that agency with the development of the State highway system, which in turn influenced the growth of San 3-4 Council Agenda Report - ARC 138-00 (Albertson' CHC Appeal) Page 5 Luis Obispo. While finding the buildings significant, the Singer report contain a series of mitigation measures including advertising them for relocation, allowing certain groups with historical interest in the community to salvage materials and artifacts before demolition, and photo and record documentation. The CHC had concern with the Singer report and its seemingly contradictory conclusions that the buildings were historically significant, but that their demolition could be mitigated by fairly standard requirements for demolition or relocation of buildings that are over 50 years old,but not necessarily significant. Under CEQA, these standard mitigation measures would not be considered sufficient to reduce the impact of demolition of the structures to a level of insignificance. C. Additional Historical Documentation On March 1, 2002, the applicant submitted additional documentation on the three subject warehouse buildings. The appeal had been delayed from the originally scheduled January 22, 2002 Council meeting to accommodate the applicant's desire to have time to have these additional reports prepared. These reports are: 1. Historical Review prepared by Richard Starzak, Architectural Historian with Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., dated 2-28-02 (Attachment 11). This report concludes that alterations to the subject buildings over the years have diminished their integrity as representatives of the "resources' periods of significance. " The report recommends that the Council uphold the appeal, based upon: a.) the diminished integrity of the buildings' design, materials, workmanship, setting,feeling and association; and b.) the fact that the City had not previously determined that the structures were key features of the Railroad District. 2. Hazardous Material Issues prepared by Converse Consultants dated 2-28-02 (Attachment 12). This short report documents that the materials that the buildings are constructed of contain hazardous materials including arsenic treated wood, lead-based paint and asbestos flooring. 3. Structural Evaluation prepared by Englekirk & Sabol dated February 2002 (Attachment 13). This report concludes that the buildings because of their structural deficiencies would not be good candidates for either adaptive reuse or relocation. As is apparent given the dates of the above reports, the CHC did not have these materials available to them when they reviewed the project last November. 3-5 Council Agenda Report - ARC 138-00 (Albertsons' CHC Appeal) Page 6 D. Environmental Review Demolition of, or significant changes to, historic resources are considered significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Based on the CRC's determinations and the current project description, the project would trigger an EIR because the project would involve demolition or relocation of the significant buildings. CEQA says that the significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of the resource that convey its historical significance (See Attachment 8, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.b.2.B). As mentioned in the Data Summary on Page 2 of this report and detailed in the letter included as Attachment 4, staff is recommending that an EIR be prepared for this project. Given that an EIR will be prepared, staff supports holding off on the appeal and final significance determinations of the three buildings in question until after the EIR analysis of Cultural Resources issues has been completed and is available for both the CHC and Council to review and consider in their decision-making processes. While this alterative may delay a final answer on this issue, there are a number of other issues related to this project that will not be decided until the EIR is completed. If the Council feels that there is adequate evidence available at this time that the three buildings are significant historic resources,then it may deny the appeal, and uphold the CRC's significance determinations as outlined in Attachment 15, Draft Resolution `B". If the Council believes that the buildings are not significant, based on evidence in the record and submitted documentation, then the Council may uphold the appeal, based on sample findings listed in Attachment 16, Draft Resolution "C". With an action to uphold the appeal, the Cultural Resources of the project would not be as substantial of an environmental issue area, but the need for an EIR would not be eliminated because of other potential significant environmental impacts associated with project development. FISCAL IMPACT No significant fiscal impact is anticipated as a result of action taken on this appeal. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the appeal, and affirm the Cultural Heritage Committee's historical significance determinations for the buildings (Attachment 15, Draft Resolution`B"). 2. The Council may uphold the appeal, if findings can be made that the buildings are not significant historic resources (Attachment 16, Draft Resolution"C"). 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellant. 3-6 Council Agenda Report ARC 138-00 (Albertsons' CHC Appeal) Page 7 Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: CHC submittal with reductions of plans&photographs of existing buildings Attachment 3: Appeal to the City Council dated 12-5-01 Attachment 4: 1-25-02 letter from Pam Ricci to Victor Montgomery regarding project status Attachment 5: Revised project description dated 10-22-01 Attachment 6: 9-24-01 CHC Meeting Update Attachment 7: 11-26-01 action letter&update Attachment 8: Excerpt from CEQA Guidelines(Section 15064.5) Attachment 9: Structural analysis by Stephen F. Taylor dated 10-26-01 Attachment 10: Supplemental Historical Analysis prepared by Clay Singer and Associates dated 11-4-01. Attachment 11: Historical Review prepared by Richard Starzak, Architectural Historian with Myra L. Frank&Associates, Inc., dated 2-28-02. Attachment 12: Hazardous Material Issues prepared by Converse Consultants dated 2-28-02. Attachment 13: Structural Evaluation prepared by Englekirk& Sabo] dated February 2002. Attachment 14: Draft Resolution"A", holding appeal in abeyance(CAO's recommendation) Attachment 15: Draft Resolution `B" denying the appeal Attachment 16: Draft Resolution "C", upholding the appeal LACouncil\CHC appeal(Albertsons) 3-7 Mir. ®� WIN Nile Bit F,RN Ire Win M - also ��►�,�� r® 11111 111 ®® IIIIEII� 1111111 0®1111®� `� - ®1 Mill ---- 111111111 Illsolso FRAIIIIIIIIIIII rage � ' 11 vicin ap 200 0 200 400 Feet Attachment 2 W LU _ ' � � �► Z v� � � � � � � � r6 � � � � � � a as W CL � 1 1 O.g gage' ino 111 5 i° � � � a=s• 'F a§ � ��c�x a w _i F- LU WLU V dx CL Z CC W O V O Q O o ; � W 4- � W40 U Od ¢ a N1E $3 §H a xn Fca CS H _ #3 C h 3-9 ATTACHMENT 2 a i s \� ' a € � � _ c � IN s ` 1 a _ \ 1332!15 05N0Hd1V •----- a a -- '�` 3' --- .......... a n rt ----- .. _ i : I is e ` ii I :-r-.... 2L. !� L, _ NYItll53Y31i 1 3 ca L .. Ell a • + 3 —_ � - -_aY=_ Iii ::gel uj LU of `i y l' N a Q p 170 0 3-10 �1TTM('iiP+1 ( tJ1 ;' �F o©©ooc000eeee • ,I -:777, ,i 7 1 I II II ..,I Imo, I� aI .�� - ''t ny • IIe P :a x IF ig1 T ATTACHMENT 2 Go W I \ 8k J f( n W F G Z w aoaoaa000FIR o H 8 � r VI 8 O .. !t d 8 W N Z 8 Z N ...r O vi L O r n t, m aD ~ 0 V1 W _ h � s W a a w = o Ntnj y H Q 0 \ H o Q Q of L OO O W U- _ m in 3-12 ATTACHMENT 2 Z \ �= W W 6 9 i i B w C X oaoaooaooa W n � o% d � 1 i w Z O _ � H 0 F- > � N w ly Z Q 3 %n O C Zton ~ >` U.1 w —3 W c LU N U l..f. O 1 � N a o _ o e .0 o>i ori IlJ Q O w W U s U- O o U- a Z O C m y 3-13 ATTACHMENT 2 �� 1 4 •a--• YQS �f .r-_�---• �.s� q9 t({ f r r � r. v Y {� M 1 � S �� (��• �Y4 44 X- '" "r3$..3X o r w ♦ •t ` D < A X53 xg•'1:' 1 .v d� +• "', M .^�( � ' arr..rr FiF y«��o'� oe'k; `? ar '1``� n.• r +. A 3%: R{:int_ �GY y'Y�" ♦v v� 1r> iJ a+• M I s,M, i« j5�'' a�'9+ .M� s v r 'i rA' �'�, G. i� b-i �g �v.�1.3 n•j'e��'!j �5�'P-. .;A rr.a:%., '� Y .,r-•' -C.'• ,c, +F: 3 ,ry t� '.. \ n i:'y{ ,,a�}"•� , reL Q� Y .. +�S { h ax'+'." h ♦,ie LR'X. ..J",',1r T- v ��11 �f r• +x��t Q�w y.,�• 'M r /` V � ci,. c ° _ �s �� f 3`� j �,�ah .• its ., - ay ee"�� ,t., .. +r .F`" r '.. ,M.5 ' C F�bf', ` •"�q�Y h Q.d.�5� � ��aty..4.' aA .FG t X.._ �ao1„}y;n ♦ ..R i � �Y �i•o^ n{,..-Y ��l J..v` r r �? °.� ,h t ' v J _..,�G a•F9 ''W '.jt•� � f :Q�:.L ciaf�� ; 'r' �C�, f 1 � 'iG 5 v�.Cr 7y-5''- .Jo�f^e: '({��' "i` �•�• A �;'�.n'$t`'�+. �zC4�`r zY s_• v 7 ;.•. � ��.:��.. t�U��^ ..•"�°.°h(�� Po ''•�.rift �t r }�X "' � ta., gin.X� t' r�,1 � '''�•y �Ar��>.. r .. �Pse 5 ,t.;r u r s.::ti,�w skj •P •et _ t:. - 13. 3 �}}C � � :'9�< _ 4 4,t�ea4G .� F -.y N� cff l 3Goti 3-14 ATTACHMENT 2 F} Z y r 'iTr. Y.•`Cr J. it 0�' r r �• t Y.' � .' �. TTT A � ' J •� y ' c r iia 11"�L�`'iNz�.x 4�}»h1" 'n��• .y r, 4� { CLC• y� Y 4 x 41. r 'y 4. iY9s•rq 0' .t {JI r � r•.i f� 3-15 ATTACHMENT 2 i.- "�` a �',�� c.at'.. '� �[ r w� d At" f �}' +.•F EO a g.. . .. 43 - k may, • _; p �' 3 my .'.�,sc� ci w x al t o — .1 a� 1 �V�• I � Y � l t J m S n 3-16 • I J z vQ, > .1^ u � � r •� c., ♦ t y"L Y.4pAf r S{i4' � � � -♦t i _,it - _ I J '��'rt♦�� 1 tg""}d� ..� 0� �'v aF `�.., t V t` " { � o y;�.'$' 4'.`..Y k'' "^ .J ,l�, �� ♦i5r �.,'�r'�y+'\��,':i1 a'Sze-�-..•vi^ S r ,"'riE� _ n .r bt �S � � raX4"a,.r RtA 9A�' � i E"y: Zlk 1 F w [ hat rt ._ ceA.� ', � m� } r , '• � � �'`t �. .r• 4. , h.C.. " rq� 1 - ,� '»Tn,✓csfy. < � 1``s+_+m Vr'♦dti k; : C a✓ 'E 1'e t :<I�P �. ti hs5 yhb M.� a�.� .Gyf�t e e M�� • �IIx a � � 3'� }`tiA 3� y' " � - A- r r•3 ♦.FZ^ ,.:� li � hwx�♦L •aw '.gqyT'i}! ,•. vj"1✓ . a-„"-i-, ar;,rT.a'�y � p` tt��✓': at,5 , cr,t ;.,1, ��S�r� s �y, �� 4 r. .} S.$ �' S �f'4`� � M f, w,!.�'� L�iy�.c,.'� ��4��«ra "q8^$�1^eJ. ♦ y�,nryn,ry-- � ♦,1...�`l 4�.j. i •f 7�j.= ,� ; e a p �S G t,}.(+Yt,..♦ �f'C yi r[26.,,,Sf� r_x '��`f�}•• �+ .+ .' � t �. � 4,�-,+�j'�q�,�tr u n g °� s 4" ^�� Z ? ♦31 fi�i ; .i b"R, Tit}''4ie�f SV;.�� c r �L!2�'�M}�tTl.�"``�'7iiE'"tiA�♦�K�GiC � ��; P ;v �� •1 A � L Al- lip r S� _ ;� l _ y,� ��A�4v. o ..� kiw`,'i�'T'♦ �lig t�-t+��4i . ,� �..� A `��'�` KYR � � • � �C' ¢,IjKy' y w♦ °moi�'"tl �'" 'J'N ♦+. [ LM } � .`. � ' •A � 4t. �5�. .`$.�, r��St� ^. � +��r l�t '' � � r 4Y 5 �t •fl �a• r.� *.�...a �-?.. - +* h �„? •, "x '-;' a�, �' syr oS• + �S� a �; 4vyT �`( '.♦ i� .:p,�.. z '!,f•'V`." ro }'"i+ ,K�._? `;i4,(rn;y. r ;�,1.!'N S "n" 5^t?" b ,�'s 4. � •}�,t r�ti i ��. 7rtr � •",� a : 4 ', ��>✓y� jr ,t 3-17 J ATTACHMENT a t , qo At I 4p In b •i- 6 D � JUfp SS4 e y^g r .•. i <v l6. '� ,,a lig a „YlxupC�ry ^.S`ta�c.�t !dirt}•. . o nn�'co w0 ) ° revs` �°. .}� 0 lUi " m � P e s�. L°° •.`cyv ° � ao poE • w F �' a a, o ^ y ° \J � � rt � "o - °(1 9, .77"n��ei R tL.. r'. �•TA I 3-18 y i .t r� � �/IS t�.Y•, IV t \ ylP �tl I�gglyynn..�� j ,v { !19 .r+.�.Trw,y.ytas.:r p...---,. :, py- r—' rT -.'1•� I,hwt I �* "� •r .R "t) 9A 2 mit rt6 j.`A ,^ J' x-y; \�.�i 111ep 5r \ I v \ a7 f`7'NL`t•P..� KN -kr34t �'` K$d.>.2� �,`•,. /;/ j{, YPJ i'.i.�tt+\ \-ra'Y {�• �^�.�-..1 L,u y44h=1+• •C�j�' !' Tyliw by r.':.>'-.e..C_ {r':f J 10 7+. p ' �• +.�N.+1 .Viµ. _._ r 'f -: d�qt ik-T viuj'. s...A�1.��lC� � � iSY•Y �' � � �'J K lI�J to {_ �\ y-l. 1 � Y�) " V l�Ily ] �-_/r-•!£j^.Y�1 1 i -., ��-,3,` � i I sj{t "-y . A e& C �9.Vk•:}c"�ra.C,�. as e x '�` t�,�. •�' r'. ! # e e { r y;.a '�� id�l� rY fit ti T. 14 tt �•I A �Y � t c},e ��y1."�fbyx��' �'' L • 1G � '.t�{t'�.t,1+A �� i� � a _�, a - ? i7 W r`r '._;•,w i .amu..: C {f qr �,��^' F�^ r. �,. �� , {ti+ X �4L��rtr�t '.�•'4 a F• ,✓ -•di l' IFN �d r� �®I '�'• r ' 2 1 � X '(�'•"� t I % ? Yom'. r 4• O W uY, 1^• v1 �_ � Fir a VVV/ ^i' d • �' y' p �� "-, �1V' , "-fes r. [ ^J.. h .1 � . „'. '.F t;��T `fin .%•' J�yi,�r9 r S .! cn ♦ Kr' ••�' ,�_�, • r{ e� � s"�`�L 4 a. �� E�L .dap n t py °� v,�w" a t a p s vyt � ,r•m rYo .� �� ny. �'b.as .b o' .•Y £ � �bbr � I i v' F• n f a.A - 'o. 8 �.'+r4_ r � �'�• F:i � �➢I_ r �41 ri r .d, t fi 5 3-20 11/GJ/U1 14:U4 iiOUJ 101 11U3 JLU 1.L1-1 HALL iQ 002 Attachment 3 F?ECEIVED Date Receivec A city 0f = - 5 2001 san lids oBlspo SLG- CITY CLERIC APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Alberstons c/o Jeff Dierck, 1412 S. Manhattan Ave. , Maildrop L3209 Fullerton, CA Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 92831-5221 714 / 300-6752 714 / 300-6941 Phone Fax (Attu: ) RRM Design Group (Victor Montgomery) 3765 S. Higuera St. , San Luis Obispo, CA 9340: Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code CEO 805 / 543-1794 805 / 543-4609 Title Phone Fax SECTION2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: Cultural Heritacte (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: November 26, 2001 3. The application or project was entitled: Broad Street Station (A1 bertsons / EOC) 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. Pam Ricci (Planning) on November 27, 2001 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actioNs you are appealing and why.you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 3-21 ATTACHMENT 3 Reason for Appeal continued Applicant does not believe that the buildings in question meet the criteria for historical significance as stated by the CHC. Criteria (A) and (C) Section 15064.5 of Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852. Applicant also believes that mitigations suggested in the Cultural Resources Report submitte to the City are adequate to allow demolition of these structures. Applicant further disagrees with the mitigation "preference" stated by the CHC. ..._..... .. .. .' :. �...� ':::r.,,. ., rr r.• .., ,., •''I i•'i' 'Lan'nilS?i +nr..^.,r,�r c nn?ni:., •;:+r.r:::::rt:rn::,.n:::y....:i�ip::iYi�rr;ny:r.rr 1? �!h�11'�i•:n.i r II. v.•r:::J•Pe@rn'+I'FrSn I r f,,u a�Ln l..ut. ..f'1 171 Ir..11,+.r i, u. Lr'JY a 1!• i IL• I vin.!Igggg I hn:n15J!.: I!:fij d*Ilr;rm:;5t91• ::!n."4'!!{-J!;r.;r;r I!,r 4eh: ii:n:l y 'gh� i:u ru'a II'.: rw..,ilA Ulfi ri tpri Jm j � :40 :I �I nJIF{' !1 r: i I;L la I•Ir iI F!I�lyl!II�Ili I I I111r�JIJtI�I III JI[li III�rLrl,h I wl IIJr.:wnn JI inl' llu,d " {,j th Ir Jwr•r nS:::rr ry�t IL}?IuG4i:� udj ma'xn.,m't.ILwrS; r �. t'I'&. rIrLt n !`;I i I� 3I f• ^nL r:Il rl j!Irl,1>�I,I{il!I;Ii�ru�!.LTi11YiIj,�1:4q�IJIIIi'llal.,+'i 1,:1,I!�1I1.�71 �rrlrym:�Qtd tr.Grr�,tif lc•22'I:h i'1��=�'� •:rna M"�N';r'!�'IG'9rIPPP , •�r.� 'fii:•fdW''liii9iill'r 1,t!-' .rinnr� 1 7iUiI .;I InIIIG'(11'vp4 4n: P Iir,l Iii .aPIP,.Gi.ItNLr ir.flLi:�li 0� I{rY1't.ni l:Ir.r r.�I1 {,.. i'. N .hll'•Ip 1'. r °jfTm'! !i'I:J,y;':G+•!I ,n.':'+L�::J :( 5 �"" +•li rlrr i:lll:,!„q :N.i II+1•:nr•!•I l,nrlrrn:l Y•h�r�ylGl tWuir 7n�a�J,,:'F,LiP: 2G.F.ln 'il'i13 'j �'Y•�1i IF I I INJ' !7J� nli l!'hGp 7L, a: I i � J un!r .IGLi4.4!y(ai !i!pl4i,J'Lct�nGj�F • � � � r I I t , �.J I� �r Lr ,.. !f ' : 111L' •il•Girf� ad'ur�•ir P L,.i u."i iL!'' n I a.;II' '.Il IL'' a i r'r n i I i,i' hni Gr r.'ul i I r Au•a :n9, I �nu,,nl{!�[•;P�n. .I;� � imn ,� msµ• 1 ,g{' T t,i.•i 4' � I 7' Jill 'r,:�'•:' gfJl><YWy��•,{gle l;• �1,'„i fr :SnIM L,nL,x^�I' i•r�: n r .++•x r I�+ , r I: r. irr((,,��I ' i'`IY{;.t tll�j�j 1:' �t��., I1'i•r : 'I i•,i�•.n:w�t�•. !�, .I•'.".I'!, ' !!.nL. !. 'nr r� �1'�j:ihw�' �i�i}[' I q :. :..� ,1' :♦♦ r: ,r,•, I .tr• ��n 'fa•� �I.I�, I �'• '1� �i k j.wl ��f- ' ..,.I'ri�'I tr' 'I�1" ,r 1�.�Ir.41'rj: Q:6:i� f�I.ill i14'1 r �l'!Yf4 Pil(;'!�II '{ i � I.' nlj,�•r,!i,uaj','I, ,,6,n 'y,C�q.:!IyYN`1:u�y�:�.1y+°,y{'ivu;a r'1Run'+.,I,r'.,lur,�;•mar_r•l"r.rer�vl>rr:xFnu-,riJr'!.':il�,to:.�1�c tinF.rl,P'I^.y�!I'a�1y'Ii:I y1t'1!7r�Jtiur..aIl1!lt•:,y�lI.9�•.�.J.ri'ry:rr;r'ax:'r:+it+r�n1 r.°':II�iyY?i',rI�'ri's 1'n��!11.I"t77 rri,r.*7lTiy�.IIrII'�y.'..f•'rh%.,f'I;+,11 Ir'1!,�.':L1r1,I1 t1''r�:'�I iv„i:lrl•lir:'h'�1�.+I.ru,,I,•�i'.Y+I,Cfi,�/dp�J'ri Ir'IrmI!n'.!.nt�+(i lia,Ii:'iIh'rl tLi,r•I.'1jJEr'I,l�l.r}�r��,,��r''l,h�L:,rij.riri,�L:,m11't.4•lrt p�`+�S.;'i,,j.Irn;rI;,•i,l',r:..,'r'1t UI!�''L'''rr'i 4h.�'id..Ik!!E:t,ru•.'J1i',rr7llIiIj-��"'"��Nr,'iiSL:`y�r�,nf'7i.?ar�Ps:�j�:�E+n,I4�.`In'[[1�'�'ira•<�3�L�yiP.4t^I�J,Ay wiIi�`d��I�."i��x�gg�4rl��,111�r�`'�i,a1Ix1r•�1�'ai9'il'�n,r R��1! ,nu_'Lfrn"r�tiu�'rp�� • d,L�If1 Ii1 nrY I'I fq,�{I�.! t. ! j G: hllulaYxJi:urE I}. 1I4[ :i 1 I• '�'II f M^^ '! S :+ ' .tvrll� �* 1'1.1+."II"•11 .ul"Ai '�II7J�j��,M�IL�j:4ij..n:.rF�'r.:tS.'Gasn�utiQ,g'i.'Pn�..j:ni,Y•:n�•ij7."Jra"4I;rr..rrvrr.INar•! "n5nr•rl..�'nr�.r..I: POW" ,r:'I�!'!l:J.a1�aa+�f'J'F•rit'l!i�!1!iFk 7rr•1,r1 -'1'1'9,ruir I�i 1 r.Y1r�•,f 5,',:.11I! °r�an•:(t•I'n!ljIl r t4uar.1au+arpp8!,1.,.fn,IrTr�.10;11 ILI 1,1.ipI,•�h�l��i''r iIIr+{iGi.,I.1��"u!Ln'I.PI,.Iu'I.I:!i�i)�,,t�.nnI!w'rGt1.I+iIn,!v Iurl-Im•:I in!GLn.Yr.I!n:.'l I rfrl irnp'dd(rw:1�APrA,:i'.f!ku:?,lr1diI.l�ilL.(ti5S:'E•�'Lri!�iN,�{�.•'7�!.1:l'��•:?JL.I�,:IIJi•?�,l.LLGi:".tIr:.r45pq?3�a11l.r.!Ii.t=iTfneru.�P.`4.aI:,�r�Gr!.uiurr r r;l,!�!•4F;iJY r:n rl'i'pP:ikriJa&+u_rrti.,:!ta�r�•yySa:.,h..lrr::ir,'�'�rh.I.�.n{,r ir,'ji•iI..r�P•.l:Tj9irf�dA!aISn::G'FxyuLr9nr'�w-r.��'G9'rr,:��nnu:.'hn!.':!r4xrll•lnqrl'•'��xm'7!w5.w1,1JP+�Iwnl�n:in'd+i:rim•'!•LLr+i..xGLW'YIirit{'i;-u.:4cr�l4>:.W�!>r•ii.J.!.'r•�q:ttlir'''rnre!ybIfu` �i{rM1Ic.L y'6I w •I1 lr1,' l':I'�'�+II if' I r I II I!W xlllriArllli il4.i.1!,..Ili11L11hiliid If:l'I I•!I rt!q:... .. !(�'k!.L t� 5•.�.� �pl�'r{ �y,J� ilu,vu::a:mihii0m::i r�i•I 1 1 'PI TaN/� ��L�,!,S�rL n.u•.:p_.t ' � �II,II IF. u �t : r1... w!,Y-iA+': I hA'44TT„u.t Ni r l rG l i, •Ii:J.e: le i 'i ''�'i','•r ..L' ''I,ti,';�r'II/[,'![1�.Ii•,'I .I�.: r r. .1�'`' :"h,,. :Prp;w:n, a6P'%i. "I•�(I"'! e. ,6!n Fnrr :.,2f {LJI:,I,Ah ,I,�dp. r, rL:n.r.r,iT, �ri�'l'l"°�'1Gll"5�1• !Isn n 4s!k�] ;�:11� ...n•':IY w:l:ru"v,!ar:M. vYoii'�is.1,.:+tl1`,Gyll y�,�yy + ty c L .;b ;..{ rn;ry,j t rL i{rf41Yt mr!=!r:. r�u,•'rl.:n::,,. rl�4• �r aa.y I �rrll Ivry I I. , J}r:. �', � 11M" f. I li. +III L t1�'!li n• i Inv o 9'• ?uil�`x':cl'`n ac:;F i7i!Ifi�.I.. if,.l 11jk1• ''i � '1'!IlnLi�ham` II.��fi t'1 h il!�if I� I ..� � !;wv� J•i..� 1 •I• & ,� k ,�' �, i ,�!I, }`, � ;f' I�, !v/AI �lu`r.8 +".xG Ir !!;II°' ':111 li• r',u xl:u �n"4 P i r Ill' I T!:I ''n It j�ry�l lu r I' IpI ''ll 9 � ' � h.{t4,ruhf x�r Ilili� 14'�j'll' p I .I a ..I!t•I' .. Ifi 1. I y in !!!!:. 1'Ci"x�h[I ,, 41 L ii+i y.• 'L i P,' G � r�•i i�!.''t � '� 'f i,i Ili:!frr:+'tYTi r +a .rt�..:LI. ,! h•,� ��1'% .•a•. , r.'� ••I r l e l !IQ��;� •rvaRl.n�r{r!liri r!ry r n i q ' �I,:ii..�:a.uili il•7�i:•!'4:;•'!�nia1 nflLrS.ynu Yn r ,,I L'I:::r-. r T' .'i:Tirx Is:..' r"ip�tiil;'�n I (•II i!•Yn .-r.:inh '; `r n I� L'"iii-I�7t+inl•n••,4n t : + .r •rtl9• ..,i,,.p...j',!..�!I jl..P�uu�r;'rl!'i•i!T{f1::L`'.h��Ili x . .