HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach)
Meeting Date: April 27, 2020
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Historic significance determination for property currently on the City’s
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources.
ADDRESS: 1156 Peach Street BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
FILE #: HIST-0036-2020 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the property at 1156 Peach Street has applied for a determination of the historical
significance of the property, requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources. An evaluation of the property1 and its eligibility for historic listing has been
prepared by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA to inform consideration of this request (see
Attachment 1). Consideration of this request is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) for recommendation to the City Council, as provided in § 14.01.030 (B) (2) of the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the north
side of Pacific Street, just west of Toro Street,
within the Mill Street Historic District. The
neighborhood is characterized by modest
single-family dwellings built in the early 20th
Century (see description of district,
Attachment 2). Within 300 feet of the subject
property there are 18 Contributing List
Properties and 2 Master List Properties (J.
Maino House at 1127 Peach and Maino/Righetti
House at 1128 Peach).
The site is developed with a single-family
dwelling and detached accessory structure,
estimated to have been built between 1909 and
19262 (see Figure 1). The building exhibits characteristics of the Residential Vernacular style (see
1 Charles Crotser Architect, AIA, Historic Resource Evaluation: 1156 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo, California
(January 2020)
2 Ibid., pg. 5: 1909 Sanborn Map does not depict buildings; Buildings appear on 1926 Sanborn Map
Figure 1: 1156 Peach Street
Item 3
Packet Page 7
HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach)
Page 2
Attachment 3): simple houses or cottages with little or no distinguishing decorative features,
characterized by their simplicity and lack of any characteristics of recogni zable styles. City
records3 provide sparse information about the property, summarizing the architectural style as
“Modified Plain Cottage” (see Attachment 4).
2.2 Historic Listing
Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of
the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural resources are to be preserved and
rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial change to them, is to be avoided (COSE § 3.3).
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies.
Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its
historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other
structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole,4
and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in § 14.01.070. The subject
property first appears as a “Contributing Property”5 in the listing of properties attached (as
“Exhibit C”) to Resolution 6424 adopted in April 1988, establishing a comprehensive listing of
historic properties within the City.
3.0 EVALUATION
The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for this property by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA,
(Attachment 1) evaluates the residence and accessory structure against the Evaluation Criteria for
Historic Resource Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.6
The author concludes that the although the residence on the property retains a large measure of its
integrity, no evidence was found that the buildings satisfy listing criteria to a degree warranting
designation as a Contributing List Resource:
“…this evaluation found no compelling evidence of architectural importance of
this building through a connection with person, important historical events,
historical context, or as a community or neighborhood landmark.”
3.1 Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity and
satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that property not be
removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure on it is found to no longer
meet eligibility (historic significance) criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the
historic significance of this building, the Commission should consider whether, and to what
3 Architectural Worksheet; CDD Historic Property Record (“Yellow File”) for 1156 Peach
4 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property
5 As defined in the listing (Exhibit “C”) attached to Resolution 6424, a Contributing Property is defined as: A
structure built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style and, when viewed in the context of its
surroundings, contributes to the historic character of the area.
6 Crotser, pp. 6-8.
Item 3
Packet Page 8
HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach)
Page 3
degree, it satisfies these criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference
as Attachment 5 to this report.
Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A))
Style and Design. As noted above, the residence on this property can be described as an example
of the Residential Vernacular Style: a simple style lacking characteristics of other recognizable
styles (see Attachment 3). The Crotser evaluation notes that the building does not represent a
unique example of architecture for the area, and does not exhibit significant or distinctive features
that distinguish it from other buildings in the area.7
Architect. The evaluation provided includes a search of permit records related to the construction
of the buildings on the site, which provided no indication of their architect or builder.
Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B))
Person or Event. Similarly, the literature search performed for the evaluation did not uncover
evidence of any association of the property with persons or events significant to local history.8
There is no evidence that the property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind” event
and its construction is not considered to be a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting
contribution to the City. The home can be associated with early residential development of the
City, but this does not constitute a notable early, first, or major pattern of local history elevating
the structure to the level of historic significance.
