HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 - COUNCIL READING FILE_c_Historic Resource Evaluation (Crotser)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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
EXHIBIT A
VICINITY MAP
NORTHProject Location
12
EXHIBIT B
1156 PEACH
NO
R
T
H
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP
13
EXHIBIT C
SANBORN MAPS
1909
1926
1926 - 1950
14
Figure 2. - Rear Porch
Figure 1. - Front Elevation
EXHIBIT D
EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE
15
Figure 3. - Front Porch
Figure 4. - Northeast Corner
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
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
EXHIBIT E
Figure 14. - 3/4 Street View
STREET VIEW of SUBJECT PROPERTY
18
Figure 15. - Street View Context
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
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
EXHIBIT F
Figure 28. - 1151 Peach
21
Figure 29. - 1163 Peach