•Jp ..,•::r:p!: � i P I n u.,I:xr� 1141�ilrh u.r.Ir !yr m�l.at v I I m p ud.,..n... .Iu.I Ck.r. !P p" rY•n r nn �1 r:lr ill''v n t I � t 9 mh'l:ha+l�,r•t �'):u r i'1 y111 I rN'IPI I.,II1�L'y+l l 'l p '{.t I do}::C i;.!. r ! _ rmanwn_r+mr'•.+a ' F.�Wxlnl.,q u.r',;Y!�Gr,' �'.r' �':1:LI'4 51^4.LIx,.rl:!I.�I:dJ�N r 114;Ppui,:}r. lr!X11911:.+ ul.l r r�6nh r,iwirlul:.n,li iIIP, ny9 ra. I r !n`r�1 n.I� ;F�lil'�I ru'IEiYY!I;•tlrnr ., I1MP r '!l.,�.,''d I'S L'2•rL111 r'h!14'idr n.il�i2rll[h rrc.Ilu.mpl!+0':I a.I a I�xIi!nrI,`,I r p,,yI a IYI' :rrli F. r �y •�.rl�lll.�i '1'^' �Yif :.rLp�,Cw..�lr f y 11 :`1!5 r I,tt: '.I -ar:na-:•r manr.r.IniltlrJl/irryrr,rn:�lill ll'r lil :Il{ hK::ra: li lnf :�(:i •;.ly��axn niu ?cnin!�Iyl!ilr:1''(r i'J{' is ,yr.F�r:I hIT!�jjl'�falufJll}}%:(Jdfill�lhwl:6r�19,f{I'x :r'71r%in na+Y,y uh r;IIF!!!1':473i:P1i'rlr'i"il:.I7 r:'• •• 11��.r.ar'lw,rli;.r�n ;[I,p:n rr apxl�r�n h.ru Lr�.;�.}Inh rrh,a r ,••r4:ir!"•.. i.j.l;�. r1�II ,7,!!.II':!il' truYldllelwl4nr:9i'' 1'c:l��nl':I�i��:L�.u..w�r,ra :u .r ,r.!ry.rpp. .ear:.9r. vt.r..r;ir�d.:� :.L,21..!:I"9L'2a L"•'.. j-• ::h CI:'i:!Ir n..�.ui.1. r,ll1. i� �1I 1" IIfJiG�'lil'I�IOtl�IIpn�F��kilhli �ta:+11 nrGlGanl' !•al+�l r.^ , ; _^.:4!i.::i �: . G:�:.rP'._r:T r!::rr• r, ... „ I�II�(J rill Ii�,l•71,hm�y�ra,!I:II��:�+ IICIr wllrlr>II� :6,.rx: ••; ! ,� Ih.r: �II, , +.a, ',I:I�i,.,',�4jI:!,ryji:,+il9!j°i4'I:j'j q+'ilti'7tw'Hirjli,it jil'J�'r�Plujl.li.!lu jil :I I ,I� I inslr 'n ri41 rly,,ra., ,ar. i, .!P'• u}P�tiS'I!'Prf6•'lijdl i'll�i!i�u7ll''J,+��jll!il�ihli IP'll'2l iv iJlIlItf�..[.LiPP�IllP!lnl.r,!YLi.r!Lh111IIl:ln: Y4�n,1 Itlj . , r�!I,.�I,Y!I.✓.: rlj,n I!: pkh':nrLufaru! 'M r..:: If t i f•I[�t IIGr h l 5 li r dJ i in I:;i[iyi ll 11y!,i'h: llj 1I Y r I'jhj♦°I,�ii:y°[, jr I� "•, IT t.a' r •J�!rrn•i�i!-j f''ri•59.1 ,}�Y,�,'`?n n.4• .'1. 'ac. I jj - I r g�i I[-�;,,!,[[1171GI Ii FUr'I I 'h4 , "•';%. at rl'n4u�G:• ^,I; !;ill?"k'h'�u�'J�:ji IPIIIjfl jli!iilli ij!..16S Li lr.t.r niipl LSl..la .I,'ha:Il l!illi!.:!r:f41N•, ilYPtl j[IppJ�1"I'III A:LPp,i'��Hi1111•In,•W mr lu?[mrS,e ..., a '.n.Ih.:pff!al.v.h+l lj...;J.m, u:{• ,n,,iy,i tr It +.I ills i+l I( !.`�ijlGi i!IPf::J•tn[ r.9?P!J r i. Ir t n`r •v.R'n h: 1iP � Y��lf��U llrP�f i� pi�[1II•IGI•�111�r°y I�j'�I�IifIIR'I7I�'i'P i.tI''�i!u•'fU!�Ili�xii�IL,I !i%rp!I I!9ilgtlnlln�;+IIIn�:{:'1 n�r:f C ..�ly7' l'ii;5+:i•i:i..v�w.h 'i,'J,:•II:".!m:4i•if{'...I•I I.:f �1.5"I r.I � 9'l�I`I This item Is hereby caiendared for " LA_C aAc a"� a C) - a. City Att eV •7�_.�m 7 Departmenti Administrative Officer C� J1�r✓f'.0 CZ's �,% k of 3 10/01 I Attachment 4 � city of sAntuisOB 1Sp O , 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 January 25, 2002 Victor Montgomery, AIA RRM Design Group — 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Status of Architectural Review and Other Project Applications; ARC/ER/GP/R 138-00,2238 Broad Street Dear Vic: I have reviewed your application for the Broad Street Station project and found plans are complete enough for schematic review. Schematic review is a voluntary step, which allows resolution of basic site plan and building form issues. Your project has been tentatively scheduled for schematic consideration on March 4, 2002. However, the following additional information needs to be. submitted prior to final consideration of the project: I. Show the back flow prevention device on the site plan. 2. Show the location of the fire sprinkler risers and the fire department connection on schematic floor plans. 3. Provide profiles of proposed retaining walls and note proposed materials. 4. Include a lighting detail for proposed wall-mounted lighting fixtures. The detail should include sufficient information to substantiate that the light source will be adequately shielded. 5. Submit all required site furniture and details, including: outdoor tables, seating walls. parking lot lighting details, elevations of recycling and trash enclosures, elevations of the proposed trash compactor, retaining wall design; and detail of property line fencing along the railroad right-of-way. 6. Provide a sign program for the shopping center and offices. 7. Provide enough information on proposed roof-mounted equipment to understand how roof features and parapets will screen them. 8. Provide more information on proposed hardscape areas including the traffic circle in the parking lot near Alphonso, walkways, and the pedestrian plaza area. 3-23 rCO, The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �y Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Broad Street Station I r AACHMENT 4 Page 2 9. Details of proposed housing including revised building elevations, floor plans, and parking statistics. When all of the above information is received,the project will be certified complete for final architectural review. Certifying an application complete establishes a deadline for city processing. The required General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications are not subject to permit processing deadlines established under State Planning and Zoning law. In terms of the project's environmental review, staff believes that a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the project. This conclusion is based upon review of past environmental documents prepared for projects at the site, past Council actions on previous projects, the level of public interest and concern regarding the project, and new significant and unavoidable impacts of the project to Cultural Resources (historic buildings) and Biological Resources (wetlands). A summary of the issues that need to evaluated in the EIR are listed below: 1. Aesthetics—The consultant shall discuss the existing project setting, proposed changes with development of the project, summarize the impact analysis from the prepared study, augment the analysis for the new residential component, and outline appropriate mitigation measures. The prepared visual analysis would become a technical appendix of the EIR. 2. Air Quality — Utilizing the projected vehicle trips attributed to the project by the traffic study,determine project emission levels, and outline appropriate mitigation measures. 3. Biological Resources —Describe the existing resource and its value, citing the analysis prepared by Rincon Consultants. Describe project plans and proposed impacts to the resource. Evaluate the project's consistency with the City's general plan policies. Evaluate alternatives to the proposed project that may lessen impacts to the resource. Include an appropriate mitigation program. 4. Cultural Resources — Provide additional analysis of site buildings deemed to have historical significance. Discuss a mitigation program that meets City, State and Federal requirements for designated historical resources. It should be noted that the specific scope of this component might be modified depending on the outcome of the City Council's decision on the appeal of the historic significance of the buildings. 5. Hazardous Materials —The Consultant shall incorporate the background, conclusions and proposed mitigation programs of the required site assessment into the EIR. 6. Noise - The consultant shall discuss the existing project setting, proposed changes with development of the project, summarize the impact analysis from the prepared study, augment the analysis for the new residential component, and outline appropriate mitigation measures. The prepared noise study would become a technical appendix of the EIR. 3-24 Broad Street Station :er ATTACHMENT 4 Page 3 7. Transportation/Traffic - The EIR consultant will highlight the project setting related to traffic issues, summarize the impact analysis, and outline appropriate mitigation measures. The traffic study would eventually become a technical appendix to the EIR. 8. Alternatives -Alternatives to the proposed project design need to be evaluated. Alternatives need to clearly indicate how they would address identified project impacts and should at minimum evaluate the following: • the "no" project alternative; • a commercial project of a more limited size and scope; • a mixed use project containing a more significant residential component with commercial development clustered closer to Broad Street; and • other comparable sites where the project might be developed. Staff is prepared to take the EIR workscope to the City Council on March 19, 2002 for approval and authorization to send out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for environmental services. Based upon a recent meeting that you had with Ron Whisenand, I understand that you were still contemplating whether to combine the EIR workscope with your appeal hearing. We will need a final determination by February 22"d in order to allow sufficient time to prepare the necessary staff report. - If you have any questions, please give me a call at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Pam Ricci, AICP Associate Planner cc: Planning File 138-00 Ron Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director Heidi Carlson, Albertson's 250 E. Park Center Boulevard Boise, ID 83706 Tamara Loughmiller, Halferty Development Company, LLC 199 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 880 Pasadena, CA 91101-2459 LAArc\138-00(project status) 3-25 Attachment 5 Broad Street Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION October 22,2001 1. Existing Buildings, Use and Conditions: Existing primary uses on this 7.5-acre site include Mid- State Bank & Trust, Mountain Valley Express (Overnight Freight Services), and various smaller tenants. Seven buildings exist on the site. All existing buildings on the site (except Mid-State Bank) are planned for removal/demolition. All tenants are on month-to-month tenancies and will relocate prior to construction of the proposed project. Several existing conditions affect the site and will be addressed, mitigated, and/or cleaned up as a part of the project. These existing conditions include the following: • Hazardous materials (hydrocarbons) contamination of soils and ground water on the site. • Lead paint contamination of soils and building(s) on the site. • A small (2,100 s.f.) wetland area that is a remnant uncovered portion of the City and UP Railroad storm drainage system - it is underground and covered in both directions leading away from the project site. See attached Wetlands discussion. • Numerous utility easements and old street rights-of-way that will need relocation and/or abandonment. 2. Background: The existing Mid-State Bank building is a portion of a larger project proposed on this site in 1981. That project was called Maymont Plaza. The Maymont Plaza project was denied and subsequently Mid-State Bank was approved. Mid-State Bank later sold the remaining property to Albertsons. 3. Proposed Uses: Albertsons acquired the 7.5 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Broad Street (Highway 227) and South Street in the City of San Luis Obispo in 1997. The objective for development of this property is to provide a quality, pedestrian friendly, mixed-use project including the following new uses; a grocery store (45,300 s.f.), retail shops (10,000 s.f.), offices for EOC (30,000 s.f.), a limited amount (10 units of approximately 550 s.f. each) of affordable senior housing located above the shops building. 4. Obiectives for the Proiect: Current market studies indicate that the neighborhood surrounding this site is underserved by grocery store uses. In exploring how to proceed with a proposal to the City for this site, it was determined by the project team that the site was ideally suited for a mixed-use project because it is centrally located within the City, fronts on an arterial street, and yet is close to Downtown. During exploration of the early project objectives and approach, Albertsons was approached by The Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC) about leasing or renting space as they were having difficulty securing a San Luis Obispo relocation facility for their offices. After numerous discussions and after determining that EOC's mission to serve the needy within the community was consistent with Albertson's community service objectives/programs, Albertsons made an offer of a gift to EOC consisting of two parts; • A gift in fee title ownership to EOC of 1.5 acres of this site, and • As a part of implementation of the project, to share the cost of developing infrastructure to serve the site to be given to EOC. RRM DESIGN GROUP Page 1 of 4 3-26 - ATTACHMENT ,: J Broad Street Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION October 22,2001 The project team has also explored other means of maximizing the use of this key site and focused upon affordable housing as a potential use that in limited quantity and with a specific clientele may be compatible with other uses on site. The retail shops developer has met with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo and has determined that this is a suitable and viable location for a limited number of affordable senior living units to be located above the shops building. The inclusion of senior citizen affordable housing as a potential component of the project would be constructed, rather than paying in- lieu inclusionary housing fees. As a part of the project proposal documentation, the City has been provided sketches of how the living units may be integrated into the retail shops building. The project design anticipates a land exchange with the City of San Luis Obispo. In this transaction, land formerly in the Emily Street right-of-way will be deeded to the City and land currently a part of City Fire Station No. 1 site will be deeded to Albertsons. The exchange is for approximately equal amounts of land. The Albertsons design team has explored this concept with the City Fire Department and this approach is acceptable as it increases the size of the fire station site (see conceptual site plan provided as part of the project drawings). The project provides retail services for an underserved portion of the community, provides an office location allowing the EOC to stay in the community of San Luis Obispo, and provides much needed affordable senior living units.. 5. Ownership of the Proiect: The grocery store will be owned and operated by Albertsons as a company-held store. EOC will own and occupy its building. The shops will be owned by Halferty Development Company, who will provide property management services for the commercial tenants. Halferty Development Company will construct the units and then work closely with HASLO to have HASLO provide management services for the senior affordable housing units (approximately 10) to be located above the shops. 6. Schedule for Implementation: Construction, including cleanup of the site, is anticipated to commence approximately six (6) months after City approval of the project. Construction of the buildings and site work is anticipated to require approximately eight (8) months. 7. Proposed Land Use/Zoning Designation and City Approval/Process Requests: In order to accommodate the proposed mix of uses including retail sales of groceries, banking, smaller retail shops/food service, office, and housing, the proposed zoning designation is CN-PD. The CN zoning designation allows all of the proposed uses with the exception of offices. The "PD" designation also provides for flexibility of property development standards to accommodate a variety of uses on site including housing. The site is within the Railroad Historic designation. The following City processes/approvals are necessary for the Broad Street Station project to proceed: • General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (the City is currently zoned CS & CN) to CN-PD. City Planning Commission and City Council approval is required. • ARC approval of the project design (schematic and final approvals) • Parcel map to exchange property, realign property boundaries, create parcels for EOC, Mid-State Bank, and the Albertsons/Shops/Housing uses. RRM DESIGN GROUP Page 2 of 4 3-27 r ATTACHMENT 5 Broad Street Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION October 22,2001 8. Exceptions to City Conventional CN Zoning Standards Anticipated as a Part of the PD Process: • Albertson Grocery Store—zero setback along the north property line. • EOC Offices— establish the use of a portion of the site (1.5 acres) for offices and to exceed the allowable height limit of 35 feet by 10 feet. • Project Parking Areas — Conventional City standards call for "finger" planters at an interval of every 6th parking space throughout new parking lots. The project proposes to use a mixture of "finger" planters, "diamond" planters, and linear planters within the parking areas. This will not reduce the area of planting and/or number of trees to be planted below use of the conventional standards. 9. Adiacent Land Uses: Adjacent land uses include the following: • North—City Fire Station No. I • East—UPRR right-of-way of approximately 300-ft. width • South—Existing commercial uses fronting on Alphonso Street • West — Broad Street (Highway 227) right-of-way (approximately 100-ft width), automobile fuel station (Flyers), offices and residential 10. Summary of Proposed Uses: • Grocery Store — Albertsons. Proposed activities — sale of food, meats, produce, and beverages including alcoholic beverages. In-store specialty departments include — fresh fish, flowers, pharmacy, bakery, delicatessen, coffee bar, and prepared foods to go. Floor area — 45,300 s.f.; Height 35 feet; Employees (85-100 total); Hours of operation—24 hours/day, 7 days/week. • Offices — Economic Opportunity Commission Administrative offices. Proposed activities — administrative and program support offices, meeting rooms, and storage. Floor area — 30,000 s.f.; Height 45 feet; Employees 90-115; Hours of operation — 8:00 am-5:00 pm Monday through Friday. • Retail Shops—Various tenants. Proposed activities—retail sales of food,beverages, goods, and services allowable in the CN zone. Floor area— 10,000 s.f.; Employees — 10-20 total;Hours of operation—8:00 am-midnight, 7 days per week. • Housing — Proposed activities — residential senior citizen (affordable) housing. Occupancy hours—24hrs/day, 7 days/week. Number of units— 10 units at 550—625 s.f.each. • Bank—existing 11. Project Improvement Design and Features: • Off-site Improvements/Features- - New bus stop, turnout,and shelter at the Broad Street frontage. - Traffic mitigations to improve levels of service—widening Broad Street, dual left turn lanes at Broad Street/South Street, signalization at Broad Street/Alphonso Street, planted median in Broad Street (requires Caltrans' approval), installation of City standard improvements to Roundhouse Street. RRM DESIGN GROUP 8 3-2 Page 3 of 4 O ATTACHMENT : Broad Street Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION October 22,2001 • On-site Design Improvements/Features- - On-site separated pedestrian crossing from Alphonso Street to Roundhouse Street. - Pedestrian Plaza adjacent to Albertsons, retail shops, and housing that will include landscaping and pedestrian seating area. - Covered canopy entries at the shops and Albertsons - Accessible pathway from all on-site buildings to the Pedestrian Plaza - Building design, signage, lighting, and building materials are designed to meet the Railroad Historic design criteria. - Vehicle access (direct) from Alphonso Street to Roundhouse Street through the site. - Handicapped accessibility to senior citizen housing (elevator) - Placement of the housing over the retail shops thereby presenting a human scale to the street, giving the presence of activity/security on site 24 hours per day. Incorporation of a pedestrian canopy at the shops building for energy conservation and pedestrian scale. - Noise and visual screening at the grocery store loading area. - Generous commercial landscaping including over_?new trees. - Use of this infill site for mixed-use; thereby reducing traffic impacts, need for vehicle trips, encouraging use of alternative forms of transportation and walking, and creation of a live/work urban setting in this area of downtown San Luis Obispo. 