Integrity
The Crotser evaluation notes that apart from minor modifications and routine wear and tear
commensurate with the age of the structure, much of the original form and basic character of the
dwelling have been retained.9 Nevertheless, the retained integrity of the structure does not rise to
a level that would, alone, qualify the building for historical listing.
3.2 Conclusion
As described in the Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA,
for this application, the buildings on the property do not appear to possess notable historic
significance under the City’s Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Their architectural style is not
particularly rare, they do not exhibit stylistic purity, and are not associated with notable architects
or craftsmen. The property is not strongly associated with persons prominent in history, nor with
unique events or patterns of history. Because the property and the structures on it do not appear to
be important in contributing to the historic character of the City as a whole and do not meet
significance criteria, the Committee could recommend that the City Council remove the property
from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources.
7 Ibid. pg. 5
8 Ibid. pg. 5
9 Ibid. pg. 7
Item 3
Packet Page 9
HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach)
Page 4
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described
in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing
is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing
according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
2. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing, based
on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Historic Resource Evaluation (Charles Crotser Architect, AIA)
2. Mill Street Historic District (HPPG Guidelines)
3. Vernacular Style (Context Statement)
4. Architectural Worksheet (City “Yellow File” for property)
5. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
Item 3
Packet Page 10
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
1156 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo, California
APN 002-315-016
Prepared for:
Ivan L. Lapidus
July 2019
Prepared by:
Charles Crotser Architect, AIA
Architectural Consultation - Design Review - Historic Architectural Analysis
P.O. Box 12528 ▪ San Luis Obispo ▪ CA 93406
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 11
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1. INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
1.1 REPORT PREPARATION ------------------------------------------------------ 2
1.2 ANALYSIS RESOURCES ------------------------------------------------------ 2
1.3 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION ----------------------------------------------- 3
1.4 SETTING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE------------------------------------------------------ 5
2.1 BACKGROUND ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.2 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION & EVALUATION - CEQA --------------- 5
2.3 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION & EVALUATION – CITY OF SLO ---------- 6 - 7
2.4 DETERMINATION OF HISTORIC LISTING ---------------------------------- 8
2.5 CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS ----------------------------------------- 8
3. EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF
INTERIOR STANDARDS ------------------------------------------------------------ 9
3.1 DEPT. OF INTERIOR STANDARDS TREATMENTS -------------------------- 9
4. CONCLUSIONS--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
APPENDIX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
EXHIBIT A - Vicinity Map ---------------------------------------------------- 12
EXHIBIT B - Assessors Parcel Map ----------------------------------------- 13
EXHIBIT C - Sanborn Maps --------------------------------------------------- 14
EXHIBIT D - Existing Main Residence-------------------------------------- 15 - 17
EXHIBIT E - Street View (Subject Property) ----------------------------- 18
EXHIBIT F - Neighborhood Context ---------------------------------------- 19 – 21
1
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 13
1. INTRODUCTION
Ivan L. Lapidus, the owner of this property, proposes to demolish the existing residence and storage
structure at 1156 Peach Street. As an initial step, he would request that the property de-listed as a
“Contributing Historic Property”. This report will evaluate and determine the appropriateness of
this request. Ultimately, he wishes to construct a new single-family residence and perhaps a
Secondary Dwelling Unit.
This property is located in the Mill Street historic neighborhood, one of dive historic districts located
in San Luis Obispo. A number of structures in this neighborhood have been designated as either
Contributing or Master List historic properties. This residence was designated a “Contributing”
property on February 3, 1987, along with 249 other properties within the City. Of this number, 21
properties were within the Mill Street Historic District.
This analysis will refer to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (2010) and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines. If this property were to retain its historic designation, it likely
would require a discretionary permit from the City, and could also be subject to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It would also need to show how the project would
comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The project property is depicted in “Exhibit B” and identidied as APN 002-315-016. This study was
carried out to determine if any signidicant historic or architectural characteristics could be
attributed to the structure on the property.
1.1 REPORT PREPARATION
•At the request of the owner, . . . Warren Hamrick - Architect, was retained to prepare design
and construction documents to describe the proposed new work.
•Charles Crotser Architect AIA, was retained to provide the preparation of the historical and
architectural analysis document for this proposal.
This report will provide recommendations and guidance to indicate compliance with the above-
mentioned regulations, ordinances, guidelines and standards. Work undertaken for this report
includes background research, site visits, design review and analysis.
1.2 ANALYSIS RESOURCES
Background for the property was gathered by a search of historic literature, maps, newspapers,
documents, photographs and the internet. The purpose was to establish the structure’s background,
historic use and people associated with the property. This included research to determine if historic
events or persons important to the history of San Luis Obispo were a part of the period of
signidicance. The material used in the preparation of this report came from the following sources:
•The SLO City Community Development Department: review the Historic Resources
inventory dile.
•San Luis Obispo County History Center Archives to review historic photographs and
newspaper articles
•Cal Poly Library Special Collections to review 1920’s/’30’s building permits
•San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Ofdice for parcel maps
No other prior studies regarding this property were discovered
2
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 14
1.3 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION
There are two original structures located on this parcel: a single-family residence, and a detached
accessory structure The main residence is a simple single-story structure of a vernacular style. It is
rather nondescript in terms of a pure architectural style, but does have certain minor detail
elements of note.
The residence was placed on the list of historic Contributing Properties On February 3, 1987, along
with a number of other properties. In reviewing the Architectural Worksheet for this property, there
was very little information regarding its historic importance. The information on the worksheet
simply described the general condiguration, materials and features of this small structure. The
architectural style is merely described as “Modidied Plain Cottage”. The description of the physical
architectural appearance is described as “A simple L-shaped building with added lean-to for porch;
plain + unattractive w/no architectural ornamentation”.
The main residence is a single-story, L-shaped building with a covered entry porch (Fig. 3) and a
small rear porch for a rear access at the back of the residence (Fig. 2 & 4). The main roof is a
medium pitched gable with a cross-hip roof on the one leg of the L-shaped plan. The rear portion of
the house is a shed-roofed structure which appears to have been added on. The roof is clad with
composition shingles. The structure is of wood-framed construction on a raised dloor with under-
dloor access below.
A small recessed covered porch characterizes the entry (Fig. 3). Generally, there are several window
types. Some windows are double-hung windows that appear to be vinyl replacement windows (Fig.
12 & 13). Other windows are of a divided-lite condiguration. These windows are wood sash, and
may be original. The main living room window, facing the street, is a 3-part horizontal slider, with
what appears to be a vinyl replacement window. The large horizontal window at the front porch is a
6 over 2 divided-lite window, which appears to be original. Another small divided-lite window
occurs on the east living room wall, near the porch. These two windows, including the trim
detailing, provide a minor bit of traditional detailing.
The residence is constructed with a raised wood dloor system, which does not appear to comply
with current code access or ventilation requirements. The residence is clad with mostly horizontal
ship-lapped board siding. Vertical board, or board and batten siding is used on the below-dloor
cripple walls. The rear portion of the residence is clad in vertical wood board and batten siding. The
wood siding extends to the earth, with virtually no separation or protection from moisture, pest
infestation or other deterioration.
The detached garage/accessory structure is a simple rectangular structure with a medium-pitched
gable roof with a side shed roof. It is also is a wood framed structure clad with vertical board and
batten or horizontal boards. The large garage doors are plywood. As with the main residence, the
wood siding extends to the earth. I was unable to enter this structure, but it doesn’t appear to have a
proper dloor, and seems to simply sit on natural grade. The roof is of corrugated metal.