12. Energy Conservation: The following features are incorporated into the project improvements and/or the individual buildings: • Albertsons — Meet California Title 24, energy management systems for refrigeration systems, HVAC system(including heat recovery). and lighting system. • EOC Offices—EOC's objective is to exceed California Title 24 by 25%. The design will include, at minimum, (in addition to California Title 24 standards) operable windows, 3-step lighting controls, and other features. • Retail Shops—The building design incorporates an arcade over the west-facing storefront shops to reduce heat gain and provide pedestrian scale. Shops will meet California Title 24 requirements. • Housing — Housing will meet California Title 24 requirements including the use of energy star appliances. • Transit Stop, Bus Pullout and Pedestrian Shelter — all uses on site will be adjacent to the new transit stop provided as part of the project Broad Street improvements. SUMMARY: The Broad Street Station project has been designed to incorporate retail, offices, and senior affordable housing to make use of a uniquely-located site. Upon completion, Broad Street Station will be an asset to the City and the neighborhood. It will provide a focal point showing the benefits of mixed-use infill development in San Luis Obispo. It will be unique in San Luis Obispo in its attempt to create a project that contributes to solving seemingly intractable existing problems in our community (lack of affordable rental housing), provides an opportunity for one of our community's longest-serving community service non-profit organizations, the EOC, to stay in SLO for the foreseeable future, improves the function of a major City traffic arterial, and provides goods and services within an under-served neighborhood. Broad Street Station is a classic example of a truly, mixed-use, infill project. v/a99050\govt%vm-Draft BSSP proj dmc-10.22.01 RRM DESIGN GROUP 2"9 Page 4 of 4 3- - Attachrnent6 MEETING UPDATE Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Planning Conference Room 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo September 24, 2001 Monday 5:30 p.m.. Call Members to Order: Chairperson Bob Schrage, Vice- Chairperson Bob Pavlik, Paula Juelke Carr, Steve McMasters, Bob Pavlik, Matt Whittlesey, and Margot McDonald. Committee members Steve McMasters, Bob Pavlik and Tom Wheeler were absent. Staff: Pam Ricci, Michael Codron and Jeff Hook, Associate Planners. Public Comments: At this time, people may address the committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. Edie Kahn, Executive Director of the Aids Support Network, P.O. Box 12158, San Luis Obispo, displayed a sample replacement window that ASN was considering using to replace dilapidated windows at the historic Adriance Apartments. She handed out a written proposal explaining replacement options and pros and cons, and asked committee members to schedule the matter for an upcoming CHC meeting. Committee members asked staff to schedule the matter for the Committee's October 22, 2001 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting of August 27, 2001. Approve or amend. On a motion by Committee member Whittlesey, seconded by Committee member Carr, the Committee voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as amended at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. ARC 138-00: 2238 Broad Street. New Supermarket in the Railroad Historic District. Albertson's Markets, applicant. Pam Ricci, project planner, introduced the project and explained the "action altematives" listed in the CHC staff report. She provided a brief background and explained the project still needs environmental review, land use approvals and architectural review. 3-30 r ATTACHMENT CHC Meeting Update, September 24, 2001 Page 2 Pat Blote and Vic Montgomery, architects with RRM Design Group, explained the project's design and how it complied with the Railroad District Master Plan. They also discussed possible public art features and noted that a historical survey of the existing buildings had been completed by Clay Singer which indicated that the buildings were not historic. Randy Pott, 665 Islay Street, explained that he was working with a citizen's group to develop a plan for the Broad Street corridor. He said the draft plan would "push the idea" of rezoning C-S zoned properties in the "Little Italy" neighborhood to residential zoning. He noted that this Albertson's Market project had previously been denied twice by the City Council and this latest plan is essentially the same as previous proposals, except that a freestanding office building had been added. He felt neighbors would object to the scale and intensity of the proposed market and asked the CHC to postpone action until after the City Council considers the General Plan amendment necessary to allow the project. Chairperson Schrage closed the public hearing. Committee member Whittlesey questioned whether the Committee had enough information about the buildings that would be demolished as part of this project. Committee member McDonald felt the scale of the buildings was a concern, and that scale compatibility was a goal of the Railroad District Plan. She felt the project's design was not "pedestrian friendly", noting that the rear of the proposed market building and serviceAoading areas faced Roundhouse Avenue and the planned Public Railroad Display Area in the Emily Street right-of-way. Committee member Can- wanted to see the historic survey done for this project. She believed the buildings to be removed may be older than the applicant believed and possibly historically significant. Adaptive reuse of the existing buildings may be possible. She shared Committee member McDonald's concems with the project's scale. She felt a design transition was needed between the Railroad District and the Little Italy neighborhood at the project's location. She suggested the Committee plan a site visit and favored action alternative number 4 for continuance. On a motion by Committee member Carr, seconded by Committee member McDonald, the Committee approved action alternative 4 in the staff report to continue consideration of the project to allow review of the historic survey and to allow a site visit and discussion. The motion carried, 4-0. 2. ARC 123-01: 1438 Nipomo Street. Replace garage for a Contributing Property in the Old Town Historic District. Ray and Sandra Crosno, Applicants. 3-31 Attachment 7 ��Il�lfllllllfllllll�� IIIIIIIIIII�� cityOBISPOO SM WIS 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 4, 2001 Heidi Carlson 250 E. Park Center Blvd. Boise, ID 83706 SUBJECT: 2238 Broad St., ARC 138-00 New Retail Shopping Center in the Railroad Historic District. Dear Heidi Carlson: The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of November 26, 2001, took the following actions: Action Alternative "A" The Committee determined that buildings labeled "1, 2, and 3" on the Broad Street Station Conceptual Site Plan to be demolished are historically and architecturally significant, based on the following findings: 1. The buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, namely, the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo; and 2. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, namely, industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials. The Committee recommended that a range of suitable alternatives should be explored, including preservation and adaptive reuse of the buildings, in an appropriate environmental document Action Alternative "B" The Committee determined that the proposed buildings are not architecturally compatible with the surrounding area, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Albertson's Market building and EOC office building are out of scale with adjacent buildings and the Railroad District setting; 2. Architectural materials of the proposed buildings are not appropriate in terms of the Railroad District architectural guidelines; and r 3-32 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ATTACHMENT ' 1 3. The proposed buildings will result in a loss of architectural integrity of the Railroad Historic District. (See attached meeting update.) The decision of the CHC is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the CHC may file an appeal. After the appeal period, this determination is final and shall run with the land. If you have questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, A� Michael Dra Deputy Community Development Director, Long Range Planning Encl.: Meeting Update 11/26/01 cc: Property Owner Representative Address File Project File 3-33 ATTACHMENT 1 CHC Meeting Update, November 26, 2001 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. ARC 138-00: 2238 Broad Street. New Retail Shopping Center in the Railroad Historic District. Albertson's Markets, applicant. Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending the Committee address three issues: 1) to determine whether seven existing buildings to be removed as part of the new development are historically significant, 2) to identify potential impacts to historic resources and recommend appropriate mitigation measures, and 3) to determine whether the proposed development is consistent with the Railroad District Plan architectural guidelines. Pat Blote, project architect and Victor Montgomery from RRM Design Group described the project's architectural features and explained how it complied with the Railroad District Plan architectural guidelines. They also discussed possible pedestrian and bicycle trail linkages between the new project and adjacent areas, and how the project accommodated public transportation needs. Mr. Montgomery said the developer would accept the mitigation proposed in the historic inventory prepared for the property by Clay Singer. Chairperson Schrage opened the public hearing. Bradshaw Heaney stated that the former California State Division of Highways buildings were well built and could stand for a long time. He felt they were very important buildings to the community, nearing their 100'h birthday, and didn't agree with the project architects'assessment that the buildings were not historically significant. Astrid Gallagher commented that the historic inventory prepared for this project was inadequate and incomplete. Betty Moss, with Mountain Valley Trucking, supported the proposed development and did not feel the existing buildings were historically significant. Randy Poltl stated that he's working with a group of neighbors in the Railroad/Little Italy neighborhoods on a Broad Street Enhancement Plan. He noted the plan would improve residential opportunities in the Broad Street area in relation to the Old Town Neighborhood. He objected to the proposed development since he believed it would significantly increase traffic at the Santa Barbara/South/Broad Street intersection, wasn't needed and was inappropriate for the area. Al Landwehr stated that he works in the shop buildings that would be removed and would like to see them moved and reused, if possible. Mark Freear urged the Committee to preserve the City's quality of life and supported preservation of the former Division of Highways buildings. He was concerned that the 3-34 CHC Meeting Update, November 26, 2001 ATTACHMENT Page 3 new development would "compromise" the effectiveness of the adjacent Fire Station Number 1. Dodie Williams spoke in support of the new development projected since it would provide needed community services, and stated that Fire Station staff also support the project. She questioned the historic value of the former Division of Highways buildings. Chairperson Schrage closed the public hearing. Committee member Whittlesey felt buildings 1, 2, and 3 (former Division of Highways metal-sided buildings) were historically significant due their association with early highway building which shaped City growth patterns and due to their unique construction. He felt demolition of the old buildings and construction of the proposed buildings would adversely affect that significance. He would like to see "live-work" residences above the retail shops shown in the plan. Committee member McMasters felt that information was lacking to determine whether existing buildings were historically significant. He added that the recommended mitigation in the historic inventory was inadequate and that it should be the developer's responsibility to document the existing resources, not the public's. He felt the proposed buildings did not follow the Railroad District Plan architectural guidelines. Committee member McDonald felt the buildings reflect some of the Railroad District architectural guidelines, but scale and massing of the new buildings are a concern. Committee member Wheeler felt the project would remove railroad era buildings and agreed with Committee member McMasters that the historic report does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the project's effects. Committee member Carr agreed with previous comments on the historic report and felt discussion of replacement buildings was premature until historic status of the existing buildings was clarified. She suggested the historic report be modified to include the following: A) full discussion of the social historical context of the Division of Highways buildings; 8) clarification of building construction dates; and C) provide copy of the previous historic report cited. Committee member Pavlik described the importance of the California Division of Highways early role in San Luis Obispo and the importance of highway-building in the growth and development of San Luis Obispo City and County. He felt that three buildings still possess six of the seven characteristics required by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for historic significance. Consequently, he felt the former Division of Highways buildings do appear to be historically significant and was concerned with 3-35 CHC Meeting Update, November 26, 2001 ATTACHMENT Page 4 effect of "modernization" of the historic railroad setting by constructing new offices so close to the railroad tracks. Chairperson Schrage felt that architectural scale of the proposed buildings had emerged as a significant issue. "Sense of place"may also be adversely affected by the proposed project in that the loss of the Division of Highways buildings would hamper efforts to preserve the historic character of the Railroad District. On a motion by Committee member Pavlik, seconded by Committee member McMasters, the Committee took the following actions Action Alternative "A" The Committee determined that buildings labeled "1, 2, and 3" on the Broad Street Station Conceptual Site Plan to be demolished are historically and architecturally significant, based on the following findings: 1. The buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, namely, the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo; and 2. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, namely, industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials. The Committee recommended that a range of suitable alternatives should be explored, including preservation and adaptive reuse of the buildings, in an appropriate environmental document. Action Alternative `B" The Committee determined that the proposed buildings are not architecturally compatible with the surrounding area, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed Albertson's Market building and EOC office building are out of scale with adjacent buildings and the Railroad District setting; 2. Architectural materials of the proposed buildings are not appropriate in terms of the Railroad District architectural guidelines; and 3. The proposed buildings will result in a loss of architectural integrity of the Railroad Historic District. The motion carried on a 7-0 vote. 3-36 Attachment 8 the (4) A lead agency may determine that the incremental impacts of a project are Leets not cumulatively considerable when they are so small that they make only a de minimis contribution to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that would exist i mine in the absence of the proposed project. Such de minimus incremental impacts, by i ntial themselves,do not trigger the obligation to prepare an E1R. A de minimus contribution — 1 means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the a r the proposed project is implemented. nate (5) The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other shall projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's t tion, incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. I " 'i lead 15064.5. Determining the Significance of impacts on Historical 1 this and Unique Archeological Resources. Y. (a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include �. feral the following: o (1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical tute, Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1,Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in tent, section 5020.1(k)of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources the Code,shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. icier (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the lead architectural,engineering,scientific,economic,agricultural, educational, social, political, Tects military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, ative provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of [tally the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ! , the "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California ction Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section is of 4852)including the following: (A) Is associaied with events that have made a significant contribution to the ject's broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ively (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,region, or method icant vely of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses the high artistic values;or less (D) Has yielded,or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. to a (4) The fact that a resource isnot listed in, or determined to be eligible for i the listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register xific of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or Nater identified in an historical resources survey(meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g)of the the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the :ified resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections u 5020.16) or 5024.1_ (b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the law significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. j; 97 li ATTACHMENT (1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource a sign means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its feA immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be othe materially impaired. (2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a of N project: appr (A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical as F characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that agre justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of any Historical Resources;or as id (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical an a; characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an rem: historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Sect Resources Code,unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant;or rema those physical taker (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as area determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. (3) Generally,a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for cont the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), withi Weeks and Grimmer,shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. persc (4) A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency or thi shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are with fully enforceable through permit conditions,agreements,or other measures. in Pu (5) When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead repre agency shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public good Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion subs[ with the preparation of environmental documents. (c) CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites. likel3 (1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first 24 he determine whether the site is an historical resource,as defined in subsection(a). (2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical of the resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in to prc Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply. of th (3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the uniqu Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of provi section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code If the _ Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to fundi determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. measi (4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an parts historical resource,the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a takes 98 �. ATTACHMENT ; g nirce significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the r its effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on J be other resources,but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. } (d) When an initial study identifies the existence of,or the probable likelihood, en a of Native American human remains within the project,a lead agency shall work with the { appropriate native americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission sical as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an that agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and `( T of any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans [ as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission." Action implementing such sical an agreement is exempt from: irces (1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human n an remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code ublic Section 7050.5). ishes (2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. irally (e) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be j sical taken: that (1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby i , m as area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: (A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be r, Ls for contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required,and .ting, (B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: ,. rior's I. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission ?95), within 24 hours. icant 2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native american. igate 3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner ;envy or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, s are with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,or ed in (2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized lead representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave j ublic goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further shion subsurface disturbance. (A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within first 24 hours after being notified by the commission. (B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation;or nical (C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation urces of the descendant,and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails A in to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (f) As part of the objectives,criteria,and procedures required by Section 21082 i (a) of the Public Resources Code, a lead agency should make provisions for historical or ,f the unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction. These .f is of provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. Code If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency 3d to funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other I(. rr an parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation red a takes place. 99 li illi NOV-14-01 12:56pm FROM-RRM Design Group 905-543-4609 Z -AY L O r, & S Y A N Attachment 9 CONSULTING ENGINEERS INCORPORATED 2116 Wilshire Bouleveni•Saih 4360•Santa Monim CA 90403• TEL(310)452-2450 •(800)579-3851 •FAX(800)67 7-2235 2231 Bayview lieighm Drive•Los Osos,CA 93402•TEL(605)526-2951•FAX(805)528.5036 October 26, 2001 Mr. Pat Slote _ RRM Design Group 3765 South Higuera St. Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Roundhouse Road, San Luis Obispo (3 Buildings) Introduction: At your request the undersigned visited the above referenced buildings on October 20, 2001. The purpose of the visit was to make an assessment of the structural condition of the buildings. Also present at the time of the inspection were Michelle Good of Taylor&Syfan and Steve Rigor of RRM Design Group. The three buildings,which were built in the 1920's, are commercial warehouse buildings currently occupied by numerous tenants. Observations were made from the perimeter of all buildings and inside certain areas of Building 1 and Building 3. (See attached map). Observations: The buildings are wood framed structures with exterior wall and roof cladding of corrugated iron. Roof rafters that are supported by wood trusses support the roof cladding. The trusses, spaced at approximately.six feet on center, are supported on wood posts that bear on the perimeter foundations of unknown size. The interior floor is a concrete slab on grade, generally seen to be uneven and cracked. There is stain evidence that the roofs have been leaking fora long time. This was confirmed by some of the tenants. The buildings observed were generally void of any lateral force (wind or seismic) resisting elements. Some diagonal blocking between vertical wall framing members was observed. It was evident that numerous areas have been remodeled and some structural elements permanently removed. 3-40 NOu-Ia-01 12:56PM FROM-RRM Design Group 805-543-4608T-574 P.007/008 F-175 - Roundhouse Road ,cRM . ATTACHMENT October 26, 2001 Page 2 of 2 Recommendations: The three buildings are substantially below current code standards from a structural engineering point of view and need to be retrofitted. Retrofitting these structures, if feasible, would likely cost more than replacing them with new buildings. The following are some structural items we judge to need work in all buildings: 1. The roofing will need to be removed and a plywood roof diaphragm installed on the roof joists. New waterproof roofing can then be installed with appropriate insulation and waterproofing paper. 2. All roof rafters need to be inspected for wet rot and replaced if found to be weakened. The rafters are spaced too far apart and shall require augmenting with intermediate rafters. Their size and spacing need to be determined by calculation. 3. Each building needs to be seismically analyzed to determine the size and frequency of plywood shear walls, which will need to be installed from foundation to roof. Each shear wall shall require appropriate epoxy anchor bolts, holdowns and shear transfers (if existing foundations are suitable for re-use). 4. On the elevations where multiple door entrances exist it should be anticipated that steel seismic moment frames would be required.These shall likely require the installation of new foundations. 5. Wall studs are spaced too far apart and will need augmenting with intermediate full height studs. Their size and spacing shall need to be determined by calculation. Additional structural items, such as roof trusses or foundations may also be found to be inadequate by today s code standards once analyzed by structural calculation. In summary, structural retrofit of these buildings to meet current code requirements appears to be only marginally feasible if the foundations are found to be suitable. If the foundations need replacement then rehabilitation is not feasible due to the extensive demolition necessary to perform rehabilitation. In our opinion, based upon the structural condition of the buildings, photo documentation and salvage of any architectural artifacts appears more prudent than rehabilitation. We trust this report shall be of guidance to you and that you will not hesitate to call us if, you have any questions. Respectfully subC. .,, Stephen F. TayloP.Eng-.'O/� T85 Ref. 1329 3-41 NOV-14-01 12:56PM FROM-RRM Design Group 805-543-4609 T-574 P.00d8Q/00088p F-175 , bqr � mm. J4 LO V \\ 2 6 'rqr J Major f Tellailt � ' a * �1 . ��.if .�1r �1{1� � •1 .� I�II9.aW'i.41IIIJJ II' � W ; .._ Fes.= _ Yom` li I t ij�lZZ Ld ._--aha • + S I C____ _!�� ----:mss—�!_w r: -4 - –.-.:.- __..B,e1�"�11!_- r----------------- ------------- -- --- _ ----- ----- , � 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 8 R 0 A 0 STREET STATZO s a n Luis Obispo, california 1 3-42 NOu-1a-01 12:54PM FROM-RRM Des n Group 605-543-4609 1-514 P.002/009 F-115 Attachment 1(� C.A. SINGER & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Archaeology•Cultural Resources& Lithic Studies November 4,2001 3765 gn Group SEgguera Street Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject Supplemental information on three metal clad structures located in the pm�posed Broad Street Plaza development area in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Cbvnty, California. 19MMUCTTON As requested,supplemental information has been collected on the history and condition of three metal clad buildings located at the southeast corner of Emily Street and.Roundhouse Road in the City of San Luis Obispo. Additional information was needed to facilitate a decision by the City Cultural Heritage Commission whether these three sawturas qualified �Ot cultural resources,as defined by the California)Environtnental Quality Act of QA), as amended,and whether they would be eligible for nomination to the State of California Register of Itsioric Resources. As a consequence,additional archival research was carried out by Mrs. Susan Stewart(2001). Also,1 conducted a casual survey of five metal clad buildings located nearby and examined the exteriors of the throe buildings under discussion. INGS The three buildings in question aero situated on a property located east of Emily Street and west of the former S.P.R.R. Roundhouse(Eddy 1994). They were not identified of evaluated as historical structures during the initial survey of The project area (Singer 1996) because they wore inside a locked fence and inaccessible. Also,their overall design and exterior features,as viewed from outside the fence,offered no clear signs of their true age or original purpose. Research by the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) staff.however,discovered aphotograph of the buildings in the Fifth Biennial Report of the California Highway Commission(1926: 32,Place XIV) which .prompted an evaluation of the buildings. The photograph,captioned"Maintenance Station and foreutan's cottage at San Luis Obispo",shows the three buildings at center and left, along with a smaller `foreman's cottage' at the right,and the S.P.R.R. Roundhouse and distant hills in the background. A reference to the photogn uph in the County Iiiswrlcal Society Museum Archives says the view was taken in 191 ,however,this date may be earlier than the automobiles that appear in the photograph (cf. Trimnbach 1896: 84,90). Nevertheless.the photo shows all three structures in full operation in 1926. They likely functioned as vehicle rnaintt nuce and storage garages for trueks and other heavy equipment. Three flat-bed tracks and four automobiles are visible in the photo; the metal clad buildings look much as they do today. P.O. Bax 99 • Cambria • California 93428-0099 3-43 NOV-14-01 12:54PM FROM-RRM 0e1�r Group 805-543-4609 T-574 P.003%008 F-175 ATTACHMENT 10 Page 2 After the State Department of Highways built a new office complex and maintenance facituy on South ilitum Street in 1932, the three buildings continued in use until at least 1951. The CALTRANS files at the San Luis Obispo office contain a 1951 photograph that shows the three buildings behind a sign that reads,"Division of Highways -San Luis Obispo Maintenance Station'. The files contained no information on alterations or modifications to the structures,what year they were abandoned,when the property was sold,or the present tenants. For a short time (in the 1960s?) the property was utilized as an equipment yard by the Ctiry of San Luis Obispo. At the sent time, the metal clad buildings and the surrounding yard aro occupied by several different tenants. Ile southern and largest building may be a storage facility+; so too the smaller structures. About a dozen automobiles,in varying states of decay,rust in the yard near the buildings. The yard is fully paved and,in most platers,the-pavernent runs up to the base of the structure where it meets the sheet metal siding. Outside the yard, for example along Emily Street,the sheet metal siding meets the soil at ground level;no structural foundations are visible. While these buildings originally had dirt floors they probably now have wall-to-wall,concrete stab floors. All or most of the corrugated exterior sheetmeral on all three buildings has been replaced, probably during the 1950s or 1960& The replacement slteetmetal may have been slightly thinner than the eviginal sheets because-(modem)flat head galvanized steel nails were used to attached the(new)corrugated.sheets. Under the eaves of the smaller buildings, however, some of the original"Sprung Head"nails are still in place Manufacture of this W of roofing nail ended around 1950. Tt is clear from the ca. 1926 photograph,and the building examination, that some doorways wefe covered over while other entrances and windows were added. Nearly all the visible exterior hardware-- the door hinges,hasps, door and padlocks,ckztrieai connections,and plumbing fixtures--was nunufacaued and installed after 19SO. Older fixtures and interior features are surely these as wen. Anotherlook under the exterior eaves reveals rough cut 4"by 6"wood rafters,another consmtction product that disappeared around 1950. On the two smaller buildings the wood rditets protrude from a barrier of plywood panels, chicken wire, and fiberglass insulation. A broken window at the northern end of the building farthest from Emily Street revealed woodposts,beams, and trusses supporting the roof. The wood materials could not be idem. but some may be redwood. RECOMMRKPATrONS Tbere is now, 1 believe,sufficient information available to classify all three sheenwal clad buildings as historical resources,and to evaluate their importance within the framework of the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo on February 3. 1997.. Furst,all three buildings qualify as historic structures because they were built before 1950. They may be simple boxes, but they cue good examples of early modern industrial architecture representing the period when commercial steel products were introduced,and wood was replaced w a structural material in tht.conwwrion of large. buildings. And too, they are examples of early 20th Century industrial buildings,extant structures built and maintained by the State Department of Transportation, tied to the ge wdrof rheCityof San LuisObipoand the buildings may notbeunique but theirinteriageble. The buildings should also be analardous materials conramination (e.g. load paint,asbestos,petroleum products, etc.). 