3
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 15
1.4 SETTING (District/Neighborhood)
The “setting” is the larger area or environment in which a historic building is located. It may be an
urban, suburban, or rural neighborhood or a natural landscape in which buildings have been
constructed. The relationship of buildings to each other, setbacks, fence patterns, views, driveways
and walkways, and street trees and other landscaping together establish the character of a district
or neighborhood. This property is within the Mill Street historic neighborhood which is comprised
of residential structures of many different styles and a variety of scale. Although most homes on the
Peach Street block are single-story, there are a couple of 2-story homes, one of which is immediately
next door to the subject property, on the corner of Peach and Toro Streets. The houses on this street
are an eclectic mix. (Refer to Exhibit F)
For this property, the building setbacks, front and side, are similar to those of other structures on
this street and in the neighborhood. However, at just over 900 square feet, this is the smallest
residence on this Street. The residence and grounds exhibit a minimum level of maintenance or
enhancement. Other properties contribute a higher level of amenity to the streetscape through
landscape, fencing, overall upkeep and maintenance as well as other enhancements.
4
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 16
2. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE
2.1 BACKGROUND
City records indicate that the main residence may have been constructed in 1918, however, I was
unable to dind a record of the building permit. I did dind a building permit issued on January 20,
1925 for a 14’ X 18’ structure. This seems to coincide with the detached Accessory/Garage structure
located to the rear of the property (Fig. 7, 8 & 9).
The main residence is 931 square feet with two bedrooms and one bath. In reviewing the Sanborn
maps, the 1909 map shows no structures on this property. The 1926 map shows the main residence
and the detached accessory building. The 1926 - 1950 maps shows no change from the prior map.
Therefore, it appears that both structures are over 100 years old.
When this property was placed on the local list of historic properties, it seemed to have been
included with a group of seven other buildings on this block, with very little individual analysis. The
Architectural Worksheet used for the evaluation of historic properties has extremely sparse
information regarding its importance.
2.2 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION - CEQA
In February 1999, changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA)
removed thresholds of signidicance from the main document and relied upon criteria set forth in
Public Resources Code (CPRC), Section 5024.1 Title 14 CCR Section 4852.
Criteria for determining the signidicance of a historic or archeological resource under the CPRC has
been applied to the property at 1156 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo as indicated below and
concurrent dindings are as follows:
a.Is associated with events that have made a signiBicant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
No events of signidicance were discovered during the research for the project.
b.Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
There were no dindings that would suggest any individuals associated with this
property would rise to a level of historical importance as required by the CPRC.
c.Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values.
Generally, the structures on this property represent a style and scale found as being
rather humble and quite common. This residence appears to be relatively small
compared to others on this block, and within the entire historic district. The
neighborhood has remained relatively stable and contains a wide variety of eclectic
architectural styles. This residence does not represent a unique example of
architecture for this neighborhood or this era. There do not appear to be any
signidicant or distinctive features including construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that distinguish this residence from others within this neighborhood.
Neither of these two original structures exhibits qualities which would distinguish
them as unique examples of architecture or which would raise them to a level of
architectural signidicance.
d.Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Not likely
5
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 17
2.3 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION – CITY OF SLO
2.3.1 DEFINITION OF “CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE”
(per The 2010 SLO Historic Preservation Ordinance)
Contributing List Resource or Property: a designation that may be applied to buildings or
other resources at least 50 years old that maintain their original or attained historic and
architectural character, and contribute either by themselves or in conjunction with other
structures to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a
whole. They need not be located in a historic district.
2.3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE LISTING (14.01.070.)
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural
Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic
Preservation Ofdice (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource
shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least difty (50) years old and satisfy at
least one of the following criteria:
A. ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,
or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values:
(1) STYLE: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within
that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be
evaluated as a measure of:
a.The relative purity of a traditional style;
b.Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure
redlects a once popular style;
c.Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic indluences that represent a particular social milieu
and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles
are put together.
(2) DESIGN: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit
and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Redlects how well a particular style or combination of
styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to
which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s).
Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a.Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b.An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the
craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(3) ARCHITECT: Describes the professional (an individual or dirm) directly responsible for the
building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
a.A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made signidicant
contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work indluenced development
of the city, state or nation.
b.An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made signidicant contributions to San Luis
Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos -
Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).