3-44 NOV-14-01 12:55PM FRO"RM Desw Group 805-543-4609 -� T-574 P.004/008 F-175 ATTACHMENT 10 - - Page 3 If the buildings are classified as"historiml resources" by the City Cultural Heritage Committee,the Historical Preservation Guidelines allow for removal when the"project Sponsor demossuates it is financially not feasible to rehabilitate the structure". Listed below ani a series of recommended tasks that could be undertaken w midgare the loss of the buildings and make possible their reconstruction at or close to their present location. Program 1- Advertise in local newspapers for a period of 30 days that tho buildings are available for relocation at no cost. Program 2, Prepare a Primary Site Record (form DPR 523A)per guidclints set forth by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Program 3. Prepare a Building,Structure and Object Record(form BPR 5230)per guidelines set fortis by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Program 4. Pile copies of DPR forms cited above with the Central Coact Archaeological Information Center, the State Office of Historic Preservation,the City of San Lois Obispo, and the County Iiistotical Society. Program 5. Prior to de-construcrion(but after disconnection of all utilities and electric power),&How the interested individuals and community historical organizations aperiad of 10 days to view and photograph the buildings,and/or express a willingness/commitment to transport,and tale possession of building materials such as metal siding or wooden trusses daring the de-construction process and in txvrdination with the owners de-construction schedule. Program 6. Upon completion and filing of records and documents per Programs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above."de-construct"the three existing building rather than"demolish"tl=. Various community organizations, such as the County Historical Society, the SLO Railroad Museum,and the County Archaeological Society, shall be afforded the opportunity for period of 10 days (during off-hours and according the safety procedures set our by the contractor) m perform salvage operations and to take building materials and/or artifacts as they are removed and sorted during de-construction and preparation for recycling and/or haul-off for disposal. We hope this information will help the CHC make un informed decision about the structures. Don't hesitate to cull if we can be of further service. 1►+li*c eiruerely, Clat A.Singed An At. REMMENCES QM Califomia Highway Commission 1926 Fifth Biennial Reporr of the California Highway CommLfflon of the Srate of Catifornia.,Sacramento. Eddy,David 1994 "SLO looses a railroad artifact". Telegram-Tribune,Jan. 29. 1994. 3-45 NOV-Id-01 12:55Pu FROM-RPM Desi Group 805-543-4609 T-574 PAWNS f-175 ATTACHMENT 10 Page 4 Singer, Clay A. 1996 "Cultural Resources Survey And Impact Assessment For The Albertson's Brand Street Plaza Project In The Q1Y Of San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo County, California". Report prepared for Thomas Courtnoy,'Architect, San Luis Obispo. Stewart, Susan 2001 "Preliminary Draft Re 011 Further Analysis of potential for Historic Significance of Three Metal Sided Buildings in the Broad street plaza Commercial Development. Supplemental to CA. Singer Report Dated July 10, 1996". Report prepared for Pat BIo%RRM Design Group,San Luis Obispo. hltenbach,Paul 1999 San Luis Obispo Discoveries. EZ Nature Books,Sun Luis Obispo. 3-46 NOV-05-01 09:49AM FROM-RRu 08!�V Group 805-543-4609 T-301 P.002/002 F-667 ATTACHMENT 10 Curriculum vitae Susan Walker Stewart 498 Fresno Avenue Morro Bay,CA 93442 (805)77247.62 IuMrner:SStrw49815@aol=rn EDLICATmNAT -CR LDISNTTA q •B.A..An*MRIogy Univenk of C4dklbM3a.Santa Cruz,CA (9/73-6(/7) •Comer Life Permit(8185),Cabrilln College,Aptos,CA (2/79.6/81,2/83 -6/84) •Colmmanity College IDS .Limited Service Cm&ntW (8/86-6/89) • Senior Aschhaeological Ttbnician C.A.Singer&Associates Inc.(9/95-present) );bold Bzpe<ia=.Phe6e 1 reconnaissance surveys,monitoring of mechanical excavzkln,Phase 11 test ==vations.site mapping,stratigraphic pmf ling,M. LabmuffY Experioncc:5amPlO proccming,material sorting and identification,cataloguing and specimen warttitication, Research Eaporiemce:historic to chival rosearrh,historic map intcrp=aeion,title starches,report preparation, documeawy photography. • Tedmicol Illustrator and Suaggrapher • Native Ameat�n F.tlrnugrnpher Playano Saliaan Family Group.San Luis Obispo County. C.orrospondaue.erehivd tost:a ch,mauttaining rocords and tilts. hdablAORMEN.T EMERt13 M • Manager,Santa Cruz Honiculwral Supply (7/97-Present) TFACHWO EXPERlEN R • Hcad TOChor. Santa Cruz City Sdwols at La Fonda Childmn's Center (9/80-12/87) •Tt>WJW.Haid Placement Practioam.Cabrillo College Early Childhood Educadon Department (8/86.176) • 34=d Teacher,Santa Cruz City Schools La Funds Infant Center (7/84-QRS) • Ani mm Taaeher.Toddler Co-op.CsMno Collage Family (1/806/80) • Teacher's Aide,Gault School.Aftor School Child Cam Ptogtam (7!/9- 12R9) Staftni Teacher,Social Ethics and Uto Envimnmcnt: introdutxion to Poria Studies Univotsity of California,Santa Cruz PERSONAL-REEBIJINCIRS Clay A.Singer.Presidq►t Elaine P.Schneider,Chomash COnsulUnt C.A.Singer&A3+oNatoS.Inc. San Yr=Chumash Reservation P.O.Box 99,Cambria,CA 93428.0099 P.O.Box 365 Phone(8(5)9Z7-0455 - Pae(805)927-0455 Santa Yncz,CA 93460 Jahn Butch.Salinas Consultant Lynne F. Singer.C.P.A. 14650 Marro Road P.O. Bot 99 ArascadaM.CA 93422 Cambria.CA 9342&0099 (805)461-1470 (80S)927.0512 3-47 -- - Attachment 11 UFa'A 1 7- Myra L. Frank 8 Associates, Inc. (2 3) 62 5376 Fax: (213) 627-5376 Environmental Impact February 28, 2002 Reports and Statements Architectural History TO: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group, Inc. FROM: Richard Starzak,Senior Architectural Historian RE: Historical Review-Broad Street Station Project, San Luis Obispo 1 Memorandum Per your request,I have now completed a review of various documentation regarding the proposed Broad Street Station Project and the remaining three buildings associated with the former Caltrans Maintenance Facility on the proposed project site. The proposed project site is located within the boundary of the Railroad Historic District adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo on June 16, 1998,but none of the existing buildings on the proposed site were identified as a key feature of the Railroad Historic District. Despite the City's earlier findings, the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Commission(CHC) determined at its meeting on November 26, 2001,that the three existing buildings on the proposed project site"are historically and architecturally significant"for their association with "the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo"and because they"embody the distinctive characteristics of-industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials." The decision by the CHC that the buildings are historically and architecturally significant has been appealed to the City Council. The CHC made no recommendation as to whether the existing buildings meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources(California Register). Per your request,on January 30, 2002, I made a field review to evaluate the existing buildings on the site. During the field review, however, it became apparent that much of the buildings' original exterior wall surface,and many of their windows and doors,have been replaced or reconfigured with non-original materials or modem units. Section 4852(c)of the criteria for listing in the California Register requires that historical resources must retain"integrity"which is described as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. 3-48 _ ATTACHMENT 1 f Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 2 of 11 Sources Consulted The documentation reviewed for this historical assessment of the proposed Broad Street project site included the following, in chronological order by document date: • Original or Standard Plans: Original or standard plans for several building types for the California Highway Commission Division 5 were reviewed, including'Detail of Proposed Implement-Shed San Luis Obispo, February 7, 1919; Corrusated Iron Warehouse with Timber Frame, January 2, 1920;Warehouse and Shop 30'x60', n.d.,pre- 1922;Proposed Alterations and Additional Fixtures to be Installed in Present Maintenance Shop, San Luis Obispo, n.d.; and.Sketch showing plans for racks and cases for Maintenance Shop. San Luis Obispo, December 13, 1922. • Fifth Biennial Report: The Fifth Biennial Report of the California Hiehway Commission of the.State of California, 1926, which features a photograph of the maintenance station and foreman's cottage at San Luis Obispo (Plate XIV.) • Cultural Resources Survey: Abstract, Summary, and Conclusions of the Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Albertson's Broad Street Plaza Project..., dated July 10, 1996. In the abstract, the Cultural Resources Survey states "Existing buildings and above ground structures date from the middle to late 20' Century; none meet current state or city criteria for designation as significant architectural or historical resources." There is no mention of the buildings in the Summary and Conclusions section of the Cultural Resources Survey. • Railroad District Plan, adopted by The City of San Luis Obispo on June 16, 1998. The proposed project site is located within the boundary of the Railroad Historic District but none of the existing buildings on the proposed Broad Street project site were identified as a key feature of the District. • Caltrans HASR: Historic Architectural Survey Report:Inventory and Evaluation of Facilities Owned by the California Department of Transportation,"Draft Revision", dated January 2000, with text under the heading"Historical Overview". While the Caltrans HASR does not mention the buildings associated with the San Luis Obispo Maintenance Station, it does refer to "the state-owned foreman's cottage system"of the Division of Highways(now Caltrans) and standardized plans for the associated maintenance station buildings by the California Division of Architecture (now the Office of the State Architect). While the remaining three buildings on the proposed Broad Street project site are representative of the standard maintenance station, it is important to point out that a key feature of such a station,the foreman's cottage, is no longer extant at San Luis Obispo. The only building located in San Luis Obispo that was specifically mentioned in the Caltrans HASR is the District 5 Office, which was built in 1932 and is not located on the proposed project site. 3-49 ATTACHMENT 1 I Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 3 of 11 • Singer Letter: Letter to RRM Design Group,dated November 4,2001, from C.A. Singer& Associates, Inc., regarding"Supplemental information on three metal clad structures in the proposed Broad Street Plaza development area." • CHC Meeting Update: Minutes of the public hearing held on November 26,2001, in which the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Commission reviewed the proposed project(Item ARC 138-00:2238 Broad Street) and determined that three of the existing buildings on the site were "historically and architecturally significant, based on the following findings: 1. The buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, namely,the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo; and 2. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,region, or method of construction,namely, industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials." The CHC determination is presently under appeal to the City Council. Integrity Assessment Section 4852(c)of the criteria for listing in the California Register requires that historical resources must retain"integrity' which is described as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance." An assessment of the integrity criterion follows. Building l:Implement Shed Building 1,the former Implement Shed, was originally constructed in 1919 according to plans by the California Highway Commission Department of Engineering, Division 5. It is located on the northwest comer of the lot, and its rectangular plan measures 99 by 25 feet The original plans called for#26 gauge corrugated 'iron for the siding and the roof. The corrugated iron now on the building is thicker,measuring from#22 to#19 gauge for the siding and#19 gauge for the roof, and was more than likely replaced after the property was sold by Caltrans in 1951. With the exception of the replaced corrugated metal siding, the north and south end elevations of Building 1 appear to have retained their integrity of design,however, the west and east elevations have had their doors and windows resized and/or replaced, or new units cut-in.. 3-50 ATTACHMENT I Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 4 of 11 H w.u.L±. _+•. .^�`o f,,f .e ..�y ..rx`., .S.r rr- t,tom_ Figure 1: Building 1,the Implement Shed, east and Figure 2:Building 1. the Implement Shed, west north (Roundhouse Road)elevations,showing vehicle (Emil),Street)and south elevations,facing northeast entry doors,facing south from Roundhouse Road. from Emily Street. t 7tl � Ir + t ef I��111111 I� I . �l►,' 't �� El;alb t f J ' Figure 3:Alteration to Building 1, Implement Shed, Figure 4:Alteration to Building 1,Implement Shed. east elevation,showing full height corrugated metal east elevation, showing replaced doors and window. panels removed, replaced with wood siding and modern door(ca. 1995) r _ F7 My i la 1 }fp f k [P 4 4 t� +j6� �, i 4r,;j �� °".ti"�'•-: 1 'L - �"^' ,� f ,, f �-t '�{t� t}[1 �+. Figure 6:Alteration to Building ], Implement Shed. Figure 5:Alteration to Building 1, Implement Shed, west(Emily)elevation, showing location where air west(Emily)elevation,showing location where conditioning unit and aluminum sliding window have aluminum sliding window has been cut into the wall. been cut into the wall. 3-51 ATYACHEEMY Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 5 of 11 Building 2, Warehouse Building 2, the former Warehouse was originally constructed in 1920 according to standard plans by the State of California Department of Engineering for the California Highway Commission entitled"Corrugated Iron Warehouse with Timber Frame." The 1920 plans indicate three locations for warehouses constructed according to these plans: San Luis Obispo with nine bays, Petaluma with nine bays, and Willits with seven bays. It is located on the northeast comer of the lot, and its rectangular plan measures 40 by 108 feet. The original plans for the Warehouse called for#24 gauge galvanized corrugated iron for the siding and the roof. The corrugated metal now on the building matches the thickness of#24 gauge at only two locations,the northernmost end of the west elevation and the southernmost end of the east elevation;the remaining portions of these elevations are thicker, measuring at #19 gauge. (No measurements were taken at the north and south ends.) The roof metal also appears to be thicker than the original#24 gauge, as it measures at#20 gauge. As with the other buildings on the site, the metal was more than likely replaced after 1951 when Caltrans sold the property. Of the three buildings, the Warehouse appears to have retained the greatest degree of integrity of design. With the exception of the replaced corrugated metal,the east, north, and west elevations still retain their original design features,including windows, doors, and gable vents. The south elevation,however,has lost a sliding door and one of the two pivot sash windows in the gable. In addition, the interior slab and partitions with dry wall are not original. �- Figure 7:Building 1, Warehouse, north (Roundhouse Road)elevation,facing south from Roundhouse Figure 8:Building 1, Warehouse, east and north Road. Except for the replaced corrugated metal elevations,facing south from Roundhouse Road. Except siding, this elevation retains integritv of design. for the replaced corrugated metal siding and the security bars on the windows made out of concrete reinforcing bar, the east elevation retains integrity of design. 3-52 Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 6 of 11 n. It - t 1i Figure 10:Alterations to the south elevation of Figure 9:Building 2, Warehouse, west and south Building 2. Warehouse include the replacement of elevations. ,facing northeast. The west elevation has a one of the sliding corrugated metal doors with wood sliding door;the south elevation originally had a pair of siding, the removal of one of the pair of pivot sash sliding doors and a pair ofpivot sash. windows, and interior dry wall partitions, in addition to the replaced corrugated metal siding. The glass panes are missingfrom the remaining pivot sash. At Figure 11:Interior of Building 2, Warehouse. Figure 12:Interior of Building 2. Warehouse. illustrating timber roof truss. The interior has been illustrating braced timber frame walls and sliding altered by the introduction of partition walls with dry door. wall and a concrete floor slab. Building 3,Maintenance Shop Of the three former Caltrans Maintenance Facility buildings, Building 3, the former Maintenance Shop, has undergone the greatest degree of alterations, particular the primary elevation along Emily Street(west elevation). The former Maintenance Shop, was originally constructed in 1922 or 1923, and its design is similar to standard plans for the California Highway Commission, Division 5 entitled 3-53 Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 7 of I I "Warehouse and Shop." The standard plans indicate three other locations for similar warehouses and shops: Santa Maria(1924, 30'x50), Buellton (1924, 30'x50) and Santa Barbara (1923, 30'x60). The Maintenance Shop is located across the driveway to the east of the other two buildings, and its rectangular plan measures 40 by 80 feet, and is two stories in height. The original plans called for#24 gauge galvanized corrugated iron for the siding and the roof. The corrugated metal now on the building matches the thickness of#24 gauge at only one location tested, at the easternmost end of the north elevation. The remaining portions of the north and west(Emily Street) elevations are thicker, measuring at#20 gauge. The east and south elevations were not measured,however a visual inspection indicates that the siding has been reconfigured or replaced at many locations. 000 ST } ST A ) Y sT r t N f _. . ._. Ir tt ✓� { Figure 13: The primary elevation of the former Maintenance Shop is the west elevation, which fronts on Emily Street. In addition to the replacement of the original corrugated metal, its original first story window to the north was destroyed, the window to the south was resited and replaced with an aluminum slider,and the present office door and windows to the north are not part of the original design, and appear to dale from the 1950s. The pair of windows in the gable and the centrally located loading door appear to be original,and the backboard of the electrical equipment box to the south may be original, but the electrical box covers are missing. 3-54 IdW-' ATTACHMENT I I Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 8 of 11 I,• I 4 1 �' j�� j"� r It ; it F• � � ! tr# ti a "Al ` 44 .3 " ,4•. Figure IS:Building 3, Maintenance Shop, north Figure 14:Building 3, Maintenance Shop, north elevation. The pair of twelve light checkrail windows elevation. The aluminum sliding windows to the west appear to be original, but the door to the east of it side of the north elevation are not original, and has unmatched corrugated metal siding.. probably resulted in the resiting of the original window openings at this location. Note also that the pipe gutters and downspouts do not appear to be original. 4. ,,.1., . x• z.:'�, �*"i i " -ars ts' '�' 'WI 9f' M"T Al I I o o !14,4. dt�`hJ� II `moo+—C7 Y � � .��$,�s � �',. ,k't. ,f��.''. i1 j • �o° Fn :,t Figure 16:Building 3. Maintenance Shop, east elevation. The pair of windows in the gable have been boarded up, and many of the window mun tins on the first floor windows are missing or deteriorated. The concrete reinforcing bars providing window security are not original, 3-55 �^ OTAC HIELIMY Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 9 of 11 r Figure 17. Building 3, Maintenance Shop,south and east elevations, facing northwest. The aluminum sliding window to the west was cut-out of the wall and its opening is mismatched with the sash windows. i j _a Figure 18:Alteration to Building 3, Maintenance Shop,south elevation at west end, in addition to the aluminum sliding window constructed in a horizontal orientation, the concrete steps leading nowhere indicate the probable location of a former door opening.. 3-56 ATTACHMENT 11 Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 10 of 11 Conclusions of the Integrity Assessment The three remaining buildings of the former Caltrans Maintenance Facility in San Luis Obispo have undergone substantial loss of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship because of reconfiguration and replacement of many windows and doors, and the replacement of the vast majority of their corrugated iron siding and roofing. Their integrity of setting and association has also been diminished,because of the demolition of the Foreman's Cottage, a key feature of a Caltrans Maintenance Facility,which was located to the south of the Maintenance Shop. Their integrity of setting has also been affected by the 1994 demolition of the Southern Pacific Roundhouse to the east of the property and because all other neighboring buildings on the south, west, and north, are modem in construction. Their integrity of feeling and association are affected by the fact that the buildings have not been used by Caltrans for more than 50 years. Section 4852(c) of the criteria for listing in the California Register requires that historical resources must retain"integrity"which is described as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance." The period of significance of buildings is typically set at their date of construction, in this case 1919-1922. The interior timber wall bracing and roof trusses, some of the windows and doors, gable vents,and possibly some of the corrugated metal siding existed during the period of significance. However,most of the existing windows and doors,the vast majority of the corrugated metal siding,and the concrete floor slabs did not exist during the period of significance. Therefore,the former Caltrans Maintenance Facility buildings do not appear to meet California Register integrity criterion, and it is unlikely that their potential significance under criteria I through 4 would be important enough to override the loss of integrity.. Recommendations An appeal has been made to the City Council to reconsider the CHC's decision on November 26, 2001, that the three existing buildings on the proposed project site"are historically and architecturally significant" for their association with"the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo"and because they"embody the distinctive characteristics of-industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials." As the CEQA lead agency, the City Council has the authority and responsibility to determine whether or not the buildings on the proposed project site are historical resources. As part of the appeals process, it is recommended that the City Council carefully weigh all of the previous findings in light of the integrity assessment presented in this memorandum. The City Council should be reminded that proposed project site is located within the boundary of the Railroad Historic District adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo on June 16, 1998, but none of the existing buildings on the proposed site were identified as a key feature of the Railroad Historic District. Therefore, the City's position prior to the CRC's decision was that the buildings on the proposed project site were not historical resources and were not historically significant enough 3-57 ATTACH NAENT I Memorandum—Broad Street Project February 28, 2002 Page 11 of 11 to be a key feature of the Railroad Historic District. As part of the appeals process, it is also recommended that the City Council uphold the appeal of the CHC decision and ask the CHC to reconsider its November 26, 2001, decision in light of:A) the diminished integrity of the buildings' design, materials,workmanship,setting, feeling and association; and B) the City determination as part of the creation of the Railroad Historic District that none of the subject buildings were a key feature of the District. 3-58 ATTACHMENT I o , cl r 0 S\�• X20 3 � \ o N O • � a cY o_ c 3 'I� 0� �1�(� IVI►� ��Cl 3-59 UKNL Steel ciauge Ioleranc Yage 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT i Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Steel Gauge Tolerances For Steel Drum Q (C' Evaluation Issued: February 24, 1995 Revised: June 15, 1999 W - Page 1 of 1 STANDARD FOR QC INSPECTIONS OF GAUGE THICKNESS FOR PURCHASED STEEL DRUMS The below table of metal gauge thickness dimensions, and tolerances is to be used when evaluating steel drums for compliance to the specified steel thickness (gauge) set forth in the ORNL Packaging Specifications for the purchase of steel drums at ORNL facilities. This table is furnished, in that, the US DOT Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR) under the new UN Performance Packaging concept no longer specifies gauge thickness and tolerances for steel drums-only test criteria. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, however, in the ORNL UN Hazardous Material Packaging Specifications, specifies specific steel thickness (gauges)for the UN steel drums to be purchased, as well as the required UN performance criteria. In addition, the past DOT gauge table is incorporated directly into the DOE "White Book" for the DOT 7A,Type A packaging. i GAUGE NOMINAL NOMINAL MINIMUM MINIMUM NUMBER THICKNESS THICKNESS THICKNESS THICKNESS (Inches) (Millimeters) (Inches) (Millimeters) 3 127F 0.1046 2.6568 0.0946 2.4028 s 14 0.0747 1.8974 0.0677 1.7196 16 0.0598 1.5189 0.0533 1.3538 18 0.0478 1.2141 0.0428 1.0871 19 0.0418 1.0617 0.0378 0.9601 I 20 0.0359 0.9119 0.0324 0.8230 I 22 0.0299 0.7595IF 0.0269 0.6833 j 24 0.0239 0.6071 0.0209IE 0.5309 I 26 0.0179 0.4547 0.0159 i 3-60 http://ntser3.cad.oml.gov/tpm/StIGagTol.html 2/11/02 URN Steel Gauge Tolerances ATTACHANT 1 I _ 28 :IEEill 0.3785IF 0.0129 0.3277 NOTES: The above table of gauge values (in inches) were extracted from the past DOT specifications; 49 CFR, & 173.24(a)(2) (pre-HM 181)for steel sheets; for the gauges as specified for DOT 17C, 17E, 17H, 37A, etc. steel drums. Conversion to millimeters is: inches multiplied by 25.4000 mm/in = millimeters. [current 49 CFR,&171.10(c)(2)] Minimum Thickness for Reuse (reconditioning)is 1.1 millimeters (therefore, above 19 gauge steel). 6i* Home Page 3-61 http://ntser3.cad.oml.gov/tpm/St1GagTol.html 2/11/02 Converse Consultants Attachment 12 Over 50 Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Sciences February 28, 2002 Ms. Tamara Loughmiller Halferty Development Company, LLC 199 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 880 Pasadena, California 91101-2459 Subject: (- IDENTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES FOR THREE CORRUGATED METAL CLAD BUILDINGS Proposed Albertson's #678 San Luis Obispo, California Converse Project No. 01-42-840-01 Ms. Loughmiller: Converse Consultants (Converse) appreciates the opportunity to transmit this status letter regarding identified hazardous materials issues at the referenced site. Our services have been provided in accordance with our Service Agreement dated January 23, 2002. The following briefly summarizes each of the,three buildings: Building A (parallel and adjacent to Emily Street) • Arsenic treated wood • Gasoline impacted soils underlying south end of building js Lead-based paint Building B (parallel and west of Building A) • Arsenic treated wood • Lead-based paint Building C (south of Buildings A and B) • Arsenic treated wood • Asbestos flooring • Lead-based paint • Hydraulic hoist This letter has been prepared for the sole benefit and exclusive use of Halferty Development and Albertson's. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Reliance on this report by third parties shall be at third parties sole risk. 222 East Huntington Drive,Suite 211,Monrovia,California 91016-3500 -62 Telephone: (626)930-1200♦Facsimile: (626)930-1212♦e-mail:converse@ converseconsultants.co • Proposed AIb*WAE NT/I, 01-42-840-01 February 28, 2002 Page 2 Should you have questions or comments regarding the contents of this letter please contact Norman Eke at (626) 930-1260 or William Ragsdale at (714) 966-7440. Sincerely, CONVERSE CONSULTANTS William Ragsdale Norman S. Eke Sr. Staff Environmental Scientist Managing Officer Cc: Pat Blote RRM Design Group 3765 S. Higuera Street, Suite102 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1794 3-63 I Attachment 13 Structural Evaluation Buildings A, B and C Roundhouse Road and Emily Street San Luis Obispo, California Submined to: RRM Design Group 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-1794 FEHAI � ESI Job No. y'�• ��0 !J 02-G 101 y N0. S 2787cc POfi.30.02 s February 2002 R CA ENGLEKIRK & SABOL Los Angeles 2116 Arlington Avenue Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc. Orange County Los Angeles,CA 90018-1398 Honolulu P.O.Box 7925 Los Angeles,CA 90007-9998 323.733.264033."M fax ATTACHMENT I3 Buildings.,;B and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1.0 GENERAL ..................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 EXISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS .............................................. 2-1 2.1 General................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Gravity Load Resisting Systems ............................................. 2-2 2.3 Foundation Systems............................................................... 2-2 2.4 Lateral Load Resisting Systems ............................................. 2-2 3.0 CONDITION OF THE BUILDINGS.................................................... 3-1 3.1 General................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Gravity Load Resisting Systems............................................. 3-1 3.3 Foundation Systems............................................................... 3-1 3.4 Lateral Force Resisting Systems............................................ 3-2 3.5 Potential for Relocation.................................................. 3-3 3.6 Potential for Adaptive Reuse........................................... 3-3 4.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 4-1 APPENDIX A: California Historic Building Code (no4— i nGIU Pdc.+�t✓�" — available in +412 Counci ReacU vi FIA e- Englek j gyptvl, Inc. ATTACHMENT 13 — Buildings_-,43 and C,San Luis Obispo, CA Structural Evaluation 1.0 GENERAL This report presents the structural evaluation performed on Buildings A, B and C at the southeast corner of Roundhouse Road and Emily Street in San Luis Obispo, California. The Site Plan is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the condition of the Buildings based on the 1998 Edition of the California Historic Building Code (CHBC). Chapters 8-2, 8-7 and 8-8 of the CHBC are in Appendix A. Deficiencies in the structural systems will be identified and rehabilitation alternatives will be recommended. The evaluation is based on a review of available construction documents and visual observations of existing construction on January 21, 2002. No calculations and no testing, either destructive or non-destructive, were performed. This report discusses the following: • Existing structural systems • Condition of the Buildings • Conclusions 1 —1 Englekir y �iyl, Inc. ROUND HOUSE ROAD ATTACHMENT 13 CONCRETE Y-9" RETAINING WALL BUILDING A BUILDING 8 ui uu Li o: V) v7 y ASPHALT PARKING LOT DESCENDING GRADED SLOPE MEZZANINE I ASPHALT BUILDING C PARKING LOT I I I REFERENCE NORTH ASPHALT PARKING LOT NO SCALE SITE PLAN FIGURE &SABOL Coasuldag Structural Engineers,fur. SAN. LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA r,6 A&gton P 3237332640 JOB NUMBER DATE Avenue F 323733AW2 02-6101 Los Angeles,CA _ 9001&1398 367 ATTACHMENT 13 -- Buildings-..;B and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation 2.0 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 2.1 General The Buildings are Low-Rise Wood Frame Buildings as defined in the Applied Technology Report No. 13 - Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California (ATC-13). Buildings A and B are one-story storage facilities. Building C is a one-story storage facility with a mezzanine. The site is essentially flat with a descending graded slope along the east wall of Building B. The Buildings are separated from other structures by landscaped areas, parking lots with drive aisles, Roundhouse Road and Emily Street. The Site Plan is shown on Figure 1. The following construction documents were available for review: • Implement Shed (Building A) prepared by California Highway Commission Department of Engineering dated February 7, 1919 • Corrugated Iron Warehouse with Timber Frame (Building B) prepared by California Highway Commission Department of Engineering dated January 2, 1920 • Corrugated Iron Warehouse with Timber Frame (Building B) prepared by California Highway Commission Department of Engineering dated June 17, 1920 • Warehouse and Shop (Building C) prepared by California Highway Commission Department of Engineering • Proposed Alterations to Maintenance Shop (Building C) prepared by California Highway Commission Department of Public Works • Racks and Cases for Maintenance Shop (Building C) prepared by California Highway Commission Department of Public Works dated December 13, 1922 Notes for the Implement Shed (Building A) state that the walls were designed for a horizontal wind load of 15 pounds per square foot. The Notes also state that the roof was designed for 10 pounds per square foot (includes an 8 PSF wind load). This report assumes similar loading for Buildings B and C. 2- 1 Englekil&,SjPol, Inc. ATTACHMENT 93 Buildings A,B and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation 2.2 Gravity Load Resisting Systems The gravity loads from the roofs are carried by a system of corrugated metal decking, solid-sawn wood rafters, trusses, posts and stud bearing walls. All rafters are 2x6 spaced approximately 4'-0" on center. The trusses are spaced 12'-0" on center for Buildings A and B and are spaced 10'-0" on center for Building C. The gravity loads from the mezzanine at the west side of Building C are carried by a system of solid-sawn wood floor sheathing, joists, beams, girders, posts and stud bearing walls. 2.3 Foundation Systems Conventional continuous concrete stem wall footings support the perimeter walls. Conventional concrete pedestals, cast monolithically with the stem walls, support the posts. The Ground Floors are conventional concrete slabs on grade. Building B has a battered concrete retaining wall along its east elevation. The construction documents show a wall retaining T-0"of level back fill. Building C has a pit. The construction documents show a 3'-9" deep pit. 2.4 Lateral Load Resisting Systems The lateral force resisting system is provided by diagonal wood blocking in the perimeter walls in the longitudinal direction. The lateral force resisting system is provided by diagonal wood blocking in the perimeter walls and interior knee-braced wood frames in the transverse direction. Transverse frames occur at every bay for Buildings B and C. Transverse frames occur at every other bay for Building A. Solid-sawn wood diagonal wind bracing in the plane of the roof was detailed in the construction documents. This bracing is located in every roof end bay and every alternate bay. Corrugated metal siding spans vertically to solid-sawn wood horizontal wind girts, functioning as beams between the perimeter walls and interior frames. Bearing and nailing accomplish the transfer of lateral loads from the diagonal blocking to the sill plates and from the girts to the frames. Anchor bolts accomplish the transfer of lateral loads from the sill plates to the stem walls. The transfer of lateral loads from the frame posts to the pilasters is accomplished by machine and anchor bolts. Diagonal blocking, knee-braced frames, wind bracing, anchor bolts and machine bolts were observed during the site visit. 