6
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 18
(4) HISTORIC CRITERIA
4.1 History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or
national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a
person or group was:
a.Signidicant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.)
or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally.
b.Signidicant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or
institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen,
railroad ofdicials).
4.2 History – Event: Associated with events that have made a signidicant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
a.A landmark, famous, or dirst-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the
impact of the event spread beyond the city.
b.A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis
Obispo history).
4.3 History – Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it redlects:
a.Early, dirst, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b.Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
4.4 Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of signidicance. Integrity
will be evaluated by a measure of:
a.Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
b.The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for
its signidicance.
c.The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
Based upon the above criteria, the specidic criteria that may apply to this project would be:
ITEM 2.4.4 – INTEGRITY.
This structure appears to have retained the original form and basic character as when
constructed roughly 100 years ago. There seems to have been some interior
improvements to make it more habitable. There is also evidence of additional structural
bracing in the underBloor space. However, the overall property exhibits wear and
deterioration which might be expected in a structure of this age.
7
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 19
2.4 DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL LISTING
In 1987, per City Council Resolution, 21 properties in the Mill Street Historic District were added to
the Contributing List of Historic Resources. Prior to the Council’s adoption, the Cultural Heritage
Committee had recommended addition of these properties “due to their historical and/or
architectural signidicance to their neighborhood and to the community”.
The Architectural Worksheet prepared by the City for this property, did not indicate any particular
features that identidied this structure as unique. A Historic Resources Inventory Report, normally
prepared in advance of listing a property, was unavailable.
Otherwise, this evaluation found no compelling evidence of architectural importance of this
building through a connection with persons, important historical events, historical context, or as a
community or neighborhood landmark. I believe that this structure provides no signidicant
“contribution” to the community or neighborhood.
2.5 CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS
1.Simple, single-story, gable roofed form (Figure 1, Exhibit D)
2.Small, recessed front porch with open archway. (Figure 3, Exhibit D)
3.Windows (some original) with simple traditional trim and sill detail.
4.Gable roof end brackets and attic vent (Fig. 14 & 15, Exhibit D)
5.Site placement
8
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 20
3. EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH
THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS
If this property were to remain as a local historic property, it would need to comply with the
Secretary of Interior Standards. Should the City choose not to de-list this property, I would evaluate
which of the following treatments would be appropriate.
As noted in the introduction to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstruction
Historic Buildings, . . .
“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are
regulatory only for projects receiving Historic Preservation Fund grant assistance and other
federally-assisted projects. Otherwise, these guidelines are intended to provide general
guidance for work on any historic building.”. . . However, evaluation will be performed for this
residential project per City requirements.
3.1 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS TREATMENTS
According to the Department of Interior (DOI) Standards the four treatment alternatives are as
follows:
Preservation
. . . is de^ined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form,
integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to
protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair
of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction.
The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other
code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.
However, new exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for
Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the
building’s historic form.
Rehabilitation
. . . is de^ined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through
repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its
historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the
need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the
building’s historic character.
Restoration
. . . is de^ined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a
property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from
other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.
The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other
code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.
The Restoration Standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its
history by preserving materials, features, dinishes, and spaces from its period of signidicance
and removing those from other periods.
Reconstruction
. . . is de^ined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form,
features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the
purpose of replicating its appearance at a speci^ic period of time and in its historic location.
The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or
non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.
9
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 21
4. CONCLUSIONS
The owner of the residence at 1156 Peach Street wishes to remove this existing residence
from the current list of historic “Contributing” properties in order to accomplish the
objectives outlined below. Although the residence generally retains its original appearance,
it does not rise to the level of a signidicant cultural resource and this investigation found
that the residence:
•Did not meet criteria A, B, C or D of the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for
signidicance, and . . .
•Failed to meet the level of signidicance required by the California Public Resources Code.
The owner intends to construct a new personal residence which would include features
providing much improved habitability. The new design should also provide full condidence
that this structure will be safe, comfortable and stable for many more years to come.
The new residence would be designed with a sensitivity to the neighborhood scale and
character while insuring that the structure is structurally sound, meets current code and
other functional requirements. The new residence is intended to provide the charm and
harmonious character currently appreciated in this district and would fully provide its
historic “contribution to the neighborhood”.