2-2 EnglekjS(c&,$ bol, Inc. ATTACHMENT I3 Buildings—, 8 and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation 3.0 CONDITION OF THE BUILDINGS 3.1 General The purpose of this report is to evaluate the condition of the Buildings based on the 1998 Edition of the California Historic Building Code (CNBC). Chapters 8-2, 8-7 and 8-8 are in Appendix A. 3.2 Gravity Load Resisting Systems A tenant stated that a mezzanine beam near the stair opening at the west side of Building C cracked during jacking. No evidence of distress was observed during the site visit, including the mezzanine framing of Building C. Based on a review of available construction documents and visual observations, the gravity force resisting systems have complete load paths. The Buildings are assumed adequate having withstood the test of time if the future dead and live loads do not exceed those historically present. No distinct hazards or imminent threats as defined by the CHBC were observed in the systems during the site visit. The adequacy of the systems shall be reviewed prior to future tenant improvement work. No repairs are recommended at this time. 3.3 Foundation Systems Building B has a battered concrete retaining wall along its east elevation. This wall retains 3'-9" of sloping backfill. No evidence of distress was observed during the site visit. Based on a review of available construction documents and visual observations, the foundation systems have complete load paths. The Buildings are assumed adequate having withstood the test of time if the future dead and live loads do not exceed those historically present.. No distinct hazards or imminent threats as defined by the CHBC were observed in the systems during the site visit. Concrete slab on grade cracks and spalls were observed in all of the Buildings. These typical shrinkage cracks are less than 0.06 inch wide and have minimum vertical offset. These slab cracks and spalls are not presently a tripping hazard because of the lack of significant vertical offset. These cracks and spalls may have to be filled if a brittle floor finish is installed as part of future tenant improvement work. No repairs are recommended at this time. 3- 1 EnglekiVbol, Inc. ATTACHMENT 13 Building.A, B and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation 3.4 Lateral Force Resisting Systems Notes for the Implement Shed (Building A) state that the walls were designed for a horizontal wind load of 15 pounds per square foot. This report assumes similar loading for Buildings B and C. Section 8-706 of the CHBC states that the forces used to evaluate structures for resistance to wind and seismic loads need not exceed 0.75 times the seismic forces prescribed by the 1995 edition of California Building Code (CBC). No distinct hazards or imminent threats as defined by the CHBC were observed in the systems during the site visit. However, based on a review of available construction documents and visual observations, the lateral force resisting systems possess two characteristics that could lead to undesirable and possibly life-threatening structural behavior, such as partial collapse during a significant earthquake. This poor structural behavior is expected because of: • lack of sufficient connection at the diagonal wood blocking in the perimeter walls between the roof framing and sill plates • lack of sufficient connection at the diagonal wind bracing in the plane of the roof between the roof trusses In general, buildings have continuous structural systems for the transfer of both gravity and lateral loads. If these systems are discontinuous, the loads will find another path of transfer, which can lead to the use of structural and non-structural elements, not designed to carry the loads. Once these elements are over-stressed, they fail, and the loads will find another path of transfer. The current continuous load paths for in-plane forces along the perimeter walls, and for forces in the plane of the roof, rely on bearing and nailing of the diagonal blocking to wood studs and wind girts, and on the bearing and nailing of the wind bracing to the roof trusses. Photograph 1 shows a typical connection of the diagonal blocking at the sill plate. It is recommended that the reliability of the current load path of the diagonal wood blocking and wind bracing be improved. The work at the perimeter walls would include installing continuous Simpson Strong-Tie coil straps along the diagonal blocking, tying the roof framing and sill plates. Additional steel plates and machine bolts will be required at all perimeter roof framing. Additional steel plates and expansion anchors will be required at all sill plates. 3. 2 EnglekiA&,$ bol, Inc. h t }� YS T 4. IA.. h e' E - } C•ter.w' ,p �_ `y a"� 'X�1.-�� i�+ r. •. � �bv�+ 7'f.Slyh GheWiyC' � r�>�.�3^�`' .: a �..� A' y�� _.•�-.ger 1��Y� �. r-5',�te 1 /7� M� R7 5 ;' �....". yT`t ,� t- ti ' � YL f. `r�157`X,.�'pi S�'• �ttr�b�m y�fA ��f'1 � .*U.a Vt o s� 3a` ,��•.r :!"dt7z'e�h�'�,`��8��,�7 P�a•�F � ° _ • Ci ".fi � 14�i� +�'a FR,��Ia�`yyr�1��1G'1�`�.�tiQ�x�`�r. 1 int .V �r f. ATTACHMENT 13 Buildings-..;B and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation The work at the wind bracing would include installing continuous Simpson Strong-Tie coil straps along the bracing, tying the roof trusses. Additional steel plates and machine bolts will be required at all roof trusses. 3.5 Potential for Relocation The Buildings are not good candidates for relocation. The lateral force resisting systems for the Buildings include diagonal wood blocking in the perimeter walls, interior knee-braced wood frames and solid-sawn wood diagonal wind bracing in the plane of the roof. These systems do not rely on the perimeter sheet metal siding for stiffness and rigidity. The diagonal wood blocking and wind bracing rely solely on bearing and nailing to transfer lateral loads. The Buildings will need to be reinforced prior to disassembly for relocation. The additional relocation deficiency for Building A is that the transverse interior knee- braced frames occur in every other bay. Building A could be disassembled at each bay and relocated by truck, provided that each bay is properly reinforced in both directions. The additional relocation deficiency for Building B is that the concrete retaining wall along the east wall causes a vertical asymmetry in the transverse direction. Building B could be disassembled at each bay and relocated by truck, provided that each bay is properly reinforced in both directions and each bay is properly reinforced for the short transverse frame posts along the east wall. The additional relocation deficiency for Building C is that the mezzanine creates a high roof ridge. This high roof ridge may interfere with trees, utility lines and underpasses that cross the path of travel. Building C could be disassembled at each bay, and at the mezzanine level, and relocated by truck, provided that each disassembled bay section is properly reinforced in both directions. 3.6 Potential for Adaptive Reuse The Buildings are not good structural candidates for adaptive reuse. Typical future tenant improvement elements would include ceilings, overhead lighting, fire sprinklers and HVAC ducts. The current framing and assumed design loads for the roofs will limit future tenant improvement options for these elements. Both the gravity and lateral force resisting systems for the Buildings will need to be reinforced to carry these typical elements. The Buildings may not be good candidates for adaptive reuse because of code requirements associated with change of use, energy conservation and security. 3-3 EnglekirJ�&,$diol, Inc. ATTACHMENT 13 Buildings .;'B and C,San Luis Obispo,CA Structural Evaluation 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on a review of the available construction documents and visual observations, it appears that the Buildings were well designed and constructed. The Buildings possess adequate capacity to resist current gravity loads. However, the lateral force resisting systems must be adequately tied for unit performance. Recommended rehabilitation work has been presented that is intended to improve the reliability of the lateral load path of the diagonal wood blocking and wind bracing. The Buildings are not good candidates for relocation or adaptive reuse. The professional opinions presented in this report have been developed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable, structural engineers practicing in this locality. No other warranty expressed or implied is made as to the professional opinions expressed in this report. This report is not to be used by other parties or for any other purpose, as it may not contain sufficient information for other than its intended use. 4- 1 Englekirk Sgl, Inc. Attachment 14 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THREE OF THE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 2238 BROAD STREET UNTIL A FULL AND INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF CULTURAL RESOURCES ISSUES IN AN EIR IS COMPLETED (ARC 138-00) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing on November 26, 2001 and determined that the buildings located at 2238 Broad Street are significant historic buildings based on findings consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the project applicant provided supplemental information on the historical significance of the buildings, hazardous materials in the structures, and structural integrity of the buildings following the Cultural Heritage Committee's public hearing on the issue that may have impacted the Committee's ultimate historical significance determinations on the three buildings in question; and WHEREAS, the project will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which among other issue areas, will address the historical significance of buildings that presently exist on site; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March.19, 2002, and has considered testimony of the appellants, interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and action, supplemental information, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the determination of historical significance, and possible mitigation strategies for the three buildings located at 2238 Broad Street, be put in abeyance until the completion of an independent Cultural Resources analysis in the EIR prepared for the project, and that no City approvals shall be granted to demolish the buildings until a final historical determination is made by the City Council. 3-75 Attachment 14 City Council Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_ day of , 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Z:�)J4444 orn J Jo ensen LACoimeil\CHC appe es A) 3-76 - Attachment 15 Draft Resolution "B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMrME'S DETERMINATION THAT THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 2238 BROAD STREET ARE SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC BUILDINGS (ARC 138-00) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing on November 26, 2001 and determined that three of the existing buildings located at 2238 Broad Street are significant historic buildings based on findings consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an historical evaluation prepared for the project included information supporting the Cultural Heritage Committee's significance determinations; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2002, and has considered testimony of the appellants, interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council affirms the significance determinations made by the Cultural Heritage Committee for three of the buildings located at 2238 Broad Street. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that three of the existing buildings located at 2238 Broad Street are significant historic resources, based on the following findings: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The buildings are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage, namely, the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo; and 2. The buildings embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, namely, industrial vernacular architecture associated with early Division of Highways standard construction methods and materials. SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's significance determinations for the three buildings located at 2238 Broad Street is hereby denied, and the proper place for evaluation of the site's cultural resources issues, including appropriate mitigation measures, will be in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the proposed Broad Street Station development project: 3-77 Attachment 15 City Council Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: i Atto y J JoJensen LACouncil\CHC appeal(Res B) 3-78 Attachment 1 (o Draft Resolution "C" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE APEAL THE CULTURAL HERITAGE CONI IITTEE'S DETERMINATION THAT THREE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 2238 BROAD STREET ARE SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC BUILDINGS (ARC 138-00) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing on November 26, 2001 and determined that three of the existing buildings located at 2238 Broad Street are significant historic buildings based on findings consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2002, and has considered testimony of the appellants, interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council upholds the appeal of the significance determinations made by the Cultural Heritage Committee for three of the existing buildings located at 2238 Broad Street. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the three buildings located at 2238 Broad Street are not significant historic resources, based on the following findings: SECTION 1. Findings. (The Council should make one or more of the following findings, or provide different findings, if the buildings are determined not to be significant historic resources.) 1. The integrity of the buildings has been compromised through alterations to the interior and exterior of the buildings to a degree that they no longer provide historically significant examples of the industrial vernacular architectural style. 2. The association of the buildings with the development of the State Highway System and Route 2/Highway 101 in San Luis Obispo is not an exceptional linkage to warrant a specific historical designation to the structures. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's historical significance determinations for three buildings located at 2238 Broad Street is hereby upheld: 3-79 Attachment 1(io City Council Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: ?Ci ffJogensen LACouncilCHC appeal(Res Q MEETING AGENDA c - : 3-�q n ITEM # RRM DESIGN GROUP e�OU CDD DIR C"'w �c'a vftnealz peoplo Enjoyff C O ❑ FIN DIR March 14, 2002 AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ORNEY ❑ PW DIR C_LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF © �/ The Honorable Allen Settle T FADSL REC DIRp UTIL DIR Mayor of San Luis Obispo I9 MR City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re: Appeal of Cultural Heritage Committee Determination of Architectural and Historical Significance regarding 642 Emily Street—three existing buildings Dear Mayor Settle: On March 19, you will consider an appeal of a Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) decision regarding existing metal-sided sheds located at 642 Emily Street. The CHC determined that these buildings are architecturally and historically significant and recommended that they be retained in their present location. We disagree. In summary, Albertsons/EOC have retained qualified experts to review these buildings. They have found that while these were well-built sheds, they have little architectural integrity remaining and their setting, feeling, and association have been lost by removal of the foreman's cottage in 1953. They are not good candidates for relocation or adaptive re-use because they were not buildings intended for occupancy and do not have suitable structural or building systems. To re-structure the buildings, remove contamination, replace the exterior materials, and place new systems into the buildings to make them suitable for commercial/residential use will: (A) Likely cost more than new construction, and (B) leave behind buildings that have little or no relationship to the original except that there are still buildings in the same location. They will be little more than ersatz caricatures of something that was once at this location. We have very briefly summarized findings after each listing. 1. Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., Richard Starzak, Senior Architectural Historian, February 28, 2002 — Based upon field review and records review. Findings/Recommendations: "As part of the appeals process,it is also recommended that the City uphold the appeal of the CHC recision ant] ask the CHC to r,—nor,,sider its November 26, 2001 decls-nn en light of: (A) The diminished integrity of the buildings' design, materiais, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association; and (B) the City determination as part of the creation of the Railroad Historic District that none of the subject buildings were a key feature of the District." The vast majority of the metal siding and roofs are likely not original. The windows and doors are mostly not original. The historic setting of the buildings was significantly altered by removal of the foreman's cottage. The buildings do not represent a unique or special style or type of construction. 2. Englekirk & Sabol, Consulting Structural Engineers, Inc., February 2002 — Based upon field review and review of original Caltrans construction plans. Findings/Recommendations: A. "These buildings are not good candidates for relocation", B. "The buildings are not good structural candidates for adaptive re-use",and C. Buildings do not meet historic building code requirements for lateral loads; recommend remedial work. r RECEIVED I San Luis Obispo•Oakdale-Healdsburg•Los Angeles MAR 15 2002 3765 South Higuera Street,Suite 102•San Luis Obispo,California 93401•Phone:8o5f543'1794•Fax:805/543-46o9•1 S9r�eUTY COUNCIL A Cnlifr,ahi Corporation•Viaor Montgomery,A rchitect'neoyo•Jerry Michael,RCE'36895,LS 6276•Jeff Ferber,LA'_q, The Honorable Allen Settle March 14,2002 Page 2 3. Converse Consultants, Geotechnical & Environmental Services, February 2002 Based upon field drilling,materials sampling,and field review. Findings/Recommendations A. All of the buildings are contaminated with arsenic (used as a wood preservative). B. All of the buildings contain lead-based paint. C. One building is con=iested vvi*h zsbestgs.floo: rg. D. One building has gasoline-impacted soils under the south end. 4. Taylor&Syfan,Consulting Engineers,October 26,2001 —Based upon field review. Findings/Recommendations: "In our opinion, based upon the structural condition of the buildings, photo documentation and salvage of any architectural artifacts appears more prudent than rehabilitation". 5. C.A. Singer&Associates, Archaeology, Cultural &Lithic Studies,November 4, 2001 —Based upon field review and records review. Findings/Recommendations: Buildings are over 50 years old and are, therefore, historic resources. Recommend mitigation program to photo document buildings and then allow deconstruction and.salvage followed.by demolition,or relocation. 6. C.A. Singer & Associates, Archaeology, Cultural & Lithic Studies, July 10, 1996 — Based upon field review and records review. Recommendations/Findings: No archaeological/cultural resources found to be present on site. We urge the City Council to uphold the appeal. Sincerely, -rm�l GN GROUP Victor Mont Presiden Ex u ' e Officer c eff Dier ertsons Jim Hal ,Halferty Development Company,LLC Eli zab teinberg,EOC z)v/a9905 m-City Council-CHC Appeal Ltr-03.14.02 ree Price-City_Web Visitor Commen - . _ Pa ee 1g MEETING AGENDA From: <Rayena-Bob@charter.net> DATE 1 d�2- EM # To: <Iprice@slocity.org> Date: 3/19/021:10PM Subject: City_Web Visitor_Comments �POUNCIL OD DIR fAC ❑ FIN DIR C� Today's Date: 3/19/02 1:04:41 PM CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF F6Y6TTORNEY © PW OIR ATTN: SLO City m/CLERIVORIO ® POLICE CHF ❑ D H DS 0 RRC DIA Name: Bob Pavlik ® UTIL DIA Address: 493 Woodbridge Street ❑ HR DIR City: San Luis Obispo State: CA Zip: 93401 Phone: 781 9728 Fax: 549 3233 Message: I am writing to you regarding an item on this evening's agenda. As a member of the Cultural Heritage Committee I recently voted against finding the Pinho home (Jamaica You) a historical resource. One of my colleagues, Paula Carr, has subsequently uncovered additional information that indicates that the house should, in fact, be considered historic. I concur with her findings. Regarding the proposed expansion of the Manse on Marsh, I would like to offer a counter-proposal to moving the house. That is, remove the other buildings on the site(including the kitchen, known as the Golden Paw)after photo documenting the structures, and leave the Pinho house on site. Find an adaptive use for the structure. Restore it to its original glory. Moving it to 424 Higuera is not a good solution, as that site is inappropriate for this building. Above all, try to 1)avoid impacting the historic property, and if that is not possible, 2)minimize the impact through creative design solutions. Moving the structure should be seen as a solution of last resort, after all other options and alternatives have been exhausted. If you would be so kind as to share this information with the members of the City Council I would be most appreciative. Thank you. email from: Rayena-Bob@charter.net MEETING AGENDA DATE 3"=ITEM # March 19, 2002 Ct�" CPNCIL b CDD DIR EeCCA0 0 FIN DIR (CACAO 0FIRE CHIEF - m em o p a n a u m 0-6nORNEY 0 POO t fYCLERK/Of�it3 0POLILIOfi CWF ❑ EPT H D9 RIC aid TO: Council Members M LITIL DIR [� « +QO HR DIR FROM: Vice Mayor Jan Howell Markr� - P,2c.-cGv SUBJECT: Item#3, Appeal of the Cultural Heritage Determinations that Three Buildings Located at 2238 Broad Street Are Significant Resources In response to issues identified in tonight's Council Agenda Report I am providing an excerpt of the Redevelopment Feasibility Study prepared by Urban Futures,Inc. (December 1998) to point out that the buildings subject to this appeal were previously identified in the study as demonstrating characteristics of blight. Cc: City Administrative Officer Assistant City Administrative Officer City Attorney Community Development Director RECEIVED P IA;, 19 2L':!2 SIA CITY COUNCIL l Redevelopment Feasibility Study Prepared For The CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ac > { Prepared By URBAN FUTURES, INC. 3111 N. Tustin Avenue Suite, 230 Orange, CA 92865 December 1998 of low-or moderate-incomes. Agencies that have It is important to remember that removing non- included significant amounts of residentially zoned qualifying areas from within a proposed property within project areas have, in many redevelopment project area is relatively easy and instances,seen rapid development of new housing can be accomplished at any time during the adoption stock. While this activity generates significant process, but prior to the Agency's approval of the increases in property tax(as well as indirect.sales final redevelopment plan. The same cannot be said tax)revenues,new jobs,and a whole host of other for adding additional parcels positive economic impacts, it can also spell trouble after notice has been •••removing non- for agencies that find themselves with replacement transmitted to affected taxing qualifying areas or inclusionary housing deficits for which they have entities that the Agency is from within not made adequate provision. preparing to adopt a a proposed redevelopment plan. After an project area PRELIMINARY URBANIZATION ANALYSIS agency has transmitted this is relatively notice, inclusion of additional easy and can be Section 33320.1 (b)of the CCRL states: parcels at some later point would require going back to accomplished (a)'Project area'means...a predominantly the beginning of the process. any during urbanized area of a community ... (b)As Once again,at the survey area thhee adoption doption used in this section " 'predominantly level of analysis it is prudent process... urbanized'" means that not less than 80 for an agency to include all percent of the land in the project area: (1) parcels that could legally and practically qualify for has been or is developed for urban uses; incluse^ or (2) Is characterized by the condition described in paragraph (4)of subdivision In Santeria should (a)of Section 33031...; or(3)is an integral not bi ;development part of one or more areas developed for projeiFigure 2 are urban uses which are surrounded or incluc aver , a parcel substantially surrounded by parcels which level; iine the exact have been or are developed for urban ratio land prior to uses.... desig An important part of the establishment of a PRELIMINARY BLIGHT ANALYSIS redevelopment project area is the assessment of total urbanization within the project area pursuant The City of San Luis Obispo is located east and west to CCRL Section 33320.1. The Survey Area of U.S. Highway 101, approximately 10 miles inland shown on Figure 2 includes properties that will from the Pacific Ocean, and midway between the require individual analysis in order to determine metropolitan areas of Los Angeles and San whether the subject parcels are in fact"urbanized," Francisco. San Luis Obispo is surrounded by agri- "undeveloped"or"previously urbanized"and how culture and open space and is bisected by the San their inclusion will affect the Section 33320.1 Luis Obispo Creek. The City is home for the predominantly urbanized requirement(80% of the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis project area is or has been developed). A detailed Obispo, seat of County government, and a well- parcel level analysiS2 must be undertaken to known, traditional, pedestrian-oriented downtown determine the exact urban ized/undeveloped ratio district. within the survey area, and whether or not additional undeveloped parcels could be included OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF within the boundaries of the project area. This AREA PRESENTED FOR STUDY determination must take into full account those criteria previously discussed in this Study. Urban Futures, Inc. was directed by the City to review those areas shown on Figure 1 (the"study area") to determine which areas qualified for 2 Parcel level analysis was outside the scope of the Study. inclusion within a redevelopment project area. 12MOMCAOTY0ASLODIT ASIBIUTYSTUDY.wPO -7- The Madonna Subarea (Subarea A) industrial and are characterized by vacant land and buildings and underutilized land parcels. This subarea consists of portions of the Madonna Plaza and Central Coast Mall (together these two SURVEY AREA BLIGHT retail outlets are generally known as the Madonna CHARACTERISTICS Road shopping area and will be referred to herein as the"Madonna Subarea"). The matrix shown on Figure 3 provides a summary assessment of the blight conditions presently The Higuera/Monterey Subarea (Subarea B) found to exist in each subarea. As is shown on Figure 3, there are dear indications of blight This subarea brackets downtown San Luis Obispo throughout the Survey Area. Deteriorating housing on the southwest and northeast. The southwest stock, high levels of vacancies and poor site portion of this subarea(generally referred to as the design within the commercial properties, Mid-Higuera District)is generally characterized by incompatible land uses within and around commercial/industrial and retail commercial uses residential and industrially designated parcels and mixed with industrial and residential (trailer park) inadequately sized parcels for both industrial and uses along Higuera Street. There is a major commercial uses have all contributed to the construction yard tucked behind parcels fronting blighting conditions contained in the proposed the west side of Higuera. Residential uses front Survey Area. both sides of Brook Street. Properties along March, Pacific, Pismo and Buchon Streets, The CCRL does not require that all indications of southwest of Archer Street,are generally industrial blight exist throughout a project area but only that —`—' -idential uses. The such blighting characteristics are so prevalent and :a(along Monterey so substantial that they cause a reduction of, or ly by auto-related lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an 3r dealerships,auto extent that they constitute a serious physical and ealerships and a economic burden on the community. In this )tel Inn,purportedly regard, it is highly likely that a case can be made (J� situated coon of FIGURE3 SUMMARY OF BLIGHT CONDITIONS WITHIN THE SURVEY AREA BY GEOGRAPHIC SUBAREA The Broad Street Subarea I subarea I subarea subarea (Subarea C) Blight Classification A B c ,.':PHYSICAL as defiried ie CCRL SaiWdn 3311 1(a)). This subarea consists of the area Deferred Maintenance x X generally along Broad Street from the obsolescence x x x old freight railroad depot to the north to Lade of Parking or utilities x x x two parcels south of Capitolio Street on Incompatible Land Uses x x the south and includes both sides of Irregularly Shaped Parcels x x Rockview. The northerly portion of this Inadequately Sized Parcels x x subarea is characterized by smaller ECONOMIC(as.defined In GCRL Sed(oii 3301(b)) ;< industrial uses, some vacant parcels Depreciated or Stagnant Property values x x x and irregularly shaped parcels abutting High Crime Rate the railroad, further to the south one Inadequate Public Improvements x x finds mixed residential and industrial Abnormally High Business Vacancies x uses to the east of Broad Street north of Abnormally Low Lease Rates x Mutsuhito and residential uses along Lads of Commercial Facilities both sides of Rockview. Properties Residential Overcrowding located in the triangle made up of Broad Excessive vacant Lots x and Sacramento Streets are generally source:urban Futures,ice,tssa ititasac:tcnvoa\sLOOITEAsiBiLmsnror.wao -11- that the cumulative effect of blight throughout the If the City elects to proceed with forming a project �g survey area would, in fact, constitute a serious area, UFI will work closely with City staff to identify physical and economic burden on the community. building code violations throughout the Survey Area but will concentrate its work in the areas The following described physical conditions need described above. Note that it will be important to to be identified as evidence of physical blight. establish not only that building code violations exist in the Survey Area,but that the incidence of Buildings in Which it Is Unsafe or such violations in the proposed project area Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work exceeds by a measurable amount the incidence of (CCRL Section 33031(a)(1))4 Building Code Violations ' UFI's review of the Survey Area indicates that � - there should be sufficient building code violations to provide evidence as called for in the CCRL. - Building code violations appear to exist in the Broad Street Subarea in several buildings fronting the east side of Broad between Alphonso and - Lawrence, on the smaller residential uses along '; Perkins west of Broad, in the residential use north of Orcutt, between Duncan and McMillan, on the '< west side of Emily north of Roundhouse, and, of course, the old freight depot itself. In the violations in the balance of the community. Higuera/Monterey Subarea structures which appear to contain building code violations are clustered,from south to north,along Brook Street, Dilapidation and Deterioration in the block bounded by Pismo, Archer, Buchon and Walker Streets, and interspersed along both If the City elects to form a project area, it should sides of Higuera Street south of the extension of examine and classify each structure to determine Beach Street. Finally, the Motel Inn at the its degree of soundness. While state law only northerly tip of the Higuera/Mission Subarea will recognizes structures which are either dilapidated probably exhibit a number of building code or deteriorated, it is UFI's practice to classify violations. structures into four categories: sound, deficient, dilapidated and deteriorated. Structures which are either deteriorated or dilapidated exhibit, by definition,conditions which cause blight;structures 4 which are deficient, while not reaching the threshold of"blight," still provide an indication of stress in the community.This analysis will typically be performed by visual inspection only and without entrance onto private property. This is necessary y I for two reasons: 1) a more intrusive inspection ,M LJ _ could cause a dramatic backlash in the community against the entire process and ii)a more detailed investigation would become prohibitively expensive. UFI has found in the past that visual Note that the issue in this section of the law is not per se inspection from the public way,when coupled with other indications Of blight, have been sufficient to the physical condition of the structure,but rather how that document blight. physical condition creates an unhealthy or unsafe condition. 12M0I88C:1Cn'vIMZLO01TEASIBILnYSTU13Y.WPo -12- , - �.unlO . IIII1 � i 1111 I I^ e NH i ��`•� \�'�,, ��Q•,•,:• Ir"; Legend Potential Redevelopment Areas 11111OI AINIOp •O o ,.�. • i riOtl. ♦ II°'In IIII ♦ Foothill • District ILJ 1_1111111 ■ h /i II en m ♦I� nlul� 141r�^�'-�)Llnl��nn� m•�Ki�. 9�191�;I1��II;PIg1��1 11 a I i.��,�� Illltv�l�■ __ �IIIII ■ C♦�� 1 r A: ■ Madonna Road District , , III IIII.6uudlll i w:.uLty u e nl .I Ih�'•� , : a�� r.1111111f1111 m I e � H Nor n IIOI..,ir I 1 111111111111111•i • �� 1f I11111�1 1 1111 I1' IIII 'I��q.♦ • MontereyDistrict .IuuuL.ri. .�._' • ■vp `1111 p '■i1d1 II_-Jf IIII •r J«,� S:d Downtown C. District �; 111.1 \�► ., - h r p . . I ipllllllip III I �.!' p} ��. �fv_■11114 �- - I I`_ ..JPIuem� I'•``Oa``�-�� eilI. � �-lul-u1ni u1 rtOnul^I ��111�L•>unn.u> C�� `\�I,�\ �GO• E South Broad District ill . , � Railroad :• • _ District i/ •'�/v""Oz \ i �W 111�«Rf.1� 4`• .... /! . J �i0 � 33„ UJ• � .Q;�Q e ,�� ,//. . : ,\% (, ` CSI , ` � !raj •, ��IIIII u,ILIf ll�ll�ln�llllll�llll� 1 I�\\�•_� ��•iI,I��.�I/��,\�,� t '�i IIII �� ' \ -�; •>f .i•��.�� P\�PV�\\I� IrI •11 ■ IP'nll�llll Irp l_'I� • .O ♦ •"��`Q�•Ii,�.•i./1�`� i q/. {5 rr k l I O �li 4 I_IIII�1111.1 d��L_ 1 \ I . d n /"R♦•\ \p\!, \I�\•ii fI � i �71�_r_ IIICIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICIIIIII IIIP 1,�, ,Ifel � G •J1` �d`r��t.\�1,�i�4�r1��«�'.qJ i� I•�� \� 71111 le 1 r 11��1 i ♦��.•�rr�� ✓:rr�4/b•��«� .;+I� .IRI �� . • ♦ ,. . ... / �`� 'JI Je 11/111/1 \• ♦ b9 ^•�.•♦I / .�l . volt 1 u 111111111\•�,♦ ,��/�/��n 1,r OQ�,� V..r u• v tri u I I,m:.�a.O-p • rC �m i� G...... 1111111�111n11111111111��L��a +. ��.//.�'� •i:,5;• Li. ` ler_--II!nnnml!imnli!um! a¢1 ��a` ',I�n�u��/_,:Siijllllllllll�l • � .� IJ I�IIIQIII nI111Ugc•IIII :_...ir�. ga�� .�i• :�=�� ( r •♦ �1111nnmmunnm;;nwGn � —R.IR °s,�' a•• • 3 ;t t : ►7m •qf�;a -R`�Z, �•. �✓.1"�I• �u •t 1 o 1111 iw�•�r17�_�_ �� ` ,�•`.•.Rp III I - ��,';I' � ♦/•,,�i�� mu.nnuiun W �• t�/►• `� Oi�.,,Ir\Ie. r`•°q1 I� -1--n!_wl � .. �y . I�11 1 111 1111 JI II 11119;11 • l� � •!�� Imo_. u..I,� IIIA'� uulnn nn,m►/.�. 1. �� • . V �•�j' r.�1• Illdumdlllcp� %��:•ro-�d�— �� tell �� illllll1I�111 Ir��l1 i .� •. u un111= � noun= - I X1.4•�Il�nl atll 1111 lllf 1 1 mw-_-- I'-i-: lnunw nw.� .r,,- • �rr I lrnu•1� (�--o-•• • _I �_ Illllr_i a J`qi_ • /.I) \IIIIIIIII,C 11111 - _ - 11 ri-II1 �`.'\v�\►1_�1111�1 .0_m ui mn nin111, - •��•�1it11:d �. FSI I - =r�III! t� ..�•IJr�1r�t, EaV�/a. �`\��` ��-� •r � �� IILIIIIII 11111^Ittufllnunu ly 7- Pu,l •u�-�j�.a.• � /� rr•111 �� II�IIPiI=�� 1\\%�1 �\il �� T Inllllll I=� ♦ \�. � •�\ \\O .. �• E� 111111 vv �� !• N •_ PI•If \�♦ ��•�� Ja 111.1•.=11�►' �♦\\�'t u. �rII �•• \C�'` \♦ r \..w�`,�. • I ( .♦ �� r'I 1111► ♦< 1 �,i a r.\0�.. •� +) IIIII�,�:v♦\/f L�►'L".IIIIIIIIII�' q \ .'}a"I;c.S .n��`�♦��.I \ \ \♦ IIIIL V\\..�p - ..` \\'•��.\ " \ • \p' t• to ` •\I t�p\O�\ Y•rs'�`.��1`. �1j�4w;1 r� pf�1='%. � �\u� a �•9\♦ 3�;4'' \•\�✓•``.�: . 1 1 • � / ♦jam • u♦ Av �`� — • �♦♦�� QI v,� • . ev . NAU ' , -lu.....l:�a� 3 �:r•,,�:`ice♦�.-i e. !_ HE I/ull 'IIIIILIIII illllt 111111^1111�e►� 1 � �� Lflfil 1' 11111 i lud' • •� � •�♦••I1/ '•11' • y 11•'91 IIII yl t' \ I�1 IT.-(_I_.1��____ O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL'11111111111!1\►,�ryy$1 , \�.`:•ii Fill ` Q1 b r �ii� ..�►� �Illla oi^ n. 05.,iu iM�j lar■��.l�.al=llll�aia l®'.pe� �� •ili �Ni��i� ,' I yr mono aunungp!IEIIhJ III•Illlt�-� \�\* / �11 h�.. ,y�•I� 60. .�� • /- •.. r. "n.lm urll n.ww. lygL 4 .•,• /�� v��I ••PiHI��'P�►�. L-----�C y-�•r ILr.DJ .1 Iw�.�iC6� IIII ;V 11111111111111111 °`t,q ..t /jtn '\• \I.1 1 iV r �i 9111tI111�IllillP 911mG'�♦.. a.a1 . 41 I mw � 'V!� •►Al� rl'llllllllll illllll 1111116 y o'� � r r 111 ��l •_•• i 4! 11 .♦ Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllt ��- �r!;� Q�p��Pip 1p\_�llu4 1 �I nww•Iw o ♦♦ J v IN 44` . ��'p'1`•O` uAl ••npundf• .,_.�,4R�1� ''11II�� •n� �nii � I O . ,, .I�;I � ., i�'�.�•.�, ^� 4111) , �/ E; i!!^ling \�d��\�_,'�er''\4�7�y��(1��•♦.•�'�` �•�' � .rte n•-I�4.��n'• f ° ♦A �r./,' �/ ��y�'c5`,��` 4491?\.��•�,• ' �i.fj'."'.'�.SII•III•III ib-1 1 ° '/�'O ' ,` t >. Rt •.`.may 27 Looking west from Emily south of High. Dilapidated structure, unscreened outdoor storage, inefficient land uses. [33031(a)(1), (2)and(b)(1)] rt: • r 10 �J' J y 1 / 28 At easterly end of Roundhouse showing foundations indicating previous urbanization, underublizafion of land,site conditions. [33031(a)(2)and(4)and(b)(1)] c , r dil�'1 1 29 Same location as Photograph 28 showing deteriorated metal building,unscreened outdoor storage, trash and debris, site conditions. [33031(a)(1),(2)and(3)and(b)(1)] (` Y t a ,r • t. •� rr .\ Ca v — 30 Off Perkins Road,obsolete rental units,inadequate size. [33030(c),33031(a)(1), (2)and (4),and (b)(1)]