10
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 22
APPENDIX
PAGE
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map 12
Exhibit B - Assessor’s Parcel Map 13
Exhibit C - Sanborn Maps 14
Exhibit D - Existing Main Residence 15 - 17
Exhibit E - Street View of Subject Property 18
Exhibit F - Neighborhood Context Images 19 - 21
11
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 23
EXHIBIT A
VICINITY MAP
NORTHProject Location
12
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 24
EXHIBIT B
1156 PEACH
NO
R
T
H
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP
13
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 25
EXHIBIT C
SANBORN MAPS
1909
1926
1926 - 1950
14
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 26
Figure 2. - Rear Porch
Figure 1. - Front Elevation
EXHIBIT D
EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE
15
Figure 3. - Front Porch
Figure 4. - Northeast Corner
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 27
Figure 8. - Accessory Building - Front
EXHIBIT D
EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE
16
Figure 5. - Rear Elevation Figure 6. - Northwest corner
Figure 7. - View to Rear Yard
Figure 9. - Accessory Building - West
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 28
EXHIBIT D
Figure 13. - Vertical Slider
Figure 11. - Divided-Lite Window
Figure 10. - Divided-Lite Window
EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE
Figure 12. - Vertical Slider
17
Figure 14. - Gable End Brackets
Figure 15. - Gable End Vent
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 29
EXHIBIT E
Figure 14. - 3/4 Street View
STREET VIEW of SUBJECT PROPERTY
18
Figure 15. - Street View Context
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 30
EXHIBIT F
Figure 19. - 1134 PeachFigure 18. - 1150 Peach
Figure 16. - 1168 Peach Figure 17. - 1154 Peach
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
19
Figure 20. - 1128 Peach Figure 21. - 1120 Peach
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 31
EXHIBIT F
Figure 27. - 1143 PeachFigure 26. - 1137 Peach
Figure 25. - 1127 PeachFigure 24. - 1121 Peach
Figure 22. - 694 Santa Rosa Figure 23. - 756 Santa Rosa
20
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 32
EXHIBIT F
Figure 28. - 1151 Peach
21
Figure 29. - 1163 Peach
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 33
47
5.2.4 Mill Street Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Mill Street Historic District is a residential neighborhood bounded by
Pepper and Toro Streets on the east and west, and Peach and Palm Streets on the north and south.
The Mill Street District is part of one subdivision, The Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded in
1878, although the area informally has been referred to as Fremont Heights. For its land area,
Mill Street Historic District has the highest concentration of historic structures of the City’s five
Historic districts. It is a relatively small district, with an area of 20 acres or 0.03125 square
miles, and as of January of 2010 had 84 listed historic properties.
The Mill Street district was developed at the turn of the 20th century, with the majority of the
existing buildings dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and
architectural significance. The district was developed on high ground with originally very wide
(100 ft) lots in response to both the seasonal flooding and fires that plagued early development in
San Luis Obispo. A few of these wide lots remain in the 1300 block of both Mill Street and Palm
Street, but the majority of them were later re-subdivided into 50-60 foot wide lots.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics include:
A.Trees spaced at regular intervals along
the street (especially on Mill Street)
B.Distinctive Camphor Trees lining both
sides of Mill Street between Johnson and
Pepper, a key entry corridor for the
district
C.Consistent street yard setbacks of 20 feet
or more
D.Coach barns (garages) recessed into rear
yard
E.Finish floors raised 2-3 above finish
grade
F.Front entries oriented toward street, with
prominent walk, stairs and entry porches.
G.Front building facades oriented parallel
to street
Architectural Character
Developed during a population boom in San Luis Obispo circa 1900s-1920s, the district’s
residential architectural styles reflect the prosperity of its residents. While older and more
elaborate residences are located on the 1300 block of both Palm and Mill Streets, the majority of
1344 Mill Street, South Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 34
48
historic homes were more modest residences. The close proximity to the court house meant that
Mill Street was home to many county employees, including county assessors, attorneys, and
county clerks. The Mill Street District encompasses many different architectural styles, including
revival styles popular at the turn of the twentieth century. These styles include Neo-classic Row
House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Stick and Eastern Shingle),
Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing
architectural details from more than one style. Most buildings in this district were built by local
builders, including E.D. Bray and James Maino and were influenced by architectural pattern
books of the time period.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. One- and occasionally two-story
houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
D. Ornamental roof features, including
prominent fascias, bargeboards,
prominent pediments or cornices
E. Painted wood or stucco surface
material, including siding and molding
Individually Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District
Not all historic resources in the Mill Street
Historic District were built during the
district’s period of significance. Those
buildings date from the late 1800s, generally
do not exhibit the signature architectural
elements described above, but do contribute
to the historic character of San Luis Obispo
in their own right based on age, architectural
style or historical association. By virtue of
their significance, these resources also merit
preservation.
For example, the Buckley House at 777
Johnson Avenue is a converted carriage
house built in the 1880s and is significant for
its design, specifically the board and batten siding, of which there very few examples are left in
the City. The Shipsey House at 1266 Mill Street, a National Register property, is an example of
Eastern Stick and significant for both its architectural style and its association with William
1264 and 1270 Palm Street, South Elevation
777 Johnson Avenue, East Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 35
49
Shipsey, attorney and mayor of San Luis Obispo from 1898 to1901.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District
Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have
not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the
district fall into this latter category.
Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include:
A. Aluminum sliding windows
B. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape
C. Metal or other contemporary material
siding, or “faux” architectural
materials or features.
D. Unarticulated wall surfaces
E. Non-recessed or offset street entries to
buildings
1243 Mill Street, North Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 36
50
***
1262 Mill Street; 1261 Mill Street; 1143, 1137 and 1127 Peach Street;
Righetti House, 1314 Palm Street
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 37
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
139
RESIDENTIAL VERNACULAR
The term “Residential Vernacular” is used to describe simple houses or cottages with little or no
distinguishing decorative features. These buildings are characterized by their simplicity and lack of any
characteristics of recognizable styles.
Character-defining features include:
Simple square or rectangular form
Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves
Wood exterior cladding
Simple window and door surrounds
Fitzpatrick House, 670 Islay Street, 1880. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Foreman House, 1500 Eto Street, 1878. Source: City of
San Luis Obispo.
Anderson House, 532 Dana Street, 1898.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 38
ATTACHMENT 4Item 3
Packet Page 39
ATTACHMENT 4Item 3
Packet Page 40
12
Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer
meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.
14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource,
the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated
that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the
following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
(1)Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building
style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
these styles are put together.
(2)Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(3)Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
ATTACHMENT 5Item 3
Packet Page 41
13
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced
development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at
810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,
or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which
a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member,
etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or
nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions
(e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad
officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether
the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis
Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
ATTACHMENT 5Item 3
Packet Page 42
Item #3 -4
CONSENT AGENDA
Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon
at one time.A member of the public may request the Committee pull an item for discussion.Pulled items
shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Committee chooses another
time.The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time
limit.The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director,another
advisory body,or City Council and,therefore,is not final and cannot be appealed.
3.Review of a historic significance determination request to remove the property at 1156 Peach Street from the City’s
Contributing historic properties list (this action is not subject to environmental review); Project Address: 1156 Peach
Street; Case #: HIST-0036-2020; Zone: R-2-H; Ivan Lapidus, owner and applicant.(Walter Oetzell)
1.Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the City Council recommending the City Council remove the property
from the Contributing list of Historic Resources.
4.Review of a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for the Virginia Levering Latimer House at 858 Toro Street (this action is
not subject to environmental review); Project address: 858 Toro Street; Case #: HIST-0048-2020; Zone: R-2-H; Eric
Blair, owner/applicant.(Walter Oetzell)
5.Recommendation:Forward a recommendation to the City Council recommending that the City enter into a Mills Act
Historic Property Contract.
Item #3 –HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach)
Pictures provided by Committee Member
James Papp